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.

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.

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.

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.

Do you honestly believe Frum could have stopped it?

Absolutely. Three questions for you, and then we’ll discuss how unbelievably ridiculous my theory is or isn’t.

1. Do you really believe Harriet Miers withdrew because Senators were demanding privileged documents?
2. If not, did her reason for withdrawal have more to do with the “growing chorus” Frum helped to organize earlier this month?
3. Why didn’t President Bush appointed Alberto Gonzales?

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 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.

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.

Let’s do get started talking about fair hearings.

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.

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?