While most readers — so far — seem to agree with my “Disappointing” post, a number of Miers supporters offer a common objection. “We” — meaning critics of her selection — started the name-calling and motive-questioning when we went after Bush for cronyism or questioned Miers’ qualifications. I get the point, but it is a bit of a bait-and-switch. Speculating on motives of the president based on his concrete actions and the like may or may not be wrong, but it is what political commentators do. We do it just as much when we say nice things about the president “He’s a man of his word,” “he’s refusing to back down” etc. That’s part of the game. You try to do it in intellectually defensible ways, but “reading the mind of the president” is what punditry is about. Readers — let’s call them “loyalists” — who defend Bush are just as guilty of doing it as his critics. Similarly, criticizing Miers’ qualifications is not, of itself, name calling. It’s called a conclusion drawn after looking at the facts. Disagree with how it’s expressed or its merits all you like, but I see no obligation to automatically say Miers is qualified because to do otherwise could be construed as insulting.

Critiquing Bush’s cronyism usually comes with a lot of evidence, much of it implied, about Bush’s longstanding — and often admirable — loyalty to his staff and inner circle. This is something Bush’s friends as well as longtime observers have talked about for years. And, again, by a mere dictionary definition, Miers is a crony.

What I am objecting to is the argumentation used in the intra-conservative conversation about Miers. There’s no evidence that NR is anti-evangelical. There’s no evidence anywhere that any conservative’s principled objection to Miers is based on sexism (we would have done cartwheels for any one of several other women had been picked). Indeed, Kate’s made a very strong case that the real sexism lies in the insinuation that Miers won’t “grow” on the bench because she’s Bush’s loyal gal Friday. It seems to me you could argue that the loyalists are demonstrating their loyalty-above-all approach when they claim that criticism of the President is automatically an example of bad faith which in turn justifies them piling even more bad faith on top. Last I checked, Hugh Hewitt didn’t personally pick Harriet Miers. So why he or his fans should take it as a personal affront if I call her a crony is beyond me. And why that would justify the loyalist crowd in grabbing at any insult available to throw at fellow conservatives is also beyond me.

I’m not a purist when it comes to arguing about motives (nor, certainly, on name-calling). But using these tactics as a substitute for an argument is not the same thing as using them as part of an argument.