The Fallacy Of Powerline’s Political Wisdom On Harriet Miers

By
September 13, 2010

I'll spare the hyperbole here. I wanted to take a look at any substantive claims in the back and forth between (yes, my friend) Mark Levin and Powerline. Rather than write an even longer post, I'll address any other confusions as I find them. While expressing his views, Paul Mirengoff's initial post ends with a slander that would set any conservative off. Yes, we are clearly all dumber than the author of American Taliban, Markos Moulitsas, simply because we happen to disagree with Paul. That about right?

Unfortunately, some leading conservative activists don't see it this way. It's disconcerting to realize that many of our activists aren't even as astute as the likes of Markos Moulitsas.

Mark responded to Paul's post. Paul then seized upon a later update to attack back.

*UPDATE* I am told Powerline defended the Harriet Meyers nomination and the NRSC support for Specter over Toomey before Specter jumped ship. This better explains Mirengoff's support for Castle and trashing O'Donnell.

Paul insists he was pro-Toomey and that he didn't really support Harriet Miers, calling it a half truth. He also points out Mark heard wrong on Toomey.

In the same paragraph, Levin says we supported the nomination of Harriet Miers. I did at first, but changed my position after facts about her past positions came to light. So we can give Levin credit for a half truth on this one.

Mark corrected the record, but Mirengoff continues to mislead on Harriet Miers. His half-truth claim doesn't really merit a pass. And something of a pattern with Powerline begins to emerge. Perhaps they know better than any one? Heh!

Mirengoff cites to a post some years back where he supported Toomey over Spector, so on that point he is right to object. I was wrong.

Bush nominated Miers on Oct. 3. Powerline not only supported her as the fight against her raged on for weeks, but pointed out how foolish other prominent conservatives were for opposing her.

On October 3, 2005, Bush nominated Miers to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

By Oct. 23, it fell to John, who also jumped in to pile on Mark, at Powerline to point out how clueless and useless was another conservative stalwart, George Will, by linking to Big Lizards.

TWILIGHT OF THE BOW-TIES

Far be it from me to slight George Will's contributions to the conservative movement, but it's time to recognize, I think, that the torch has passed to a new generation. Tonight, somewhat ironically, it's Dafydd ab Hugh's Big Lizards that commits Will's latest polemic to the trash heap of history. … The topic of the debate is George Bush, Harriet Miers, and the Supreme Court. Judge for yourself who is arguing, and who is too tired to do anything but sneer. I wrote our weekly Weekly Standard column on the subject of Ms. Miers and her critics' discontents–or something like that–with emphasis on, what is to be done? My conclusion is quite different from Mr. Will's. We will link when the piece is up on the Standard's site.

Here's what Big Lizards had to say at the approving link from Powerline.

Those of us who support the nomination of Harriet Miers (even reluctantly) were warned repeatedly that we would be devastated, blown away, and inundated by the Noahide deluge of Hurricane Gamma, George Will's unanswerable final whirlwind of rhetorical devastation of Harriet Miers. Instead, all we got was a spritz of seltzer down our pants.

By the 31st, after her withdrawal, John was still complaining that by then the Right had "scuttled" Miers. Paul kept up his strong support for Miers until October 26 when he suddenly reversed himself. He towed the establishment line for almost a month of bitter feuding.

Miers should withdraw. If she doesn't then, absent convincing evidence that her positions today are completely different from the liberal ones contained in the 1993 speech, the Senate should not confirm her.

But, really, the die had already been cast. She withdrew the very next day- and not because of Powerline, I'd wager. The fight was fought by others, not Powerline. And all Paul did was reverse himself at the very last minute for cover, after everyone knew she was toast. Does that genuinely qualify as a half-truth?

I. Don't. Think. So.

From what I've seen, Paul is no more interested in fighting the Tea Party fight for a return to a more Constitutional America, than he was interested in fighting against Harriet Miers. He's happy to take the establishment Republican line, which really is all Mark Levin has been saying all along. Is that a half-truth? Based on his claims surrounding Miers, I suspect one would be better advised to monitor Paul Mirengoff and not Mark Levin when it comes to truth telling. 

On October 27, 2005, the White House announced that Harriet Miers had asked President Bush to withdraw her nomination, citing fears that the nomination would create a "burden for the White House and its staff and it is not in the best interest of the country.



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Demosthenes9 says:

    Dan,
    Help me out here a bit if you would. In your piece, you state:
    “By the 31st, after her withdrawal, John was still complaining that by then the Right had “scuttled” Miers”
    You linked to the following Powerline post:
    “Judge Sam Alito’s mother:
    “Of course, he’s against abortion,” 90-year-old Rose Alito said of her son, a Catholic.
    I love it.
    By the way, remember how Hugh Hewitt warned that some of Harriet Miers’ critics were undercutting the Republicans’ principled stand in favor of an up or down Senate vote for all nominees? Consider this snide observation from Ron Fournier of the Associated Press:
    With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate – something they denied Miers.
    The AP appears to be setting the stage for the argument, should the Dems filibuster Alito, that what they are doing is the same as conservative Republicans scuttling Miers.”
    That’s a simple statement of fact and an affirmation that Hugh Hewitt’s comments were indeed prescient.
    How is that “complaining that by then the Right had “scuttled” Miers”
    He’s merely pointing out the inconsistency.

  2. barfo says:

    “a return to a more Constitutional America”
    What is a more Constitutional America?
    I thought the Tea Party had more concrete goals.

  3. Toni says:

    I love this Dan. The pragmatism pushed and bullied by Hugh Hewitt and his MN mainstay bloggers (Powerline and Ed Morrissey) needs to be exposed. I personally don’t remember Ed’s position at the time on either of these issues but he was usually in tandem with the Muskateers. This is exactly why the GOP lost in 2006 and 2008 yet “they” don’t get it. Their whole support for Specter and Meiers still ticks me off.

  4. SM says:

    >>”With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate – something they denied Miers.
    The AP appears to be setting the stage for the argument, should the Dems filibuster Alito, that what they are doing is the same as conservative Republicans scuttling Miers.”
    “That’s a simple statement of fact and an affirmation that Hugh Hewitt’s comments were indeed prescient.”
    It’s not a “simple statement of fact”, it’s the worst analogy I can recall seeing. (a) The Republicans did not filibuster Miers. (b) the Democrats filibustering the Republicans SCOTUS pick does not actually correspond to the GOP opposing their own President.
    If the Democrats have some burning desire to “do the same” they can now oppose one of Obama’s SCOTUS nominations.

  5. SM says:

    Why must we pretend that everybody in the Republican Party is equally conservative, or even conservative at all?
    That pretense is at the root of all the gnashing of teeth on this matter. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of Republicans, including some prominent bloggers, who would be horrified to see a US Senate made up entirely of conservatives.
    If people were willing to admit that then a constructive discussion might come from all this.

  6. Demosthenes9 says:

    SM, the Repubs were out in force saying that nominees should get an up or down vote in defending against a filibuster. It wasn’t a nuanced argument as you are making it out to be.
    The problem was that Bush made the stupid nomination in the first place and put us in this position.

  7. SM says:

    I’ve been reading Powerline for the last seven years. It’s good at doing what it does, which is being a foreign policy blog.
    I’ve never seen the slightest indication that the guys there care about the various domestic policy issues which animate the bulk of the members of the GOP. That is, they show scant interest in the size of government, or immigration, or abortion, or gay marriage, except to the extent that the GOP has to care (or pretend to care) about these things to take power.
    Powerline is, quite literally, a neo-con blog. There’s nothing wrong with that as far as it goes. The GOP has to be a coalition made up of different factions. The trouble starts when every faction in the party insists that THEY are the true conservatives.
    Let’s acknowledge our differences, and then come to an agreement where everyone gets something they want from the GOP taking power.
    I’d be happy for the Powerline/neo-con people to get what they want, in terms of foreign policy goals, if only they’d reciprocate a little more and care about what the libertarians and conservatives want.

  8. SM says:

    “the Repubs were out in force saying that nominees should get an up or down vote in defending against a filibuster.”
    One more time, Miers was not filibustered and was not “denied an up or down vote” by the Republicans.
    Before you continue this, I suggest you consult the historical record and see exactly who said and did what. That will save me the trouble of cutting and pasting masses of information here.
    By the way, you sure do spend a lot of time making liberal arguments.

  9. SM says:

    “It wasn’t a nuanced argument as you are making it out to be.”
    I’m not making a nuanced argument. I’m reminding you that both the Democrats and the Republicans in the Senate tactfully suggested to Bush that Miers was not up to scratch. She was not denied a vote – the WH was informed that she could have her vote, and that she’d lose. So they withdrew her.

  10. “He’s happy to take the establishment Republican line, which really is all Mark Levin has been saying all along.”
    That’s exactly why I said yesterday that Mirengoff and Levin were talking past each other. Rather than respond to Levin’s point, Mirengoff opted instead to pounce on factual errors in Levin’s arguments in what seems to be an attempt at undermining Levin’s integrity. I’m must admit that I am surprised that Mirengoff would be caught telling a whopper with his condescending the “half-truth” line.
    Powerline didn’t start off being political and maybe they should go back in that direction. They do an awful lot of other things worth reading and hitching their wagons to the GOP Titanic is probably not a good idea.

  11. SM, I see Mirengoff as being a neocon but the other two, Hinderaker and Johnson are traditional northeast establishment Ivy League country club Republicans. This little spat is totally out of character for them but very instructive. I wish they would drop it and focus on the things that make their blog one of the best around.

  12. Demosthenes9 says:

    No one claimed that Miers was filibustered. And yes, she was denied an “up or down vote” by the backlash from Repubs over her nomination.

  13. Demosthenes9 says:

    Pasadena,
    You seem to blame this on being neo-cons or traditional northeast establishment Ivy League types.
    But what about the others out there that aren’t any of the above who still have the same freaking opinion ??
    Erik @ Redstate ? Ace ?
    Hell, even Dick Armey ??
    ““We stay out of that race because we’re not convinced O’Donnell can win,” FreedomWorks president and CEO Matt Kibbe said at the Christian Science Monitor-sponsored event.
    FreedomWorks chair Dick Armey shared the ambivalence toward O’Donnell, who’s sparked a kind of GOP breakdown with her fast-rising candidacy against party stalwart Mike Castle, who most view as a shoo-in for Vice President Biden’s old Senate seat should he win the nomination. Presented with polling data showing likely Democratic nominee Chris Coons beating O’Donnell in a general election, Armey was asked “if it’s better for Republicans to lose with a tea party-backed candidate than to win with a mainstream Republican candidate.”
    “I’m going to give a quick answer,” Armey said. “No.”
    Oh, yeah, it’s all about being a Northeaster country club republican.

  14. SM says:

    >>”No one claimed that Miers was filibustered.”
    Then it’s a mystery why you keep using the term in your comments about her.
    >>”How is that “complaining that by then the Right had “scuttled” Miers””
    Why don’t you do what I suggested and go back and refresh your memory about who did what?

  15. SM says:

    “But what about the others out there that aren’t any of the above who still have the same freaking opinion ??”
    “Erik @ Redstate ?”
    RedState endorsed Castle? You’re on crack.
    “Hell, even Dick Armey ??”
    Even Dick Armey? Who the hell is Dick Armey? Just another big government Republican trying to tie himself to the Tea Party.

  16. SM says:

    >>”she was denied an “up or down vote” by the backlash from Repubs over her nomination”
    No, she was “denied an up or down vote” by the WH, which withdrew her nomination once they realized she was going to lose that “up or down vote”.
    Now, you could argue that she was denied confirmation by that “backlash from Repubs”, and then I’d agree with you. But it’s a crock to keep insisting that the Repubs denied her a vote. That did not happen.

  17. Demosthenes9 says:

    She was denied an up and down vote when Repubs explained to Bush that they wouldn’t support her.
    Secondly, this is a case of defacto versus dejure, which is why I mentioned the “nuanced” argument.
    Not supporting her in Committee and causing Bush to withdraw the nomination has the same effect as not putting the nomination up for a vote.
    That was the point being made by HH, the AP, and Mirengoff.
    Now, you can go back and argue with the AP all you want on this issue but here is how they characterized it:
    “With no sign of irony, Republicans demanded that Alito get a vote in the Senate – something they denied Miers.”

  18. SM says:

    “She was denied an up and down vote when Repubs explained to Bush that they wouldn’t support her.”
    Have I mentioned that you argue like a lefty?
    Not being willing to vote for somebody is not actually the same thing as denying them a vote.
    If the Pubbies in the Senate Judiciary Committee had said “we refuse to bring this to a vote” then you’d have a case.
    But telling Bush “the votes are not there” is NOT denying her a vote. Bush could have said that he would not withdraw her. Then, presumably, there would have been a vote, Or maybe not. But since Bush withdrew her, you cannot say that she was denied a vote. At lest, not by the Republican in the Senate.
    Not without demonstrating your inability to think.

  19. SM says:

    “Now, you can go back and argue with the AP all you want ”
    Or I can just accept the reality, well known to people on the right, that the AP does not get to define history.
    Now you can continue to do your excellent imitation of a lefty troll.
    “Not supporting her in Committee and causing Bush to withdraw the nomination has the same effect as not putting the nomination up for a vote.”
    It does have the same effect, my dimwitted friend, but it’s not the same THING. A person who is struck by lightening may be just as dead as somebody deliberately shot by a gun, but we use different language to describe the two deaths.
    Voting against somebody is not the same thing as denying somebody a vote. Announcing that you are going to vote against somebody and thereby prompting their withdrawal is likewise not the same thing as denying somebody a vote.

  20. Demosthenes9 says:

    Yes, you have argued that I argue like a lefty which is kind of funny as most people that know me realize how far to the right I truly am.
    For the record, I’m far enough to the right to believe that Abraham Lincoln was a statist who set this country on the road to where we are now. Him even more so that Alexander Hamilton.
    I believe the 14th Amendment to largely be a crock. I’m stronly in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment. I’m strongly in favor of revising the 2nd Amendment so that it can be completely clear to even the most ardent leftist that the RTKBA is an individual right.
    I think progressive tax systems suck and am much more in favor of a flat tax.
    I think the Commerce Clause has been seriously abused and also that anyone with a basic understanding of the Federalist Papers will realize that “to promote the General Welfare” clause was NOT a grant of authority to the Federal Government.
    Now, does that establish my “Conservative” bonafides enough for you or do you want to take it to email and discuss it further ?
    Back to the subject, you are correct that Erik didn’t endorse Castle. That said, he posted a piece that was not very flattering towards O’Donnell and he basically said “he was done with it”.
    To my chagrin, I missed his later follow up where he clarified any misconceptions that this meant he favored Castle.
    As to your comments wrt Dick Armey, let’s just say that I disagree with your characterization of him. From what I understand, he is very involved in the Tea Party movement.

  21. SM says:

    >>”most people that know me realize how far to the right I truly am.”
    Perhaps in your circle of friends there at Berkeley you’re considered quite the ultra-con.
    >>”To my chagrin, I missed his later follow up where he clarified any misconceptions that this meant he favored Castle.”
    See? Stick with me, kid, I won’t steer you wrong!

  22. Demosthenes9
    I can think for myself. I form my own opinions based on my own reasons. I don’t just adopt others’ opinions. My war is not just against the RINOs and neocons. It is against a one-party system under the control of global interests who well along in suspending our constitution and erasing national boundaries. It’s bigger than just an intramural squabble. It’s all encompassing. THIS Republican party is actually worse than the Dems because even when exposed for the frauds they are, instead of being shamed they wage war against conservatives. No one can hurt you more than a friend or relative. It’s that kind of treachery that makes them evil. We are engaging in triage at the moment and if a few good Republicans get booted, I can accept that. Castle is not one of those.
    And you really should take a closer look at your list. I don’t really care what Erik Erickson thinks and if he really did endorse Castle, which I doubt, it wouldn’t really surprise me. He is closer to being a Republican apologist than a cutting edge conservative. Red State long ago morphed into being another Townhall.com Republican website.
    Dick Armey is an outright fraud who tried to usurp the Tea Party and failed. He is just another stalking horse for the big government Republicans who has nothing interesting to say nor to offer.
    The conservative beachhead today is mostly right here with Dan, Mark Levin, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Brietbart, and suddenly William Jacobson too. Rush is referring more and more to their work in catching the RINO establishment wrong-footed.
    That’s the advantage of being a genuine grassroots movement without the burden of an official leader. They never know where we are going to come from next and they are never ready so they just lash out with frantic and desperately vicious personal attacks. We continue to grow in numbers and gain strength. They can’t stop us short of shooting us.

  23. Demosthenes9 says:

    >>Perhaps in your circle of friends there at Berkeley you’re considered quite the ultra-con.< < (Smart way to quote….. thanks.
    Oh yeah, I’m a Berkeley type /sarcasm.
    Let’s see. Born in Fayetteville, NC while dad was stationed at Bragg. Then to Clarksville, TN. Then Ft. Benning, GA, then finally to Louisville, KY.
    yeah, I’ve just been surrounded by left wing tree hugging hippies all my frakking life :)

  24. Demosthenes9 says:

    Pasadena,
    Thanks for the post. I have been a reader of MM for quite some time and I really like what she has to say.
    I liked Mark Levin right up until this little dust up and totally lost respect for him when he blocked me from commenting any further on this issue AND DELETED every one of my comments.
    But heck, speaking of Michelle Malkin, here are some of her words on this issue:
    “Guess what? You can be a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE,” a blogger behind a keyboard, a talk show host behind a mic, a prime-time TV host in front of a camera, a Beltway pundit, or a heartland Tea Party activist and come to different, good-faith conclusions about this race. I know people in both the Castle camp and the O’Donnell camp. I’m not going to deride or disown my friends in the blogosphere or anywhere else because we disagree. That’s, well, unhinged.”
    Perhaps many of you on the O’Donnell side would do well to listen to what Michelle is saying on this one.
    Great, WE DISAGREE. But, what are we disagreeing about ? Your side wants political purity on this race while other BONAFIDE, WELL MEANING CONSERVATIVES are looking at this purely from a tactical position.
    But people on your side had to make it personal. Levin had to question the integrity of the guys at Powerline as well as their Conservative credentials. Same with Patterico and anyone else that dared questioned HIS thoughts on the matter.
    Dan is doing the same thing. Just read his front page.
    Just think about this for a moment Pasadena (and others). In all the pieces from Powerline and Patterico that Levin and Dan have linked to or talked about, has there been ANY argument that Castle is a “good” candidate and should be supported on the actual merits ?
    Has Powerline, Patterico, myself, or any other supporters of this strategy tried to make the case that Castle is anything other than a RINO ?
    NO, we haven’t. None of us has claimed that he’s really a true blood Conservative or even that we can rely on him to change dramatically.
    Yet your side keeps trying to make this a RINO vs. True Conservative issue.
    At what point will you all understand that when we say “Yeah, Castle is a RINO BUT it makes tactical sense to vote for him anyways” will you all figure out that we are talking about getting him elected IN SPITE OF THE FACT that he’s a RINO ??
    If you want to debate the tactic, fine, let’s do. But, you don’t need to question my conservative credentials or anyone else’s in order to do it.

  25. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    So Powerline is now saying that passing the resolution to impeach Bush was a good thing because then Conyers could “scuttle” it?
    Frankly I stopped reading Powerline a long time ago and I see that I’ve missed nothing since then.

  26. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    @ Demosthenes9
    “Your side wants political purity on this race while other BONAFIDE, WELL MEANING CONSERVATIVES are looking at this purely from a tactical position.”
    So what else is new? For the past 30+ years now the mantra from you guys is that we need a “big tent”. Well we got that “big tent” and it was completely and utterly useless. These liberals and moderates you’re so enamored of routinely stab conservative efforts in the back, provide political cover for liberal Democrats and help pass the most obnoxious liberal Democrat legislation. And then when it all goes tits up for them they abandon you shills and switch to the other party.
    For years you guys have been pushing this nonsense and the result is that conservatism has been dying a slow death by strangulation. And you folks have been helping that process right along. Sure you mean well but then again we all know what the road to Hell is paved with right?
    Meaning well and doing well are completely different things. I’d suggest a few minutes of meditation on this. But you don’t have to take that advice just like I don’t have to support your efforts.

  27. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    @ Demosthenes9
    “She was denied an up and down vote when Repubs explained to Bush that they wouldn’t support her.”
    All you’ve done here is misconstrued an unforced political mistake by Bush. Unless you’re trying to force a confrontation you don’t put up a nominee that you don’t know will be approved by the Senate. That’s politics 101. And something Bush failed to do.

  28. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    @ SM
    “hat pretense is at the root of all the gnashing of teeth on this matter. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of Republicans, including some prominent bloggers, who would be horrified to see a US Senate made up entirely of conservatives. If people were willing to admit that then a constructive discussion might come from all this.”
    Because:
    1. Quite a few Republicans make serious money from the pretense.
    2. Quite a few conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that the status quo ante is somehow necessary to success in legislation.
    3. Quite a few Republicans and conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that elections are all that matter and not governing well.
    4. The conservative movement, rank & file and not the self-styled and self-appointed “leaders”, would go into open insurrection if the GOP openly tried to undercut conservatives. We’re pretty pissed off. We’ve been pissed off for over 20 years. We’ve been getting more and more pissed off every year. And right now it’s an open question as to whether or not it is more useful to simply skin the GOP and wear it like dress, leaving the political carcass for the crows, or simply create a new party and destroy the GOP utterly.
    This last one is a subject of serious studious discussion amongst conservatives. Frankly I think the “Skin’em” side is winning as it would allow taking over the mechanisms already in place while the “New Party” side has a lot more enthusiasm. Plus starting from scratch would neatly dispose of all that GOP baggage.
    Either way the current truce between Republicans and conservatives will absolutely not last.

  29. ray says:

    Sit down and STFU WRT Powerline. I’ve read you both for years. I support O’Donnell over Castle, but I respect the Powerliner’s opinion. Keep to facts. If you rant, they will continue to eat your lunch. Don’t waste time feuding with friends. Attack the real enemies.

  30. memomachine says:

    Hmmm.
    @ ray
    “Attack the real enemies.”
    If your friends act like enemies then that is what they deserve.

  31. Walter in Texas says:

    So, the “moderate” Castle camp, the nice people wing of the GOP, is advancing the “hold your nose and vote for the electable RINO” argument. Just like 2008. You nice folks think that’s still working for you, even if it screwed the Republic?
    Counting Senate seats like miser’s gold when the Maine sisters, the sad little thing from South Carolina, and Arizona’s wizened husk of a hero are all in the Senate, in drag as Republicans, is just sad, the tactics of the pathetic.
    Delaware is at liberty to vote for the Democrat, the conservative, or the Democrat in sheep’s clothing. Their choice. But this and the next cycle are the last go-round for the GOP: either it becomes a party with discernible differences from the other big government party or it will get eaten alive by the Wide-Awakes, just like its Whig forebears were, and replaced by a party willing to stand up to the Democrats. This time, the Wide-Awakes will insist on a small government solution.

  32. SM says:

    >”At what point will you all understand that when we say “Yeah, Castle is a RINO BUT it makes tactical sense to vote for him anyways” will you all figure out that we are talking about getting him elected IN SPITE OF THE FACT that he’s a RINO ??”
    I will “understand” that when I see people like you also make this argument from time to time: “Yes, Smith is too conservative for me, but it makes tactical sense to support him IN SPITE of the fact that he’s conservative”.
    As it stands, your “pragmatism” acts entirely as a justification for supporting liberal Republicans.
    And that’s not really “pragmatic” at all when you consider that liberals Republicans have run the party into the ditch.

  33. SM says:

    But heck, speaking of Michelle Malkin, here are some of her words on this issue:
    “Guess what? You can be a “TRUE CONSERVATIVE,” a blogger behind a keyboard, a talk show host behind a mic, a prime-time TV host in front of a camera, a Beltway pundit, or a heartland Tea Party activist and come to different, good-faith conclusions about this race. I know people in both the Castle camp and the O’Donnell camp. I’m not going to deride or disown my friends in the blogosphere or anywhere else because we disagree. That’s, well, unhinged.”
    Perhaps many of you on the O’Donnell side would do well to listen to what Michelle is saying on this one.
    ————————————-
    You know I think you’re easily the most dishonest hypocrite I’ve come across at this site.

  34. SM says:

    ” I have been a reader of MM for quite some time and I really like what she has to say.”
    As a long-time reader of MM, you must be aware that she has endorsed O’Donnell and is a harsh critic of Castle.
    And you have have expressed your unflattering opinion of such people at great length. Do you still really like what she has to say?

  35. memomachine says:

    Hmmmm.
    @ Walter in Texas
    “Delaware is at liberty to vote for the Democrat, the conservative, or the Democrat in sheep’s clothing. Their choice. But this and the next cycle are the last go-round for the GOP: either it becomes a party with discernible differences from the other big government party or it will get eaten alive by the Wide-Awakes, just like its Whig forebears were, and replaced by a party willing to stand up to the Democrats. This time, the Wide-Awakes will insist on a small government solution.”
    An excellent summary of the situation at hand!

  36. Moobs says:

    no doubt since malkin endorsed o’donnell she is a kooky wingnut loon………..right debbie schlussel?