Come now,that's not quite a fair assessment of Hewitt's support. He's making two separate arguments: 1) the anti-Miers people are unjustified in their presumption of lack of qualification, and 2)it is reasonable to trust the President in this position. To say his support of Miers is simply "anti-anti-Miers" doesn't represent his position at all. Miers may not be a tough sell at all--we simply have to wait and see.
It isn't non-qualification that's the primary issue, as Ann Coulter (!) pointed out. It's that there are so many other obviously qualified, deserving candidates that have put in years of work to "reform" the court--and can't be accused of being sycophants or cronies.
4 comments:
Come now,that's not quite a fair assessment of Hewitt's support. He's making two separate arguments: 1) the anti-Miers people are unjustified in their presumption of lack of qualification, and 2)it is reasonable to trust the President in this position. To say his support of Miers is simply "anti-anti-Miers" doesn't represent his position at all. Miers may not be a tough sell at all--we simply have to wait and see.
I'm noting the tepid choice of language, not the thrust of the argument.
(1. Have you read her insipid writings?)
(2. Reasonable to trust Bush? Not even George Will is on board.)
A "tepid choice of language" seems wholly appropriate for the lack of information about the candidate everyone possesses.
But there isn't a "lack of information." Consider the fact that, as a "top-ranked" Texas lawyer, she apparently never argued a case before Texas's highest court.
It isn't non-qualification that's the primary issue, as Ann Coulter (!) pointed out. It's that there are so many other obviously qualified, deserving candidates that have put in years of work to "reform" the court--and can't be accused of being sycophants or cronies.
Post a Comment