1 Hi All, I think that this recent backlash against Hugh is sort of strange. I heard his original talk-like-a-pirate day, and he hung up on people who would not give it a go! The guy admitted to piloting a snowmobile into a tree (pictures were available). Why was he not mentioned as being someone funny on the Right? This is not the sort of person who is a sycophant, or say a Mr. Factor with the embarrassing ego. Does anyone think that he is not a very smart and talented man? I think that he would destroy most of his critics in any debate. The Powerline lawyers did not side with Hugh who is also a lawyer in the Miers' debate (I tend to distrust lawyers generally, but I read many on the internet). If the point was that both sites contain very competent lawyers, then I would have to agree. My guess is that this is not what was meant. Lileks is in a totally different class. He predates everyone else listed as far as I know. I would not even presume that most of the conservative bloggers who are funny are Republican (I have always been an independent and have no desire to change as I am in one of the blue states). As for laughing and Michael Moore, are we laughing with him or at him? Mike

2 "I think that this recent backlash against Hugh is sort of strange." I don't. Hugh impugned the movtives of most of Miers' critics. He also made the following contradictory statements: 1) Con Law isn't that hard, so you don't need any judicial experience in it to understand 2) Most people probably don't understand the Con Law complexities of ::some case that I cannot remember exactly:: The final straw, though, was when Hugh posted in the NY Times after Miers withdrew her name, essentially blaming any and all future troubles of the Republican party, including but not limited to the 2008 presidential election, on conservatives who had the temerity to question the Miers' appointment. I believe that Allah made the following comment regarding Hugh over at Ace's place: "Fuck that guy." I disagree with the sentiment, as I believe that Hewitt is a staunch defender of things conservative. However, his tunnel vision, I'm-right-and-those-who-disagree-with-me-are-stupid-and-wrong, sanctimonious diatribes against people who usually side with him politically was pretty asshatted. Just my opinion, though. I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

3 Hi PG, I found the whole Miers' debate strange. I thought that the choice was also strange. Miers was not anyone's first pick (I sort of wonder if it was Bush's first pick either). I can't know the vagaries of such a crazy political process (a brilliant long-term "strategery" or just a total miscalculation). What bothered me was the immediate nasty response from many conservatives whom I admire. They did not know much of anything about Miers, but were adamant about what a dire choice it was. Maybe it was, but how could they know so soon with little research and study? It seemed like mostly hubris to me. They later came up with more solid arguments than we expected better, but it took them a while. I was undecided through the whole thing, but I tended towards the arguments of Hedgehog, Beldar, and Hugh. I think they were cool and collected compared to many on the other side. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The seeming incongruity about con-law statements by Hugh is easily explained I think (being trained in physics myself, I am only guessing--Hugh does tend to answer his e-mail, so you might try asking him). In the first statement which I recall him making on his radio show, he was referring to Supreme Court nominees (top lawyers--yes, even Miers). I do not know the context of your second supposedly contradictory statement by Hugh, but I suspect that he is talking about the general public. What might have been easy for Feynman is definitely not easy for most people (impossible in most cases--how is that for hubris? ). Mike P.S. I was a huge fan of Allah, but I do not know much about him at all. He stopped blogging before I got much of a handle on him. He was funny. If I wanted to hear drivel such as "Fuck...", I would check out the left side of the blogosphere. You characterize Hugh as writing sanctimonious diatribes, but after the withdrawal he had his movie guru come up with the top ten films about defeat. One man's diatribes are another's reasoned arguments. I thought that most people argued agreeably, but I thought your side generally got closer to crossing the line of civility. I know; you doubt it.