Friday, October 14, 2005

David Limbaugh Again?

I discussed David Limbaugh's last Miers article here.

I'm going to discuss his latest one -- here.

Anyone who has read my comments knows that my beef is not with Miers. It is with President Bush. Limbaugh, who apparently agrees with most of my criticism's of Bush's decision, addresses those critics who take that criticism too far.

I hate it when I am sympathetic to arguments on both sides of an issue as it threatens my image as a benevolently close-minded, dogmatic, doctrinaire ideologue. But I do think conservatives are talking past one another on the Miers nomination and that a rift is growing between some conservatives and the White House. . . .

Conservative critics of the nomination might need to be clearer about the applicability of their objections. There is a difference between criticizing the president's pick and actually advocating Senate rejection of Miers' nomination.

Which of course is true. I said at the outset that I may support Miers'* confirmation, if she gets that far. I think the Congress is obligated to confirm qualified, good character nominees constitutionally selected by the President.

It is perfectly legitimate (and healthy) for conservatives to register their disapproval of the president's selection. . . . But they best not advocate that the Senate reject Miers just because they believe she may not be the most qualified for the position. If she is qualified and of good character, the Senate must, as a matter of constitutional law, defer to the president's prerogative and confirm.

Accordingly, conservatives, unless they truly believe Miers to be unqualified, should specify that their objections are directed at the president and not the Senate, lest they run the risk of lending legitimacy to the liberal practice of rejecting nominees for extra-constitutional (including political) reasons.

Nor do senators of a president's party have an exemption from their duty under the Advice and Consent clause to affirm an honorable, qualified nominee. If they ignore this and vote not to confirm a qualified nominee, they will be as guilty as Democrat senators of usurping the president's appointment power.

I think this caution from Limbaugh is sound advice. The President is charged with the obligation to nominate Judges and other positions. Persons with the qualifications and character for the job should not be denied the appointment for purely political reasons. This is especially true of the slightly better party when it comes to hypocricy. We expect Democrats to ignore their own words with each successive administration. Every now and then, Republicans still hold up the measuring stick to their own and say -- nope, your conduct is inappropriate.

Limbaugh then tackles the whether and how Miers' evangelical Christianity should play in the debate. I'll let you go to the article and read that. He makes several fair points.

In the end, Limbaugh reminds all involved on the rules of proper discussion:

I am all for the robust intra-conservative debate, but I think both sides should tone down the personal attacks and be less anxious to jump to conclusions impugning the other side's or the president's motives. And perhaps all of us, myself included, should strive to retain an open mind until the confirmation hearings.

Given the heated debate many of us had at VC the last two weeks, we could have all heeded such advice.

But I still think it is much more fun to jump to conclusions and burn people at the stake.

*I will use an s' form for Miers name in possessive tense since Limbaugh does. I think, however, that the proper form would be s's.

13 Comments:

At 6:39 PM, Blogger Pile OnĀ® said...

I dunno, I kind of miss having a good internet brawl once in a while, and you just can't have an argument with the left because they fluctuate between infantile and insulting.

This whole thing has become something of an amusing spectacle to me.

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

Well Pile, I must say that I am rather disappointed it didn't degenerate into one of them all-male mud wrestling matches I hear tell of. I had high hopes we could all wallow in a truly degrading spectacle, there at the last. Lord knows Cricket and I had our cameras ready... :)

But that is just like you men... shameless teases. Get us all worked up and then just leave us hanging.

*Sigh*...

 
At 10:13 AM, Anonymous Cricket said...

KJ, if you use the s's you are talking about an action. The way Rush uses it is grammatically correct, since it denotes possession, as in her nomination/selection.

That is all.

 
At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Cricket said...

Cass, I only refrained from snark because
well, uh, there is no good reason to refrain from snark at a time like this.

I have a 4 megapixel digital camera that does short video clips.

heh.

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger KJ said...

Cricket, I do not know the distinction to which you refer.

I understand the rule to be that singular nouns in a possessive use get an 's, even if they end in s.

See, http://ace.acadiau.ca/english/grammar/possess.htm

A possible exception is when the noun ends in s but a new syllable is not needed. Then use only the apostrophe.

See, http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/apostro.asp

Now, I guess the question is, is it /My ers es/ nomination, or is it /My ers/ nomination.

I think its the former (extra syllable) so I think it is Miers's.

 
At 11:55 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

Yes Cricket, but since the big turkeys refuse to play along, all our video equipment does us precious little good, does it?

But such is life in the post-Sexual Revolution digital age. Gloria Steinham has much to answer for, doesn't she?

And I do agree... snark is always appropriate.

 
At 11:59 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

In good conscience, I feel it only right to exempt Mr Menace from the previous remark since he had the good taste to grant oglage and objectification privileges to the perfumed and petticoated masses.

A brave man. Or one with well-honed sense of humor :)

Now where's that durned camera...

 
At 10:04 AM, Blogger tee bee said...

In the grammar book I teach tech college comm from, you don't add an s for an apostrophe after an s, but the paper I write for does, following Chicago style. The mag I ran didn't, following the AP style.

I instruct my students that if they make a mistake, but make it consistently, most readers will overlook it, which is the most important thing in writing - not letting the form get in the way of the message.

 
At 6:32 AM, Blogger Cassandra said...

I never did either, tee bee. I think it's awkward and redundant, stylistically, plus it conflicts with the way you would read it aloud and that makes no sense.

 
At 7:27 AM, Blogger KJ said...

"it conflicts with the way you would read it aloud and that makes no sense"

It doesn't if you add a syllable. Plus, every resource I have says adding the s is correct. I refuse to be intentionally grammatically incorrect for the benefit of the expectations of the masses. Typing errors and sloppiness, on the other hand, are my signature.

 
At 12:51 PM, Blogger Cassandra said...

Pppppphhhhhttt. The Masses cannot be constrained by such arbitrary and capricious dicta. You and your superflous apostrophes may go hang, sir.

Good day.

 
At 2:08 PM, Anonymous Mrs. Tingle said...

While this whole debate is endlessly facinating, I would not let the entire lot of you write a thank you note for me.

 
At 3:29 PM, Blogger Cassandra said...

While this whole debate is endlessly facinating...

Well, I'll lend you my spell-check if you change your mind, dearie.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home