John Fund of the Wall Street Journal appeared on Hugh Hewitt's show last week and insisted that he does not oppose Harriet Miers, although he is appalled at the poor job of vetting the White House did. Yet judging by Mr. Fund's relentless efforts to portray Ms. Miers in the most negative light possible, one would be hard-pressed to call him anything but an ardent Miers opponent.
Fund's latest is this piece in the Wall Street Journal, which promises to become important in the upcoming confirmation hearings. The upshot is that during a conference call on October 3, two Texas judges told leading social conservatives that Harriet Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Like all of Mr. Fund's written work on Miers, the key portions here are based entirely on anonymous sources-- this time, notes from a telephone conference call by someone who is willing to reveal details of a private conversation, but without having the courage to say who he/she is.
Do you find such a source trustworthy? Don't you wonder about the motives of that person for releasing his/her notes to Mr. Fund, who has already established himself as an ardent Miers opponent? I do wonder, but evidently Mr. Fund does not. Or maybe he's more interested in an agenda - "borking" Ms. Miers-- than in a fair or balanced treatment of her nomination.
What about anonymous sources in such circumstances? Hugh Hewitt asked Mark Levin, another ardent Miers opponent, "should conservative critics of Miers eschew anonymous critiques of her?" Levin's response:
[I]f you look at what I said on Bench Memos, some people are writing on there, people who worked with her said this, people who worked with her said that. And I said, you know, if they don't have the guts to come forward and attach a name to a position, I'm not interested.
Unfortunately, Mr. Fund is interested.
Radioblogger comments on the impact of all this.