Oct 05 2005

The Miers Test For Pundits

As anyone reading my Miers posts know I am not impressed by the emotional backlash from the conservative punditry. I have explained my reasoning here and here – and feel vindicated that the outburst is isolated to those too close to the issues because of this poll.

But regardless of all this, a simple test is available for pundits to assess each one of their endless ‘concerns’ and to determine whether it is being caused by facts or emotions. You only need to answer two questions on each issue:

(1) Does your concern arise from a lack of knowing Miers’ position on your pet issue?

(2) Does your concern rely on a scenario where Bush is not as smart as you and does not see Miers as she really is, which results in Miers being another disaster like Souter.

If you answered “yes’ to both questions seek help. You have allowed your fears and insecurities to panic you so much you probably are already lashing out at Bush and other conservatives. Instead of retaining the faith and finding out whether your potential possibility is true, you have begun by assuming Miers is a closet [fill in your fear here] and Bush was too dumb to see it – but you surely see it coming!

Climb down off your high horse and think about what kind of conservative supporter you must be to jumpt to the worst conclusions about Bush and Miers -just like DU and KOs Kids. Is that how you want to be seen?

Having concerns is OK. How you deal with them can be disasterous.


Some may misunderstand my differentiation between a fictional issue and a factual one. Factual ones are very much an interest to me. And for this reason. For those who came out against this nomination you are asking conservatives to turn on this President. You are asking folks like me to damage Bush politically, risk losing Senate seats in the 2006 election cycle, risk a republican victory in 2008 against Hillary, all because the remaining possible conservative policy wins Bush might get in his second term will also be at risk.

To turn on the man who did more than anyone believed possible in 1999 – who got us through 9-11 and ousted the Taliband and AQ from Afghanistan, the Hussein and his terrorist cronies from Iraq, who saved the economy through tax cuts, who halted the federally funded destruction of embryos, who ended partial birth abortions and protected a parent’s rights with parental notification – you need to come with more than hurt feelings and what ifs.

This test is trivial to pass if you have a real issue worthy of a conservative civil war. But it is also an unavoidable trap if you do not have a real, tangible issue. So excuse me if I am not willing to throw the next 3 years into the hopper because someone does know enough personally about Harriet Miers. The man who made the selection does know her very well. And I need serioud issue to turn on him.

6 responses so far

6 Responses to “The Miers Test For Pundits”

  1. Miers Nomination

    The Strata-Sphere brings up the issue of the Miers nomination from the perspective that anyone who opposes her must be stuck on a “pet issue” or maybe because we believe we are smarter than President Bush.

    Actually from all appearances she seems t…

  2. AJStrata says:

    Hey There March,

    Looks like we will have to agree to disagree! Hope all is well.

    Cheers – AJStrata

  3. […] Search Home  |   About  |   Terms   « The Miers Test For Pundits […]

  4. lawhawk says:

    I really don’t have a clue as to what kind of judicial philosophy she’s going to have. I know that she was picked because she was in Pres. Bush’s inner circle and that fact smacks of cronyism, but isn’t an automatic disqualifier.

    I’m more interested in knowing her take on property rights (Kelo), commerce clause stuff (interstate commerce), states’ rights, and her position on the war on terror. On that last point, I’m interested in knowing whether she thinks that she’d have to recuse herself because of having intimate knowledge of decisions in the WH that may lead to litigation appearing before the court. I want to know how well rounded her background is, and whether she’d apply her legal reasoning consistently instead of randomly picking and choosing the subject matter (or whether there is any one particular issue on which she’s going to go against her general philosophy).

    So, I guess I’m chillin’ with this pick, but then again, I’m not a RINO and I don’t play one on TV (though I’m characterized as one on CNN). I’ll wait and see how she does before the Committee.

  5. AJStrata says:


    Agreed. My bet is her lack of being a judge and life experience in the real world will make he a key player in over ruling Kelo. Judges can get wrapped up in theory and forget that the law needs to apply in the real world.

  6. […] AJ Strata is a Dog-faced loyalist. He also has a “test” for pundits embroiled in this melee. […]