(Page 4 of 14)
's on-line edition. (I wouldn't write that people are writing it if they weren't writing it.) /p> p> REVERSE ELITISM br> Re: Lisa Fabrizio's Wishful Tinkering : /p>Lisa Fabrizio repeats the charge that Miers's opponents are elitists. She's wrong. The elitist is Bush. Bush is a standard "white bread Republican" who has some conservative views and is far more comfortable with ordinary Americans than his father. But Bush is almost as uncomfortable with the very idea that ordinary Americans could actually influence the government as John Kerry is. That's why he supported Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary, why he signed the McCain-Feingold bill, why he was almost as upset as John Kerry with the Swift Boat Veterans, why he ignores public outrage at illegal immigration.
p>And, no, you don't need to be a brilliant intellectual to read and understand our constitution. You don't even need to be a lawyer. But to defend decisions that actually follow it against most of the legal and journalistic professions and resist conversion to their elitism, you do need to be a brilliant intellectual with plenty of experience with such things. br> -- unsigned /p>Absolutely excellent article about the current conservative dustup over Harriet Miers's nomination. I thought she neatly summed it all up in the paragraph quoted below:
"It is easy to understand the near hysteria from some on the right. The courts have been the Holy Land that conservative crusaders have been trying to reclaim for decades. They are the reason some have looked the other way at what they regard as President Bush's major transgressions; profligate spending and his reluctance to deal with the illegal immigration mess."
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
The speech our President should make.
A noted economist fires back.
How political can you get?
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.