Yet there was an interesting -- well, dichotomy is probably too strong a word, but let's say difference in nuance between two of the Bushbloggers in the wake of the Harriet Miers nomination for Supreme Court. Mark Noonan's job is apparently to act as the grown-up of the bunch -- the Moe, if you will -- and while he can't resist the obligatory pseudo-analysis of how Bush is a god come to earth and Harry Reid can only prostrate himself in the blinding glow of Bush's genius, he does eventually manage to write something reasoned and worthwhile:
A Final Word to My Fellow Conservatives:
I know you wanted a fight - but you're wrong to want a fight. A fight is not what you want - what you want is to win. Sometimes, when the chips are really down, you have to fight...but this isn't one of them. We're going to get what we want and we'll get it - likely - without a fight.
The only thing we should be fighting is our armed enemies overseas...while we've deep and intractable differences with our fellow Americans on the left, they are not actually the enemy. They are misguided; they are at risk of falling into evil; they are, quite often, worse than fools...but they are not the enemy. We've got a real enemy - concentrate your fire on him, and spare the country endless political battle if you can.
Well, uh . . . thanks, Mark, sort of, I think. I promise to work on not "falling into evil" in the weeks and months ahead. But give him credit for recognizing that maybe, just maybe, some things in this country are more important than partisan gain and the relentless clutching for power at the expense of insert opponent here.
That revelation, however, appears to be beyond the grasp of Noonan's fellow blogger, Matt Margolis, the Curly of the bunch. (And not even really the Curly, more like the Curly Joe. No, the Shemp.) Apparently Mark and Matt don't talk much, because in the very next post after Noonan's, Margolis not only makes the mistake of not of deviating from the script that Miers is the absolute best most brilliant nominee that could ever have been named, he also contradicts all that nice for-the-good-of-the-nation stuff that Noonan was saying earlier:
. . . I believe most of us conservatives were hoping for a nominee that would have outraged Democrats, such as Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or Miguel Estrada. We wanted a fight. It is now a question of how much we conservatives trust Bush to make the right decision. When it comes down to it, I do trust him to make a good pick... The question I still need answered is whether or not she is the right pick.
Ahh, yes. In direct contradiction to Noonan, what conservatives like Margolis wanted first and foremost was not a good nominee but a fight. And the "right pick," in Matt Margolis's eyes, was not someone with judicial experience, not someone who would vow to protect the Constitution and/or individual rights, but someone who would outrage Democrats. 'Cause that's all that matters, see. But it turns out Harry Reid's actually cool with Miers, not outraged, and that makes Matty saaad. Awwww!
So anyway, hope you've enjoyed this fascinating little journey into the ever-widening crack that's starting to appear across the conservative psyche. Mr. Noonan, we don't agree with you, but we respect the fact that you do what you do and believe what you believe in the honest best interests of the country, and we hope one day you'll come to realize we libs aren't all as bad as you've made us out to be. As for Mr. Margolis . . . your mom's calling, and it's way past your bedtime. Grow up.