Staff writer Charles Babington writes in the Washington Post today Miers presents the Democrats with a difficult choice:
Confirm a conservative with close ties to President Bush, or oppose her and join ranks with hard-right activists who historically are their archenemies.
Does Babington (and his editor) really not know that many of those who oppose Miers can hardly be described as “hard right activists,” or in the alternative does he really regard fellow WaPo writers George Will and Charles Krauthammer as “hard right activists”?
Hard to know.
This sounds almost Shakespearean.
To be, or not to be–that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to confirm
a conservative with close ties to President Bush
Or to join ranks with hard-right activists
And by opposing end the nomination.
Give me three examples of “hard right” if Will and Krauthammer don’t fit the description?
Cobra
Cobra,
Give me three examples of “hard right” if Will and Krauthammer don’t fit the description?
Ummm . . . Ralph Reed, Grover Norquist, Pat Buchanan? All of whom, by the way, are plausibly “activists,” as Will and Krauthammer are not. Each of the three is way “to the right” of Will and Krauthammer about at least some things, though not always the same ones.
By the way, Cobra, what’s the “hard-right” position on the Iraq war? And does Will hold it? (Not sure where Krauthammer is on the subject, because while I watch Will every Sunday on This Week and get his syndicated columns occasionally in my local newspaper, I haven’t read the opinion page of the WaPo in ages.)