Friday, October 28, 2005

Laura Ingraham Responds (sort of)

I've been pretty clear here about my disappointment in the conservative pundits who attacked Harriet Miers so ferociously. Laura Ingraham has figured most prominently in my posts on that subject.

Yesterday I sent this e-mail to Laura, and now I have received a response:

Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005

Laura:

The following is typical of comments I am getting to my blog posts about your approach to Harriet Miers. I thought you should see it:

"Great letter Lowell, I'm feeling exactly the same way about Laura Ingraham, and about a lot of the other people I generally admire and listen to/read. On the day of Mier's withdrawal, Laura should at least have had the decency to remove all the mocking sound clips, even as she claimed to be in a no-gloat zone. She shared crocodile tears with Bork--who said it was sad Miers had been so savaged--he, who declared her 'unable to write, except in cliches.' It was grotesque. I remember the very day after the nomination, when I heard Ann Coulter say: 'you know, some of us actually went to top law schools.' I wanted to gag. I'll never look at some of these folks the same way again."

Posted by Paul S

This is the post Paul S was responding to:

http://hedgehogcentral.blogspot.com/2005/10/my-e-mail-to-laura-ingraham-today.html

Still love your show, still hate the way you dealt with Miers.

Lowell Brown
Los Angeles, CA
Laura's response (obviously written by one of her staff):


If you think that Laura did the wrong thing after reading her speeches, then you and we just have different understandings of what it means to be a judicial conservative. Laura was right from the beginning and I suppose that is what gets some angry. Anger does not change the facts. Her writing IS filled with cliches--quoting Barbra Streisand and lauding Ann Richards? QUoting Justice Ginsberg? "Two justice systems in America"? Get real--we dodged a bullet with this one. Judge Bork was exactly right.
This response would be a little more persuasive if the issue were what Laura did "after reading [Miers'] speeches." All Laura's indecent attacks on Miers occurred before those speeches even came out.

Oops.

Over the last two days Laura has been emphasizing the speeches (minor lunchtime addresses that do seem disturbing, but about which we know nothing, except what's written on the pages the Washington Post published). To hear Laura talk, those little talks justify everything she and all the others did to Miers. Fact is, the speeches had almost nothing to do with the previous three weeks of savaging Miers because no one had discovered them yet.

With rare exceptions, the attacks by the anti-Miers conservatives' were very poorly reasoned and manifestly unfair. These are smart, well-educated people (as they loved to remind us), so they definitely knew better. They are now scrambling to defend what was a neo-borking of the first order, and appear to be incapable of embarrassment or self-examination. Instead, Laura hides behind those speeches discovered at the last minute.

Even so, I am embarrassed for many of the neo-borkers. Some were responsible, but I'm afraid Laura pushed the envelope far too much for my sensibilities.

There has been no response from Laura to my longer, more focused e-mail, which I posted here. I find it interesting that she chose the e-mail above for a response. I'm still not holding my breath while I wait.

6 Comments:

Blogger George Berryman said...

If you think that Laura did the wrong thing after reading her speeches, then you and we just have different understandings of what it means to be a judicial conservative.  

Hey I wonder what their understanding of "screeching harpy" is cause I sure as heck know what it means to me!  

Posted by George Berryman

Friday, October 28, 2005 4:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Mary Ramsour said...

Early in the debate I wrote to Ms. Ingraham asking that she give Ms. Miers and Secy of State Rice the courtesy of referring to them by their titles, rather than their first names, a courtesy she has insisted upon when callers refer to Secy of Defense Rumsfeld and former Secy of State Powell by first names or nicknames. I pointed out that I thought referring to these two accomplished women as old Harriet and Condi was disrespectful. Her staff wrote me back a rude, all cap reply. They do not want to hear that anything they do may be wrong or offensive. Pretty adolescent. 

Posted by Mary Ramsour

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:40:00 PM  
Anonymous ode2joy said...

Dear Mr. Brown (aka Hedgehog),

Consider this a comment on your posts of these past few days. Thank you for all of them.

As someone who also lives in the Los Angeles area and daily feels outnumbered by liberals (who are also family, friends and co-workers), I get almost all my conservative morsels from blogs or talk-radio and I appreciate it greatly when someone seems to understand what I am feeling.

I was saddened and disappointed (not angry, as some have commented) by the the anti-Miers contingency of the blogosphere and talk radio (thank goodness for Hugh Hewitt and blogs like yours and Beldar's). I had the same reaction to Laura's show as you did (it just seemed "snarky" and disrespectful in its sentiment).

Just a couple of thoughts:

1. The "much ado about nothing" about the speeches Miers made. So many of us conservatives had at sometime or another been a democrat (I, at one time, loved to call myself a "bleeeding-heart liberal"). I can only imagine some of the things I used to say about issues that I am totally, conservatively committed to now.

2. People involved in this debate have brought up the issue of "elitism". I would prefer to use the term "prejudiced" as in "pre-judging". Because what I saw (IMHO) was a prejudice against those that did not go to an ivy league school or pursue a beltway career.

This is the point that most saddens me because it flys in the face of what our founding fathers saw as the greatness of the common man and his/her ability to govern themselves (and what I believe to be the most effective message the conservative movement can send to the people of this country and the world - we believe in you, you don't need government to care for you, you have a God-given ability to govern yourself). With all the talk of the constitution, I just kept thinking of James Madision and wondering what our contemporary pundits would have thought of him.

3. Lastly, what disappointed me most of all was what I saw as a disrespectful debate.

Maybe it's just me being surrounded by liberals on a daily basis (some of the people I love the most in this world are liberals, including my parents) but I have learned to deal with them with patience and most of all respect. I tend to believe that you attract more flies with honey.

In contrast, with the Miers debate, I saw a rush to judgement, a refusal to consider valid and opposing points of view, and an absolute need to be right. This need to be right seemed to trump everything else - even decency.

Maybe I am wrong and overly sensitive (forgive me, I am surrounded by liberals). But I can't help thinking that many others feel as I do.

Given the sentiment of blogs like yours and Hugh Hewitt's article (amongst others) it's a telling sign that I have not read anything resembling a "maybe we went a little overboard and sorry about that"
comment by any (that I have seen) in the Anti-Miers contingency.

Regardless, I will continue to support conservative talk shows, conservative blogs, and our President.

Thank you and your readers for the time and consideration.

May God bless America and our troops. Sincerely.
 

Posted by ode2joy

Friday, October 28, 2005 7:54:00 PM  
Blogger The Hedgehog said...

George: LOL!

Mary: I have had similar experiences with her. It's the only conservative talk show I have ever called that has rude screeners. Says something about the host, I think.

ode2joy: Thanks for your comments, they're very touching and much appreciated. I forwarded them on to Hugh Hewitt as well.

Lowell 

Posted by The Hedgehog

Friday, October 28, 2005 8:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Rob said...

Once again today we had Ms Ingraham pushing the
Miers-as-moron line along with George Will (even more obnoxious than usual) proclaiming that "excellence had won" with both continually trashing Miers saying she simply lacked the capability for such a position

As I've stated on BELDAR previously:

Simply by virtue of her combination law review experience at a strong regional school and co-managing partnership of a 400 lawyer firm (and a 600k salary a decade back), Ms Miers in Bell Curve terms probably would fall within the top 1% of the general population

Alternatively one might conclude she has a combination of incredible study habits, high EQ (emotional intlligence) skills, and a far higher work ethic than normal

Take your pick

Common sense tells us Ms Miers more than likely meets both criteria

Its been asserted that mere "Individuals in the top 5 percent of the adult IQ distribution (above IQ 125) can essentially train themselves."

One might claim that the SUP CT should be thought as a type of an ongoing MANHATTAN PROJECT where only blinding brilliance was acceptable when Robert Oppenheimer put together his core team of the free world's top theoretical physicists, lest the free world fail to win the race for the atomic bomb, and risk obliteration by the axis powers.

I don't believe consitutional law is in the nature of theoretical physics, despite what George Will may imply

As HEDGEHOG pointed out Ms Ingraham is now retroactively using the 1993/95 speeches to justify her appalling trashing of Ms Miers. A reasonable person would have wanted to know if those speeches were consistent with her views today after working with President Bush in some form for nearly 10 yrs, or mere boilerplate type bar assn speeches, or was she in part acting in effect as an advocate in her role as representative of the Texas Bar Association 

Posted by Rob

Friday, October 28, 2005 10:06:00 PM  
Anonymous Peggy said...

Lowell, I've much appreciated the blogs of those of you who maintained strict conservative values in the midst of the storm created by NROers and others over Miers. There was no "debate" from the latter group; it was attack, smear, misrepresent and excerpt-for-libel from the moment Miers' nomination was announced. It was everything that nauseates us about the liberals/Democrats and it came to fore instantly, full-blown and viciously.

Contrary to what the antiMiers' seem to believe, THEY were not who elected George Bush -- twice. If they don't feel "engaged" by the President, so what? We didn't elect them to make policy nor to choose Sup Ct nominees.

It is worse than ironic that people calling for "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court make that demand by demanding that the President cede to them a job charged to the President alone by the Constitution -- choose a nominee for the Supreme Court. Along with all the other liberal nastiness they've indulged, hypocrisy has to be added. 

Posted by Peggy

Saturday, October 29, 2005 5:06:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home