Thomas Sowell  and AT Editor Thomas Lifson were right.  The tidal wave of opposition from conservative opinion makers to the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination was wildly misdirected and too emotional in the extreme.  The conservative crackdown on GW over his less—than—ideal — in their eyes — nominee should have acknowledged the realities of a weak Senatorial Republican establishment and the necessity to quickly confirm a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. 

Sowell's latest column places the responsibility for postponing the Alito hearings right where it belongs: on the weak Senate Republican leadership.  One would expect that the same conservative columnists who so strongly objected to the Miers nomination, would now start journalistically whacking these Senate milquetoasts about the head and shoulders to get things moving on Judge Alito's confirmation — but one would be wrong.

For example, now that David Frum got the type of nominee he wanted, he waxed poetically about Italians in Pennsylvania being upset should the Senate mess with Alito's nomination, and then promptly took a leave of absence until next March; unless the Alito nomination runs into trouble.  I presume he'll then ride to the rescue to secure the nomination.

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter's vociferous opposition to Harriet Miers, while chastising AT's Editor for imagined poor grammar in his pro—Miers columns, is now reduced to writing scathing movie reviews about George Clooney's latest fantasy.  While absolutely spot on and really funny, it won't motivate the Senate Republican leadership a whit.

Stirring up a fight on the political playground, and then walking away is something we've come to expect from immature, leftist rabble—rousers; not from thoughtful, passionate conservatives.  Where are the President's right—leaning critics when we need them?

Doug Hanson  11—14—05