It’s a Verb!
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination. I guess I can stop making fun of those guys at ConfirmTheOnesILike.COM now.
The saddest part is that the true villain, David Frum, emerges as a quasi-hero. Make no mistake about it; he’s anything but that. While most of Miers’s opponents were blindsided by her appointment, Frum was not, having proudly scooped that possibility as early as July 4. Yet, aside from listing a few superficial “pluses” and “minuses,” Frum neglected in July to mention what a bad idea he presumably thought such a nomination might be. He certainly didn’t let on that it was sooooo bad as to justify a huge neo-borking campaign to be led by Frum himself. Frum held on to that dirty little secret until September 29, a mere four days before the nomination had been announced publicly,after its likelihood had been leaked to other press sources, and probably after the decision had already been made. In that entry, he implausibly claimed that the July post was a joke – despite the fact that it doesn’t read like one or even hint at anything remotely risible. More recently, he non-explained his early non-opposition to Hugh Hewitt, arguing even more implausibly that his July entry was intended to prevent a Miers nomination by ruining the surprise – an explanation Hewitt rightly criticized as too cute by half. The fact of the matter is, David Frum did not know anything about Harriet Miers’s credentials on July 4 that he didn’t also know on September 29. If his true intent had been to prevent what he believed to be a bad Supreme Court nomination, the time to have said so was either on July 4, or in a follow-up post shortly after that, long before any actual decision had been made, let alone publicized or even leaked to the press. But if his real agenda was to embarass his former boss – who, in case you have forgotten, had fired him after only about a year of service – then his timing makes perfect sense, as does his inability to provide a remotely coherent, innocent explanation for it.
To those who have any dealings with Frum, my advice to you is to watch your back. Always. What he did to Bush, he won’t hesitate to do to you, too. I would suggest that NRO consider firing this guy, but given his track record, that would probably be almost as bad of an idea as hiring him was. As long he’s on their payroll, at least he has one reason to Judas someone else instead of them.
UPDATE: Justin Levine, who has either been listening too much to Bill Handel or vice-versa, labels Frum’s treachery “heroic” and utterly misreads my post as suggesting every commentator is obligated to compile a list of all potential nominees and bash all the bad ones just in case. He then challenges me in the same vein to pre-bash Alberto Gonzales. Two problems with that theory. First, unlike Frum in July, I do not believe there is a realistic chance that President Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. Second, and also unlike Frum’s July entry, I haven’t blogged anything about Alberto Gonzales which could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting I would be OK with such a nomination if it did occur. Nevertheless, on the off chance that “Dumbya” really does live down to that nickname and nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court of the United States, allow me to be the first (?) blogger for NZ Bear to track. I oppose the Gonzales nomination.
UPDATE x2: Greg thinks “frum” should become a verb, too. Me, I don’t know; I tend to think Brutus beat him to the punch when he did to Caesar literally what Frum would do to Bush figuratively two millennia later. That earned the old Brute not only a verb, but a noun and an adjective, as well. What a deal!
October 27th, 2005 at 7:52 am
I never did add it to my spell-checker :-)
October 27th, 2005 at 8:37 am
Ah, but you should. It’s only a matter of time before some other nominee gets miered in controversy.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:49 am
I told you so
Three weeks ago Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination after coming under all kinds of fire for being a mediocre choice. Now all Bush has to do is find someone with the right resume, and their politics won’t matter. He…
October 27th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Frum is a HERO!
I find his explanations on Hewitt’s show to be be perfectly logical.
According to your reasoning, we should all be obligated do the following before the next nominee is announced:
1. List all of the people who we suspect may plausably be on Bush’s nominee list.
2. Take all of those names that we would be disappointed in and start bashing those people before they are announced as the nominee so as to not hold on to our “dirty little secrets”.
A “neo-borking” of Miers? Give me a break…
I am now waiting for your obligated bashing of Gonzalez so as to not be hiding your dirty little secret on him…
October 27th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
Frum is an asshole.
Why am I not surprised by that? Over the past few weeks you Miers-bashers have dished out all sorts of screwy, often mutually contradictory arguments against Miers, the only common thread of which is that they all conveniently led to the conclusion “Miers bad.” The fact that you find Frum’s silly, self-serving supplication “perfectly logical” fits this pattern to a tee. [And yes, I would have responded to your screwball arguments a long time ago and pointed out the particulars of why they are screwball arguments, if you allowed comments like everyone else on Calblog.]
It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to do something like that, but no, none of this follows from my reasoning in this post. If Frum hadn’t done #1, I wouldn’t be bashing him for failing to do #2. My objection is to doing #1 alone – or worse, throwing in a few trivial “pluses” and “minuses” while keeping a huge minus in your back pocket.
I’m under no such obligation, as I do not believe there is a realistic chance that Alberto Gonzales will be nominated, and in any event, have not blogged anything that can be remotely construed as supportive of, or even neutral toward, such a nomination if it did happen. Nevertheless, I’ve gone ahead and made my preemptive opposition explicit in an update to this post, and I’ll be happy to do the same for/to any other potential nominees you may offer who you think have a serious chance of being nominated, and who I agree would make bad nominees.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
So I guess Miers got frumed. I can add another word to my spellchecker.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Nah, backstabbing is a much older tradition than that. Maybe President should have said “Et tu, Frume.”
October 27th, 2005 at 3:24 pm
XRLQ: I remember reading Frum’s original column and thinking nothing more of it than his laying out some names that Bush could conceivably nominate. He wasn’t endorsing her, nor was he going out against her… at least not then. What am I missing in thinking there was nothing wrong with that column?
October 27th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
Put me squarely in the Frum is an asshole camp.
I wasn’t a huge Miers supporter and believe she wasn’t properly vetter because they (Bush) “knew” her. However, it is one thing to politely disagree/oppose. It is another altogether to stoop to the level of vitriol we normally expect from Dems and moonbats.
October 27th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
Steve – the wrong in the July 4 entry lies not so much in what Frum said, but in what he didn’t say. I’d invite you to re-read the entry. It was not a list of potential nominees, but an entry devoted entirely to Miers, complete with a list of trivial “pluses” and “minuses,” yet mysteriously omitting what Frum would later identify as the biggest minus of all. The only rational inference to be drawn from the July post was that Frum was neutral to a Miers nomination, at worst. It was not a post that would have been written by anyone who didn’t want Bush to appoint Miers.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:22 pm
If there is one individual who had the biggest impact on Miers’ nomination, my own guess is that it was John Fund. Fund’s investigative articles, such as the one revealing the conference call among conservative religious individuals (e.g., Dobson), created huge heartburn in the Senate. His other pieces were almost as troublesome. Frum was effective becaues he personally knew her, but since David is not a lawyer and did not really directly work with her in the White House, his impact was somewhat limited.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
You honestly think Frum’s goal was simply to embarrass Bush? Unbelievably ridiculous.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
I won’t speculate as to what Frum’s goal was. Maybe it was to embarass Bush, maybe it was to draw more attention to himself (“axis of evil,” anyone?), or maybe it was something else I haven’t thought of. Or maybe he really was trying to do what’s best for the country but he has no concept of good vs. bad timing. All I know for sure is what he did, which was to knowingly pass up an opportunity to stop the Miers debacle before it started, and then to excuse this inaction with a string of lame excuses that don’t add up. Do you honestly think the July entry was intended as a joke? Unbelievably ridiculous.
And what’s up with this “[Do] you honestly think…?” business, anyway? Aren’t you the guy who took offense to my characterization of a misleadingly edited quote as a dowdification, on the theory that that word could call the other person’s honesty into question?
October 27th, 2005 at 10:04 pm
I think the “it was a joke” defense is lame, as is the “I wanted to remove the surprise” defense. What I found convincing about what I heard yesterday is that he took the possibility a lot less seriously in June than he did in September, and therefore refrained from saying mean things when it might not be necessary to do so.
The idea that he “knowingly pass[ed] up an opportunity to stop the Miers debacle before it started” strikes me as silly. Do you honestly believe Frum could have stopped it? Unbelievably rid[etc.] I am glad he spoke out, but nothing he said before the fact would have derailed the nomination. Bush was too proud of the idea.
I don’t understand your point with this bit: “And what’s up with this “[Do] you honestly think…?” business, anyway? Aren’t you the guy who took offense to my characterization of a misleadingly edited quote as a dowdification, on the theory that that word could call the other person’s honesty into question?”
What I do understand is you were clearly suggesting that was his motivation with this bit: “But if his real agenda was to embarass his former boss – who, in case you have forgotten, had fired him after only about a year of service – then his timing makes perfect sense, as does his inability to provide a remotely coherent, innocent explanation for it.”
And, given everything I have read and heard from him, I just find it silly that you would suggest that that was his real motivation. I think it’s crystal clear that he thought Miers would be bad for the Court and for the country.
I think you had it in for Frum ever since you misread the Angry Clam’s post about Frum’s blog entry, and have not given him a fair hearing since.
October 28th, 2005 at 1:01 am
I agree with what Patterico says. ;-)
October 28th, 2005 at 1:14 am
“…and have not given him a fair hearing since.”
Let’s do get started talking about fair hearings.
October 28th, 2005 at 7:21 am
I don’t find that very convincing, either. No one is suggesting he should have gone mean in July, as he did in October. All it would have taken is a simple, non-insulting comment to the effect that appointing Miers probably would not be a good idea.
Absolutely. Three questions for you, and then we’ll discuss how unbelievably ridiculous my theory is or isn’t.
Depending on your answers to those three questions, I don’t think it’s all that far-fetched to suggest that Frum could have stopped the Miers debacle before it started, or at least had a good enough shot to make it worth a try. To borrow Frum’s terminology, the obvious “plus” is that preventing the nomination, there would have never been any possibility that Miers would end up on the court – as may well have happened if Miers had not chosen to withdraw. The “minuses” are that doing so (1) would not have embarassed Bush any more than all the usual grumbling about Gonzales does, and (2) would have called a fraction of the attention to Frum himself that his October jihad did.
I’m with Craig – the irony of anyone complaining about not giving Frum a fair hearing in this debacle is too rich for words. Besides, you may recall that my early misunderstanding was over a relatively minor issue having nothing to do with Frum’s honesty, only his sloppiness on a false fact two other NRO editors (Rich Lowry or Jonah Goldberg) had credulously reported but Frum himself had not, namely that Miers had not served on law review. That misunderstanding was quickly resolved when I read Frum’s article, did NOT find that particular careless assertion, but DID find a host of others. If anything major turned on that misunderstood factoid, as you suggest, I’d be unloading on Goldberg and Lowry now, not on Frum.
All the while I was thinking to myself “Gee, why is everyone at NRO so solidly opposed to Miers? Didn’t one of these guys float Miers as a dark horse a month or two ago, without suggesting that this would be a mistake? Why aren’t we hearing from that guy?” Then, I found out that we were hearing from that guy after all, and was not amused. Then I read his bullshit explanations, and was even less amused. At this point, if Frum were to do or say anything to convince that I should give him the benefit of the doubt (which of course hasn’t), the most innocent explanation I can think of is that the July 4 entry was something he quickly did, figuring he’d follow up with the dirt a little later (not three months later), and then completely forgot about until the press leaks on September 29. Later, rather than own up to his goof, he offered a serious of implausible, mutually contradictory excuses for it. In that scenario, he’s not a backstabber or an attention whore, but he’s still a chump.
October 28th, 2005 at 10:06 am
All it would have taken is a simple, non-insulting comment to the effect that appointing Miers probably would not be a good idea.
You can’t be saying *that* would have been sufficient to stop the nomination, can you?
1) Do you really believe Harriet Miers withdrew because Senators were demanding privileged documents?
No.
2) If not, did her reason for withdrawal have more to do with the “growing chorus” Frum helped to organize earlier this month?
I think that had something to do with it, but I don’t think it’s that simple. I think it was a combination of numerous factors.
3) Why didn’t President Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales?
There are different theories. He may honestly not want it. I have heard rumors to that effect that I consider somewhat reliable, though I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. Also, Bush apparently had a women-only rule after Roberts, from everything I have read.
I don’t think it’s all that far-fetched to suggest that Frum could have stopped the Miers debacle before it started, or at least had a good enough shot to make it worth a try.
I think that it’s absurd to suggest that 1) Frum should have mounted a full-court press in July, or 2) that it would have made a significant difference if he had. People everywhere would have doubted his sanity — why expend so much energy over someone who is not going to be nominated anyway? I *don’t* think it’s absurd to suggest that he should have said *something* to express his doubts, and since some of his explanations for his failure are not convincing, it leads me to believe he recognizes it as a mistake to have failed to do so. But I fully understand not making as big a deal of it when it doesn’t seem like a real possibility.
IMHO, Miers got a fair hearing in the court of public opinion. I know of no significant examples of lying about her record, and where there were misstatements (e.g. Rich Lowry saying she wasn’t on law review) they were corrected promptly. Not so with Bork.
I have no doubt that she would have said in the hearings that she was a judicial conservative, but sometimes you don’t even call a witness when the documentation against them is so bad that it wouldn’t really matter what they say on the stand. I can’t conceive of any way for her to have addressed the numerous concerns about her in a hearing, and all the evidence is that the home run she needed to hit would have been more like a strikeout in three pitches.
Many have suggested that anti-Miers folks like myself were quick to jump on evidence against her. I can think of a couple of examples where that was true of me: I was too quick to believe that the Washington Post had put her (nevertheless disastrously liberal) speech quotes in the proper context, and I *arguably* was too slow to see (until it was pointed out to me) an alternate explanation for her “proportional representation” comment (which I still think was a problem of imprecise language, but let’s not have that debate again).
Similarly, I think that you had written off Frum before you ever read his post, and that colored your view of him. You were too eager to find fault. I thought he made excellent points in his initial post, and you didn’t see any of them. I submit that was because you had already decided that he had misstated the facts about Miers.
Accusing someone of misrepresenting the facts is a serious charge, my friend. When you discovered you had made such a false accusation against Frum, you did not express any real remorse, to the best of my recollection; rather, you defended yourself on the basis that Frum works at NRO, where Lowry (who made the actual mistake) also works. Your eagerness to tar Frum with Lowry’s mistake because they both work for NRO was the kind of smear-by-association I would normally expect you to reject without a second thought.
October 28th, 2005 at 11:13 am
The reason I didn’t offer any real remorse upon being corrected over Frum and law review is because it was never a major issue in the first place. Initially, upon misreading the Clam’s comment, I mistakenly believed Frum had made one stupid, unsupportable statement against Miers. I was promptly corrected on that, read his piece, and found he had made a slew of other stupid, unsupportable arguments against Miers instead. BFD.
To suggest that my initial, swiftly corrected mistake in imputing Lowry and Goldberg’s boner to Frum prevented me from giving Frum a fair hearing is every bit as silly as it would be for me to argue that very same error (also swiftly corrected, but no matter) prevented Lowry and Goldberg from being fair to Miers.