From the Telegraph.co.uk:

Tories must come to terms with the matriarch

The Lady is 80. Alan Clark, who coined that awestruck nickname, wrote of the "dose of Führerprinzip" that he got on looking into those blue eyes. And in a sense, the whole nation - admiring or appalled - has been transfixed by Margaret Thatcher. Even her sadly numerous enemies pay her an oblique compliment. Who hates Harold Wilson? Who, 15 years after his departure, will be able to summon the energy for animus towards Tony Blair?

But admiration must dominate. In the history of the Conservative Party - which, give or take, is the history of modern British politics - perhaps only its founder, Sir Robert Peel, held as great a sway over his era and succeeding generations. Where Disraeli and Churchill exerted the pull of romance and rhetoric, Peel and Thatcher had a more substantive legacy. They defined the debate that followed them, by starkly posing the choice between economic openness or restrictive practices, between the small state or protectionism.

In both Peel's and Thatcher's cases, the success of their doctrines, and the trauma of their overthrow, saw the Conservative Party out of power for the best part of a generation. The modern Tories have been struggling with the choice since 1990: the Michael Heseltine view - pro-European, soft-capitalist, socially liberal - or the Margaret Thatcher one? To resolve the dilemma, they chose John Major, who satisfied neither side, nor the country; and so we have New Labour.

It also stands bewitched by Lady Thatcher. One moment the Government swears to uphold 1980s trade union legislation, including the ban on secondary picketing; the next it accuses the Conservatives - as Tony Blair did on Wednesday - of having "never cared for more than a few people at the top". It decries the Tory record of NHS and schools reform, while attempting to introduce similar plans itself. It loads on taxes and multiplies spending, but attacks the French and Germans for their socialism.

Mr Blair may, if he chooses, outstrip Lady Thatcher's term as prime minister, by staying on until 2008. He would do well not to, for if he does the question will be asked, what have you done that bears comparison to the achievements of Lady Thatcher? She transformed the economy and the standing of the country abroad; he banned foxhunting and introduced us to the Asbo.

Let Labour shift for itself. If Peel and Thatcher are not to stand as bookends, enclosing between them the whole history of the party in its greatness, it is today's Tories who must come to terms with the matriarch, and the matricide.

Who does the Lady back for the Tory leadership? It is safe to assume that she does not support Kenneth Clarke. She may look with favour on David Davis or Liam Fox, both of whom pay due obeisance to her views on the economy and Europe. David Cameron, by contrast, made a speech earlier this year in which he implicitly repudiated her legacy, arguing that the party must "move on".

If there is anything the Tories need to move on from, it is acceptance of the caricature of Thatcherism. It is an article of faith to some that hers was a creed of grasping greediness; that when she said "there is no such thing as society", she actually meant to deny the value of human relationships or disparage moral responsibility among neighbours. In fact, she spoke frequently of the need for social renewal: she simply believed it would come not by the state arrogating more power to itself, but by empowering individuals to put their own houses - and communities - in order.

In an age of social breakdown and a swelling state, of ever-closer European integration and of international terror, we could do with a leader who showed the moral clarity, the strength of character and the power to command of Margaret Thatcher.

From Billboard:

Diamond Strips Down, Gets Personal On '12 Songs'
By Jonathan Cohen, N.Y.

Neil Diamond unveils some of the most stripped-down, heartfelt material of his storied career on "12 Songs," due Nov. 8 via Columbia. As previously reported, the project was produced by Rick Rubin, who encouraged Diamond to play guitar on one his own albums for the first time in nearly 30 years.

Of a piece with such vintage songs like "And the Grass Won't Pay No Mind," "I Am, I Said," "If I Never Knew Your Name" and "Juliet," the music here finds Diamond's instantly recognizable voice front and center, much in the vein of the "American Recordings" albums Rubin made with Johnny Cash in the latter years of his life.

With a nod to the melody of his 1976 song "Beautiful Noise," "Hell Yeah" finds Diamond questioning whether he's made the most of his life: "This crazy life around me / It confuses and confounds me / but it's all the life I've got until I die."

On "I'm on to You," the narrator struggles to end a so bad-it's good relationship: "Wrong to be staying so long / Was I out of my head? / Should have known it was dead but it's good." The jubilant "Delirious Love" revels in the early days of a romance, while on "Captain of a Shipwreck," Diamond pledges to stay by the side of a friend even "when life brings the day uncertain," offering to "soothe you with my song."

"12 Songs" features subtle backing by guitarist Smokey Hormel and Mike Campbell, keyboardists Billy Preston, Benmont Tench and Roger Manning Jr., guitarist/upright bassist Jonny Polonsky and percussionist Lenny Castro.

The digipak version of the album will feature the bonus track "Men Are So Easy" plus an alternate version of "Delirious Love" with a guest appearance by Brian Wilson.

Diamond is in the midst of a North American tour that hits Dallas tonight (Oct. 14).

Here is the track list for "12 Songs":
"Oh Mary"
"Hell Yeah"
"Captain of a Shipwreck"
"Evermore"
"Save Me a Saturday Night"
"Delirious Love"
"I'm on to You"
"What's It Gonna Be"
"Man of God"
"Create Me"
"Face Me"
"We"

Sexism' and the First Family
By Pat Buchanan

Asked on NBC's "Today" show if criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination might be rooted in sexism, first lady Laura Bush seemed to welcome the question.

"I think that's possible," she purred, describing Miers as "an extraordinarily accomplished woman" who had "broken the glass ceiling." Thus did Laura Bush associate herself with the stand of Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who has branded critics of Miers' meager credentials a pack of sexist males.

"I think that essentially that this hue and cry that she isn't qualified, there's a sexist basis to it," Smeal told The New York Times. "Does she have the mental capacity? Give me a break. Would they say that about a man? I don't think they would."

Sen. Barbara Mikulski also waded in: "I am shocked at the sexism ... coming out of the far right."

Ed Gillespie, the former RNC chair with the unenviable task of shepherding Miers through confirmation, told a gathering of conservatives last week his sensitive nostrils had also picked up a "whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism" among them.
What the first lady and Gillespie seek to accomplish by tarring critics of Miers' nomination sexist -- i.e., men bigoted against women -- thus impugning the motives and character of conservatives who have loyally supported President Bush, escapes me.

But if there is sexism in this nomination, it is transparently not the critics of Harriet Miers who are the guilty party.

Indeed, if one defines "sexism" as denying consideration for high office of all members of one gender, regardless of ability, or a conscious favoritism rooted in gender alone, it is President Bush and the first lady who are guilty of sexism in the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For we have it on the word of Dr. James Dobson that, in filling this decisive swing seat on the Supreme Court, President Bush, at the prodding of his wife, eliminated from consideration every male lawyer in the United States -- and more than 80 percent of all U.S. district and appellate court judges -- solely because of his gender.

Is this not deliberate discrimination on the basis of sex alone?

According to The Washington Post, Dobson, "after receiving permission from (Karl) Rove," revealed the contents of their now-famous conversation. Dobson, said the Post, claims "Rove told him Bush was focused on finding a woman for the court, which he said may have cut the list of candidates '80 percent.'"

Conservatives never asked Bush to eliminate women from consideration. But Bush unilaterally and arbitrarily eliminated men.

Who, then, is the sexist here?

Bush apparently narrowed even further the pool of nominees by eliminating Catholics and Jews. "People are interested to know why I picked Harrier Myers," AP writer Nedra Pickler quotes Bush as saying. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Now, there is nothing wrong about considering ethnicity, religion, geography or gender in a nominee. Every Democratic president since Wilson maintained a "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court. But Brandeis, Frankfurter and Fortas were all considered brilliant, and Clinton's choices, Ginsburg and Breyer, were never accused of lacking credentials.

LBJ appointed the first African-American, Marshall. Nixon in '68 pledged to appoint a Southern conservative. Reagan named the first woman, O'Connor, and the first Italian-American, Scalia.

The problem with Bush's selection process is this: He included so many extraneous disqualifiers that he eliminated all of the most qualified. In the hallowed name of "diversity," excellence was thrown out the window.

If anyone put into an IBM computer the name of every lawyer in the United States and then added the following qualifications -- the nominee must be a devout Christian, a woman and preferably "outside the monastery" of the federal bench, with no paper trail, who will not trigger a Senate fight or filibuster, and who George Bush has come to know and like -- the name of Harriet Miers will pop out every time.

In adding so many disqualifiers, Bush and the first lady lost sight of what should have been his first and supreme consideration: a justice cut from the same bolt of cloth as Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas, who had a formed judicial philosophy of strict construction of the Constitution, and the intelligence and capacity not only to argue that position, but to persuade other justices of its wisdom.

By hanging out a shingle reading "No Males Need Apply!" Bush has made the O'Connor seat the affirmative action seat for women on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Which raises a question: Will Justice Harriet Miers, a beneficiary of affirmative action, recuse herself when the issue of discrimination against men comes before the court?

DOES THIS LAW DEGREE MAKE MY RESUME LOOK FAT?
by Ann Coulter

October 12, 2005

A Supreme Court nomination may not have been the ideal time for Laura Bush to start acting like "Buy One, Get One Free" Hillary Clinton. At least President Clinton only allowed his wife to choose the attorney general. (Remember the good old days when first ladies only got to pick the poet laureate and the White House china pattern?)

Between cooking segments on the "Today" show this week, Laura rolled out the straw-man — sorry, "straw-person" — argument that the criticism of Miers was rooted in "sexism" (which is such a chick thing to say).

I'm a gyno-American, and I strenuously object.

The only sexism involved in the Miers nomination is the administration's claim that once they decided they wanted a woman, Miers was the best they could do. Let me just say, if the top male lawyer in the country is John Roberts and the top female lawyer is Harriet Miers, we may as well stop allowing girls to go to law school.

Ah, but perhaps you were unaware of Miers' many other accomplishments. Apparently she was THE FIRST WOMAN in Dallas to have a swimming pool in her back yard! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN with a safety deposit box at the Dallas National Bank! And she was THE FIRST WOMAN to wear pants at her law firm! It's simply amazing! And did you know she did all this while being a woman?

I don't know when Republicans became the party that condescends to women, but I am not at all happy about this development. This isn't the year 1880. And by the way, even in 1880, Miers would not have been the "most qualified" of all women lawyers in the U.S., of which there were 75.

By 1950, there were more than 6,000 women lawyers, three female partners at major law firms and three female federal judges. She may be a nut who belonged to a subversive organization, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg graduated first in her class from Columbia Law School — and that was before Harriet Miers was applying to law school.

Women have been graduating at the top of their classes at the best law schools for 50 years. Today, women make up about 45 percent of the students at the nation's top law schools (and more than 50 percent at all law schools).

Which brings us to the other enraging argument being made by the Bush administration and its few remaining defenders — the claim of "elitism." I also don't know when the Republican Party stopped being the party of merit and excellence and became the party of quotas and lying about test scores, but I don't like that development either.

The average LSAT score at SMU Law School is 155. The average LSAT at Harvard is 170. That's a difference of approximately 1 1/2 standard deviations, a differential IQ experts routinely refer to as "big-ass" or "humongous." Whatever else you think of them, the average Harvard Law School student is very smart. I gather I have just committed a hate crime by saying so.

Contrary to the Bush administration's disingenuous arguments, it's not simply that Miers did not attend a top law school that makes her unqualified for the Supreme Court. (But that's a good start!) It's that she did not go on to rack up any major accomplishments since then, either.

Despite the astonishing fact that Miers was THE FIRST WOMAN to head the Texas Bar Association — a dumping ground for losers, by the way — Miers has not had the sort of legal career that shouts out "Supreme Court material"! That is, unless you think any female who manages to pass the bar exam has achieved a feat of unparalleled brilliance for her gender.

There are more important things in life than being Supreme Court material, but — oddly enough — not when we're talking about an appointment to the Supreme Court. According to the Associated Press, Sen. Arlen Specter defended Miers on the grounds that "Miers' professional qualifications are excellent, but she lacks experience in constitutional law" — and Specter ought to know. This is like recommending a plumber by saying, "He's a very professional guy, but he lacks experience in plumbing."

The other straw-man argument constantly being hawked by the Bush administration is that Miers' critics object that she's never been a judge. To quote another Bush — Read my lips: No one has said that. So please stop comparing Miers to Justice Byron White (first in his class at Yale Law School) or Justice William Rehnquist (first in his class at Stanford Law School).

It's also not what The New York Times claims, which is that conservatives oppose Miers because they don't know how she will vote. We didn't know how Roberts would vote! As I recall, I was the only conservative complaining about that.

The problem with Miers is something entirely different — and entirely within the meaning of "advice and consent": Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious.

I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that.

With each day that passes, having Fredo Bush as President becomes of less worth to anyone who is an honest conservative, and not a Republican Party shill.

AND NOW: MINORITY CRONYISM!
By Michelle Malkin   

October 12, 2005

The Bush administration is responding to charges of cronyism in the bidding process by...expanding the pool of privileged cronies. The government-sponsored racial spoils system will now get a boost from Hurricane Katrina (via Breitbart/AP):

"This administration is reaching out to companies of all sizes, especially minority-owned enterprises, to guarantee that those seeking to join the rebuilding efforts can navigate federal agencies and bid for contracts with ease," said Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez.

"We're looking to improve to make participation stronger," Gutierrez said. He said that would include the setting of numerical targets for minority participation, although a specific number had not yet been set.

I've written before on the embrace of federally-funded racial bean-counting programs by the GOP. See, for example, "Racial Profiling for Dollar$" and this 1999 column on W.'s squishiness on the issue. (And here on Asian-Americans and the University of Michigan case.) We expect this from the quota-mongering Left.

Now, we are supposed to swallow unconstitutional "numerical targets" for minority business hurricane contracts from a Republican White House in the name of party unity?

This is what it means to be a conservative?

From Christianity Today Online:

Narnia: 'The Pressure Is Insane'

So says Walden Media President Micheal Flaherty, who's feeling the heat to get The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe exactly right. But Flaherty promises audiences a "fantastic, faithful adaptation."
by Mark Moring

In only four years of existence, Walden Media has shown it can turn great books into fine films: Holes (2003) and Because of Winn-Dixie (2005) are evidence enough. But Walden dropped the ball on Around the World in 80 Days (2004), a critical and box-office disaster. The difference? Holes and Winn-Dixie were faithful adaptations of the books, while 80 Days—little more than a slapstick farce starring Jackie Chan—was not.

The lessons learned, says Walden co-founder and president Micheal Flaherty, were simple: Be faithful to the story. Or, put another way, Don't screw it up.

Right now, the heat is really on Flaherty and Walden, the film studio producing The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, releasing December 9. Walden partnered with Disney to market and distribute the film, but Walden retained all creative control. So, if you like the movie, you can thank Walden. If you don't like it, you'll know exactly where to lay the blame.

Since Wardrobe—one of C. S. Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia—is among the most-loved books in evangelical circles, Flaherty, a Christian and Narnia fan himself, says the pressure to get it right is "insane." But Flaherty, 37 and the father of three young children, promises it will be a "fantastic, faithful adaptation."

I've heard that the Columbine High School shootings had an effect on your life and faith, and even played a part in the formation of Walden Media.

Micheal Flaherty: I was thoroughly depressed after Columbine, but I started to get encouraged when I read about how strong some of the young victims' faith was, particularly Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott. One thing I found interesting was that these kids loved films. Cassie's favorite movie was Braveheart, and I think Rachel's was as well. In contrast, the killers' favorite films were reportedly things like Natural Born Killers.

I decided I would like to find a way to make more great, inspiring films that can lift people up and encourage them, particularly for this age group. So I called my old roommate from college, Cary Granat, who at the time was president of Dimension Films. Cary also wanted to do something more inspirational for the family. So that was the origin of it, acknowledging that media really does have a role in influencing hearts and minds. And finding a way, rather than just to curse the darkness, to light a few candles and get more great films out there.

How would you describe what Walden Media does today?

Flaherty: We try to be a voice for parents, teachers, pastors, youth leaders, librarians—people who work actively with kids. We find out what stories really get these kids motivated to love reading. And from that we have a great list: Our first movie was Holes, and we just had Because of Winn-Dixie a few months ago.

Some people say Phil Anschutz is just the big-money guy at Walden. How would you describe his role?

Flaherty: He's intimately involved. Cary and I speak with him several times a week. When we first met with Phil [in 2000] and he decided he wanted to invest in the company, he was involved in everything from writing the mission statement to helping us identify properties. He asked us for ideas of books we would like to turn into films. We mentioned The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and [learned] that was really on Phil's heart. He really wanted to see that film get made.

Some Walden films, like Holes and Winn-Dixie, made good money. But Around the World in 80 Days and I Am David were financial disasters. Can Walden afford to take those hits?

Flaherty: We all went into this with our eyes wide open. The economics of Hollywood says if you're batting .200, if 2 out of 10 of these things are working, then you're hitting the batting average. We're happy with those films, but I think we learned some great lessons from them as well.

Like what?

Flaherty: 80 Days, for example, wasn't a completely faithful adaptation, as opposed to our other books. We took some liberties with the book. But I really just don't like talking about that one.

Well, then, what lessons did you learn from Winn-Dixie and Holes? What did you do right with those films?

Flaherty: We learned to listen to teachers, librarians and parents, because they know what stories really capture kids.

You said the Narnia conversations started in 2000. Where did it go from there? Did you just put it on the back burner?

Flaherty: No, it was definitely front burner. We needed to track down where the rights were, and that took up most of 2001—speaking with Douglas Gresham and the C. S. Lewis estate. Phil and Douglas had many great conversations, and I think Phil really won Douglas's trust and confidence that he would make a faithful adaptation.

Which couldn't have been easy, because they're pretty protective of Lewis's estate.

Flaherty: Very protective. And I'm grateful that Douglas gave us the chance, because when they were talking to us, we hadn't released a single film yet.

Why the partnership with Disney for The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?

Flaherty: Because the marketing and distribution of films is such an enormous undertaking. With this film, we have full creative control, while Disney is in control of the marketing and distribution. They're certainly proving that there was no better studio to take this and really create a great franchise with it. We couldn't be happier with the job that they've done.

But hiring the filmmakers and making all the big decisions is all Walden?

Flaherty: All Walden. And that was all in place before we closed any deal with Disney.

Many evangelicals boycotted Disney for a while. And Narnia is very dear to that audience, so there's some irony that Disney is involved. Was that discussed before you partnered with Disney?

Flaherty: What was discussed was that we just need to make a faithful adaptation of this book. That's our sole prerogative. We wanted a guarantee that we had control over that, and Disney really understood that. Everyone was on the same page in terms of making a faithful adaptation out of this.

So if people have gripes about the film adaptation, they should come to Walden, not Disney.

Flaherty: Absolutely. We're trying to build a brand for Walden as something that parents, pastors, teachers and librarians are really comfortable with. So if they see our logo on a movie poster, they'll know that they're going to get a certain experience. We hope that with Holes and Winn-Dixie, people are starting to get an idea.

What's your personal involvement in the film?

Flaherty: I was involved early in terms of the script development, until everyone was comfortable with it—and the key decision person there was Douglas Gresham in terms of the final certification about it being faithful.

I read somewhere that nobody affiliated with this movie is allowed to spit without Douglas Gresham's permission. Is that an accurate description of his creative control on this film?

Flaherty: That quote is sort of a mischaracterization of how it works, because it's such a great collaboration between everybody. I don't think anyone lords approvals over anybody else. I think whoever said that, what they were trying to say was that nobody wants to move forward with this if Douglas doesn't feel comfortable with it.

Do you think he feels a lot of pressure of being the conscience of C. S. Lewis, of actually representing him in this process?

Flaherty: What's awesome about the production is that everybody feels that pressure. Everybody knows this is a monumental responsibility. Everyone knows that that book is a little lower than angels, and that we have to be as close to perfect as humanly possible. That's where we raised the bar to.

Another Walden film, Charlotte's Web, is coming out next year. The director said that when people hear it's going to be made into a movie, they typically say, "Wow, that's great." But their second reaction is, "Don't screw it up." If they're saying that about Charlotte's Web, how much louder is the "don't-screw-it-up" voice for Narnia?

Flaherty: Oh, it's amplified, particularly from teachers and librarians and parents. They really rightly feel ownership over the property. So you don't want to disappoint those people on so many different levels, artistically, business-wise. It just doesn't make any sense.

But does that feel just a whole lot bigger here?

Flaherty: Without a doubt.


As Lucy peers into the wardrobe, Christians worldwide will be peering
at this film, with the
highest of expectations

Because it's not just librarians and parents, it's this whole subculture.

Flaherty: It's my pastor. Do you know what I mean? It's every accountability partner I have. I mean it's … Yes, the pressure is insane.

When I heard they were making The Lord of the Rings into movies, I remember thinking, Don't screw it up. But I also decided that if I got hung up on every jot and tittle, every single line of dialogue, I wouldn't be giving myself a chance to enjoy the films. Once I got over that, well, I absolutely love those movies; Peter Jackson got the big things right. Do people need to approach Narnia the same way? Should we insist on every single detail just as Lewis wrote it, or should we mainly be concerned that you got the big things right?

Flaherty: I think it's the latter. But at the same time, with it not sounding like a cop-out, it's just two different mediums—books and film. There's no other way around it. Holes and Winn-Dixie are incredibly faithful adaptations, but there's still things you need to do to bring the story to life. Ditto with Narnia. We didn't lift dialogue 100 percent from the book and put it into the script. But I'm confident in saying that people should have properly high expectations that this will be the faithful adaptation they had hoped and prayed for.

Probably the biggest concern for Christians is that Aslan isn't dumbed down to just an awe-inspiring lion, but that he remains an apparent Christ figure.

Flaherty: I think that's evident to some people in the book, and it's not evident to others. If it's evident to you in the book, it's going to be evident to you in the film. I think that's the officially sanctioned diplomatic answer! (laughs)

What did you learn from Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings films that you might apply to the Narnia franchise?

Flaherty: The biggest thing we learned from Peter was the importance of a visionary director who had an insane love for the property. So that's what we got with [Narnia director] Andrew Adamson, who consumed all seven of these books and read them millions of times. And for decades, he has been envisioning and dreaming of how he would bring those to the screen.

What are you most excited about when it comes to the release of this film, and what are you most nervous about?

Flaherty: What I'm most excited about is already happening: Last week, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe was No. 1 on The New York Times bestseller list. And Holes and Winn-Dixie actually went to No. 1 on the bestseller list too. Walden's whole purpose is to lead people back to the book and to get them not only to love that book, but to develop a general love for literature.

In terms of what I'm most anxious about, I guess I'm just trying to follow Paul's advice in Philippians 4, which was to be anxious about nothing and pray about everything.

Do you think I'm going to let you get away with that answer? (laughs) Seriously, are you nervous about box office numbers? Anything?

Flaherty: Now that we know we're going to deliver this fantastic, faithful adaptation, I think we've all accepted the fact that after that, things that are out of our control. Disney's run a perfect marketing campaign. Andrew has delivered what we think is a perfect film. After that, there's not much more that we can do.

FromThe Boston Globe:

'Narnia' books getting a boost from film
By David Mehegan

October 5, 2005

Hollywood has been turning best-selling novels into movies for decades, as far back as ''Gone With the Wind." But publishers have usually had nothing to do with it. They watched and hoped the movie would drive up sales of the book. Sometimes it did, but just as often it didn't.

That whole disconnect is disappearing. The best new example is the Dec. 9 release of the movie ''The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," based on the C.S. Lewis children's classic. Far from sitting back and watching, publisher HarperCollins is working closely with filmmaker Walden Media, unleashing a massive worldwide marketing drive for the books, timed to coincide with the film -- and not only for ''The Chronicles of Narnia," but most of Lewis's other books as well.

''This is a giant blockbuster for us," said Susan Katz, president and publisher of HarperCollins Children's Books. '' 'The Chronicles of Narnia' was already important and big for us, but now with the movie, it's taking on a new life of its own. We have 25 movie tie-in editions -- it's a huge event."

The movie is produced by Walden Media and Disney Pictures. Directed by Andrew Adamson and starring Tilda Swinton and the voices of Rupert Everett and Liam Neeson, it tells of four English children, sent to live in an old professor's country house during the bombing raids of World War II, who stumble through the back of a bedroom wardrobe into the fantasy land of Narnia. It's a world of winter, populated with dwarves, a faun, talking beavers, an evil witch, and the heroic lion Aslan. The forces of evil, led by the witch, are attacked by Aslan with the four children as allies. There are seven books in the series.

Sales of ''The Chronicles of Narnia" have been rising since last spring, when the movie trailer of ''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" was released. The box set is No. 2 on The New York Times children's bestseller list. ''We've been happily surprised by how strong sales of 'Narnia' [books] have been," said Joe Monti, children's buyer for Barnes & Noble. But it's not only Lewis's children's books, Monti said: ''It's also [his] nonfiction. It's surpassed our expectation at every stage."

HarperCollins, the publishing arm of the Rupert Murdoch media empire, is pumping out 170 C.S. Lewis-related book titles in more than 60 countries -- 140 related to ''The Chronicles of Narnia." The number represents a vast variety of editions and companion volumes. Lewis's own books are only the beginning. Besides various editions of ''The Chronicles of Narnia," there's a six-volume box set of Lewis's mostly Christian books for adults, including ''Mere Christianity," ''The Screwtape Letters," ''Miracles," and ''The Problem of Pain." There's also a new adult biography titled ''The Narnian: The Life and Imagination of C.S. Lewis," by Lewis scholar Alan Jacobs.

Then there are the extras. To mention a few: ''A Year With C.S. Lewis: Daily Readings From His Classic Works"; ''Mere Christianity Journal," a faux-leather-bound study guide with excerpts and blank pages for reader reflections; ''Beyond the Wardrobe: The Official Guide to Narnia"; and ''Companion to Narnia," an alphabetized reference book to the world of the ''Narnia" books. And there are not one but two glossy photo books about the making of the movie.

''We're talking millions of books," said Mary McAveney, director of hard-cover marketing for HarperCollins Children's Books.

HarperCollins and Walden Media have been working closely together on the project, sharing artwork and promotional plans and coordinating timing. ''The more they are able to get people to read the books," said Cary Granat, chief executive officer of Walden Media, ''the bigger the base to grow the film. As more people want to see the film and read the books, it will extend the franchise. It's a cultural phenomenon that needs to be managed at all levels."

They're also working together on the movie of E.B. White's children's book ''Charlotte's Web," with the voices of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Roberts, due to release next year. Well before the film appears, expect new editions of the book and various add-ons to appear, packaged with artwork and photography from, and promotion of, the film.

Widespread appeal

However well planned, it's doubtful such a sprawling program could work with anyone but Clive Staples Lewis (1898-1963), who published more than 100 books. An Oxford don and medievalist, his uniquely diverse output makes him, if such a thing is possible, a potentially bigger literary phenomenon than his Oxford friend and colleague, J.R.R. Tolkien, author of the ''Lord of the Rings" trilogy. Unlike Tolkien, Lewis wrote for a wider range of readers, both children and adults, including a science fiction trilogy and an agonized memoir of the death of his wife, ''A Grief Observed." (That love story has already been made into a movie, 1993's ''Shadowlands," with Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger.)

Lewis's Christian writing makes him uniquely marketable. In addition to general booksellers like Barnes & Noble, national Christian book chains such as Parable Christian Stores and Family Christian Stores are also heavily promoting the movie tie-in editions of ''The Chronicles of Narnia." The ''Narnia" books are a Christian allegory, but not so overt that most kids would notice or that non-Christian parents would mind. Children can enjoy the story just for the drama and fantasy.

Fortunately for HarperCollins, Lewis was not a sectarian, cleric, or theologian, therefore not readily identifiable with any particular Christian group. ''He is incredibly widely accepted," said Mark Tauber, deputy publisher of HarperSanFrancisco. ''Catholics like him, and evangelicals, and even the Mormons use 'Mere Christianity' in their Sunday school. He's probably the most important Christian writer in English of the 20th century."

''The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is not the first coordinated publisher/filmmaker effort. Boston-based Houghton Mifflin -- US publisher of J.R.R. Tolkien -- worked closely with New Line Cinema on the three blockbuster movies based on ''The Lord of the Rings" cycle. Houghton began to see a huge bump in sales as soon as the first movie trailer was released in 2001.

''A great movie can have a phenomenal impact," said Bridget Marmion, director of marketing for Houghton Mifflin's trade and reference division. ''Tolkien's books have sold about 80 million copies, going back to 'The Hobbit' in 1938. About 25 million of those were sold between 2001 and 2003, when the three movies were released."

Of course, no one knows how big C.S. Lewis book sales will be, but if the Tolkien explosion is any indication, it may be hard to overestimate. ''I don't think you can point to anything else that comes close to this," said Granat. ''There will be other Harry Potter books, but nothing comes close to the hundreds of millions of 'Narnia' books that have sold worldwide" since the books were published.

''This may be the last classic fantasy fiction for kids that hasn't been done by Hollywood," said Tauber. ''Lewis has never really been replaced."

From Opinion Journal:

Miers Remorse
Conservatives are right to be skeptical.
By John Fund

Monday, October 10, 2005
.
I have changed my mind about Harriet Miers. Last Thursday, I wrote in OpinionJournal's Political Diary that "while skepticism of Ms. Miers is justified, the time is fast approaching when such expressions should be muted until the Senate hearings begin. At that point, Ms. Miers will finally be able to speak for herself."

But that was before I interviewed more than a dozen of her friends and colleagues along with political players in Texas. I came away convinced that questions about Ms. Miers should be raised now--and loudly--because she has spent her entire life avoiding giving a clear picture of herself. "She is unrevealing to the point that it's an obsession," says one of her close colleagues at her law firm.

White House aides who have worked with her for five years report she zealously advocated the president's views, but never gave any hint of her own. Indeed, when the Dallas Morning News once asked Ms. Miers to finish the sentence, "Behind my back, people say . . .," she responded, ". . . they can't figure me out."

Conservatives shouldn't care about her personal views on issues if they can convince themselves that she agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts's view of a judge's role: that cases should be decided the way an umpire calls balls and strikes, without rooting for either team. But the evidence of Ms. Miers's views on jurisprudence resemble a beach on which someone has walked without leaving any footprints: no court opinions, no law review articles, and no internal memos that President Bush is going to share with the Senate.

It is traditional for nominees to remain silent until their confirmation hearings. But previous nominees, while unable to speak for themselves, have been able to deploy an array of people to speak persuasively on their behalf. In this case, the White House spin team has been pathetic, dismissing much of the criticism of Ms. Miers as "elitism" or even echoing Democratic senators who view it as "sexist." But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. "In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty," he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. "If Harriet Miers didn't rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she." That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible .

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter says he has no doubt Ms. Miers is taking "a crash course" in constitutional law. She will be primed with talking points and her compelling success story when the hearings begin. The presumption that she should be confirmed will weigh heavily on Republican senators who will be constantly reminded that the president has made dozens of good judicial picks for lower courts.

But that ignores the fact that every Republican president over the past half century has stumbled when it comes to naming nominees to the high court. Consider the record:

After leaving office, Dwight Eisenhower was asked by a reporter if he had made any mistakes as president. "Two," Ike replied. "They are both on the Supreme Court." He referred to Earl Warren and William Brennan, both of whom became liberal icons.

Richard Nixon personally assured conservatives that Harry Blackmun would vote the same way as his childhood friend, Warren Burger. Within four years, Justice Blackmun had spun Roe v. Wade out of whole constitutional cloth. Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe, and made clear he didn't even understand what the court was deciding: "Plainly," he wrote, "the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand."

Gerald Ford personally told members of his staff that John Paul Stevens was "a good Republican, and would vote like one." Justice Stevens has since become the leader of the court's liberal wing.

An upcoming biography of Sandra Day O'Connor by Supreme Court reporter Joan Biskupic includes correspondence from Ronald Reagan to conservative senators concerned about her scant paper trail. The message was, in effect: Trust me. She's a traditional conservative. From Roe v. Wade to racial preferences, she has proved not to be. Similarly, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation recalls the hard sell the Reagan White House made on behalf of Anthony Kennedy in 1987, after the Senate rejected Robert Bork. "They even put his priest on the phone with us to assure us he was solid on everything," Mr. Weyrich recalls. From term limits to abortion to the juvenile death penalty to the overturning of a state referendum on gay rights, Justice Kennedy has often disappointed conservatives.

Most famously, White House chief of staff John Sununu told Pat McGuigan, an aide to Mr. Weyrich, that the appointment of David Souter in 1990 would please conservatives. "This is a home run, and the ball is still ascending. In fact, it's just about to leave earth orbit," he told Mr. McGuigan. At the press conference announcing the appointment, the elder President Bush asserted five times that Justice Souter was "committed to interpreting, not making the law." The rest is history.

Harriet Miers is unquestionably a fine lawyer and a woman of great character. But her record on constitutional issues is nil, and it is therefore understandable that conservatives, having been burned at least seven times in the past 50 years, would be hesitant about supporting her nomination.

The scantiness of her philosophical record has led reporters to focus on the two years of her career where she had to take stands: her one term as a member of the Dallas City Council during 1990 and 1991. There she established a record as an advocate of good government, increased funding for the arts, and building a light-rail system. Her one moment of high drama came when she quieted an angry crowd alleging police brutality. She apologized to the protesters on behalf of the city and called the behavior of the officers "unprovoked and inexcusable."

Reactions to her from her former colleagues were mixed. Craig McDaniel, a liberal council member, praises her ability to get along with diverse groups of people and tells the Dallas Voice, a gay newspaper, "This is as good as we would ever get out of a Republican administration." Jerry Bartos, a conservative council colleague, rated her effectiveness at "zero" and called her "the consummate loner." But Sharon Boyd, a longtime friend and GOP activist, says many conservatives resented her solely because she had remained a Democrat until 1988. Ms. Boyd calls Ms. Miers's record on the council "very conservative." Yet when pressed for examples, she could only offer Ms. Miers's opposition to civil unions for gays and support for a constitutional amendment against flag burning.

On other issues, Ms. Miers's record is one of initially supporting a conservative position and then abandoning it. She started out backing a plan to redistrict the City Council that had received the endorsement of two-thirds of Dallas voters in a 1989 referendum. When it appeared that plan would lose a court case on account of its alleged effect on minority representation, she backed a plan for single-member districts supported by liberals. "I formally debated her on the issue," recalls Tom Pauken, a former chairman of the Texas Republican Party. "She was a liberal then. I don't know about today, but in the last week all the liberals who've been on the council have been singing her praises."

Similarly, Ms. Miers was originally part of a council majority that urged Congress to repeal the Wright Amendment, a law that restricts flights from Dallas Love Field. Southwest Airlines and free-market advocates had long attacked the restriction as favoritism toward American Airlines, which has a hub at Dallas-Fort Worth International. Ms. Miers reversed her position after 10 months and sponsored a resolution in favor of the Wright Amendment. She called her move "a triumph of reason over rhetoric" and cited two studies that claimed flying more planes out of Love would lead to traffic congestion. Most aviation experts dispute that conclusion.

Finally, a 1990 budget crunch forced the Dallas City Council to consider a property tax increase--its third in four years. Ms. Miers initially resisted the tax increase, then came around to the view that a property tax hike would be the fairest. The key vote came when the council voted 6-5 to add $900,000 to the budget proposed by the city manager as part of a 7% increase in the tax rate. Ms. Miers cast the deciding vote. Mr. Bartos, who had proposed an alternate plan for 5% across-the-board spending cuts on all departments except the police, was bitter that almost all of the proposed $900,000 budget increase was slated for library and arts funding rather than public safety.

Some of the complaints about Harriet Miers are more flashy than substantive. While she contributed to the campaigns of Sens. Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, they were universally viewed as moderate Democrats at the time. Her contribution to the Democratic National Committee that same year could easily have been at the behest of a senior partner, a frequent occurrence at law firms.

What is clear is that her association with George W. Bush has affected her worldview. Accompanied by her longtime friend Nathan Hecht, she first met Mr. Bush at a dinner in Austin in January 1989. Mr. Bush's father was about to become president, Justice Hecht was just beginning his first term on the Texas Supreme Court, and Ms. Miers had just been elected to the City Council. Justice Hecht recalls that they both spent an hour socializing with George and Laura Bush at the dinner. They kept in touch after that, and Mr. Miers continued her meteoric rise to become the first female president of the Texas Bar Association. In 1994 Mr. Bush, running for governor, appointed her his campaign counsel. Jim Francis, the campaign chairman, recalls telling Mr. Bush, "Look, we need to have a campaign general counsel. We're running against a popular female governor. We need a woman." As has happened often in her life, Ms. Miers' has joined her talent with luck at just the right moment for advancement.

Over and over, people who know Harriet Miers praise her intelligence, her ability to work with people, and her good heart. "She never gossips, she never has a harsh word for anyone," says Merrie Spaeth, a friend of 20 years who was director of media relations in the Reagan White House. Dan Branch, a Texas state representative, says, "She'd make a great poker partner. S he forces you to reveal your hand while she gives up nothing."

After giving her effusive praise, her friends are a little nonplussed when asked if she is a conservative. "She is a person of great integrity," says Ms. Spaeth. "I have never had a political conversation with her." While many of the Bush judicial nominees she has helped shepherd to confirmation are affiliated with the Federalist Society, Ms. Miers herself has been ambivalent about the influential conservative legal group. In 1990, she almost anticipated how much of a lightning rod the group would become to the left. She testified in a court case that she would not join the society because "it's better not to be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you."

The White House professes to be sanguine about Ms. Miers's reliability, while at the same time expressing irritation with conservatives who won't fall into line. Time magazine quotes a Bush adviser as saying that the "driving force" behind Ms. Miers's appointment was White House chief of staff Andy Card, not Karl Rove. "This is something that Andy and the president cooked up," the adviser told Time. "Andy knew it would appeal to the president because he loves appointing his own people and being supersecret and stealthy about it." Despite his lack of hands-on involvement, Mr. Rove has stoutly defended the Miers pick to allies as a brilliant "Trojan horse"--a conservative nominee who will avoid any possible Democratic filibuster.

David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, who describes Ms. Miers's role in the White House as largely that of a "bureaucrat who couldn't see the forest for the trees," nonetheless believes that Team Bush is right--but only for a while. He believes she will be remain a conservative justice at least until Mr. Bush leaves office in early 2009. "But then the Bushies will have gone home, and she will develop new friends, and then the inevitable tug to the left may prove irresistible."

A friend of both Mr. Bush and Ms. Miers disagrees. He notes that for eight years Justice O'Connor remained largely true to Ronald Reagan's judicial views, even though she had no personal ties to him. "I think Harriet has morphed her views into those of the president," he told me. "I think she will be pretty much the same justice she starts out being for 10 or 15 years. And she is now 60."

Indeed, in many ways, Ms. Miers resembles the early Sandra Day O'Connor, another elected official who backed some liberal positions during her time in the Arizona Legislature. As Justice O'Connor began drifting to the center she became the crucial swing vote on a host of cases. Legal scholars began referring to the "O'Connor Court." Now, with Ms. Miers slated to take the O'Connor seat it may become the "Miers Court."

"This is the most closely divided court in history," says Jay Sekulow , a conservative legal activist who backs Ms. Miers. "Everybody knows what is at stake here." With such high stakes, it should disappoint everyone that the Senate will now have to debate the confirmation of a nominee who, when it comes to Constitutional law, resembles a secret agent more than a scholar.

Why Did Bush Do It?
By Patrick J. Buchanan

“Sometimes, party loyalty asks too much,” said JFK.

In asking conservatives to support Harriet Miers, prior to full Judiciary Committee hearings, George W. Bush asks too much.

Trust me, Bush is saying. Trust but verify, they should reply.

For as of today, there is no evidence Harriet Miers possesses the judicial philosophy, strength of intellect, firmness of conviction or deep understanding of the gravity of the matters on which her vote would be decisive to be confirmed as associate justice of the Supreme Court.

If she does not exhibit these qualities in testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Harriet Miers should be rejected. That she is a woman, a good lawyer, a trusted friend of the Bush family, and a born-again Republican and evangelical Christian is not enough. That Dr. James Dobson has been secretly assured by Karl Rove she is pro-life is not enough.

After all, we have a president who professes to be “pro-life,” yet cannot bring himself to say that Roe v. Wade was an abomination he hopes will go the way of Dred Scott.

Because of the immense damage the Supreme Court has done to our society over 50 years, seizing upon and dictating on issues beyond its constitutional province, imposing a social revolution from above, tearing our country apart over race, religion and morality, conservatives cannot take any more risks. We are too close, now, to the promised land.

After Nixon named Blackmun, Ford named Stevens, Reagan gave us the malleable O’Connor and Tony Kennedy, and Bush’s father gave us that textbook turncoat Souter, presidential assurances are not enough. We must hear from Harriet Miers herself of her judicial philosophy and views of what the court has done and should do.

Why did Bush do it? Is he unaware of the history or savagery of this struggle? Does he not understand the cruciality of this one court appointment to conservatives who vaulted him to the nomination over John McCain and gave him the presidency twice? Does he not care?

Since the Goldwater and Nixon campaigns of the 1960s, a great philosophical struggle over the Supreme Court has been waged. In that 40-year war, jurists like Clement Haynesworth and Robert Bork have been pilloried, smeared and rejected by a liberal Senate that realizes the stakes.

Others, like Clarence Thomas, have survived brutal scourging. Brilliant young lawyers and aspiring judges like Miguel Estrada have even been denied a vote for the appellate court because of liberal fears they may have the stuff of another Scalia.

Yet now we are told by the White House that Harriet Miers is an ideal candidate because she “has no paper trial.” But what does that mean, other than that Miers has never declared herself with courage and conviction on any of the great issues from 1965 to 2005?

This is now a qualification for the U.S. Supreme Court? To have been AWOL in the great social and moral conflicts of her time? This is like saying the ideal candidate to sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff is an officer who has never seen combat or suffered a wound.

There are today third-generation conservatives who have bravely defended their beliefs in hostile law schools, clerked for Supreme Court justices, paid their dues in the White House or the Department of Justice, joined the Federalist Society, and advanced by excellence and merit to federal judgeships. The message of the Miers appointment to this generation is: You made a mistake. You left a “paper trail.” Is this the message we want to send to the next generation: Don’t let anybody know where you stand on gay rights, affirmative action or Roe v. Wade?

Is this what conservatism has come to? By the standard of “no paper trail,” we would never have nominated Scalia or Bork, or elected Ronald Reagan, who with his thousands of radio and TV commentaries had the longest paper trail in American history.

In claiming Miers is the most qualified person he knows to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor, President Bush tells us more about himself than her. If she is truly that qualified, why did he hide this extraordinary talent in the paper-shuffling job of White House staff secretary? Why was she not named his first White House counsel, instead of Alberto Gonzales? Why was she not nominated to the U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia to give her judicial experience? If she is that good, why did Bush pass her over for John Roberts?

Twenty-four hours after he picked his personal lawyer for the Supreme Court, George Bush was in the Rose Garden trying to put out the firestorm he had ignited in his own base camp. How’s that for political brilliance?

His aides are now demanding that Republican senators and conservatives rally around their president. They should not. They should tell the president, respectfully, that though he went with Harry Reid, they will stay with their convictions.

It’s stand-up time again, as in the days of old.

From washingtonpost.com: An excellent summary of the Mier's controversy by Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters.

How Harriet Unleashed a Storm on the Right
By Edward Morrissey

Sunday, October 9, 2005

Well, he's finally done it. By nominating White House lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, George Bush has managed to accomplish what Al Gore, John Kerry, Tom Daschle and any number of Democratic heavyweights have been unable to do: He has cracked the Republican monolith. Split his own party activists. And how.

The president's surprise pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor has ignited a massive debate among his former loyalists, especially in the blogosphere, where I spend a fair amount of time. Wails of betrayal are clashing with assurances of the president's brilliant strategic thinking. Meanwhile, the heavyweights of punditry drop columns like artillery shells into what already may be a conservative civil war.

The question on so many minds on the right is: What in Bork's name was Bush thinking?

You have to understand. Conservatives have dreamed for decades of reversing what we see as the court's hijacking of legislative prerogative to advance a liberal agenda. It's what fueled the drive to develop new voters for the GOP and push for a majority in Congress. And finally the political stars have aligned -- giving us a Republican White House, a solidly Republican Senate, and a Republican House to boot.

Bush himself ran on the promise that his election would guarantee Supreme Court nominations in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. But when he finally got an opening on the court -- whom did he pick? An unknown quantity named John Roberts. After an initial round of puzzlement over this selection, conservatives backed the nomination, even though Roberts never gave any solid indication of whether he agreed with the philosophy of judicial restraint.

It helped that we expected a second opening, which came all too quickly with Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death. But now Bush has presented us with even more of a cipher, one with no demonstrable constitutional scholarship or judicial record, and whose best qualification appears to be proximity to him. The White House hasn't publicly used Miers's evangelical religion as an argument for her conservative credentials, but her supporters haven't shown any qualms about proclaiming it a deciding factor. But since when did that represent conservatism?

The selection of Miers does represent one of Bush's core values: his loyalty to his inner circle of aides. Conservatives normally see that as a big plus, but it has its drawbacks. And Miers isn't the first possible candidate for the court to raise conservative blood pressure. Some on the right have speculated that Bush picked Miers as a payback for the trashing Alberto Gonzales has taken from the right wing since O'Connor first announced her retirement. It's no secret that Bush would like to leave office with his longtime friend and ally on the Supreme Court as the first Hispanic justice. But conservatives made it clear that they regard Gonzales as a potential David Souter, a moderate who would bend to the left the way the notorious Bush 41 nominee did almost as soon as his hand left the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony.

Most conservatives feel betrayed after working so hard to get enough Republicans elected to confirm almost any nominee. That's why heavyhitters like Paul Weyrich, Grover Norquist and others confronted the president's men about the nomination at the White House last week. Some, however, think the president's move demonstrates a hidden brilliance that may take a decade or more to yield fruit. And then there are those who think the president made a mistake, but that any attempt at correction will only compound the damage.

All you have to do is look at the blogosphere of the right to grasp the magnitude of the bomb the president has dropped. The cyberspace crowd of activists divides up into three basic camps, starting with:

The Loyalist Army. Those supporting the Miers nomination, while definitely in the minority, are betting that their high opinion of George Bush and his talent for selecting judges is still justified. Chief among the Loyalists is radio talk-show host and blogger Hugh Hewitt. A former White House attorney and constitutional law professor, Hewitt has a broad following and a reputation for good-humored but devastating debating skills. Many bloggers on the right owe much of their success to his support -- including me.

Hewitt asks people to trust Bush and provides links to just about everyone with a kind word to contribute on behalf of Miers as well. He started his campaign to combat right-wing unhappiness early on the first day of the nomination, reminding people that Miers helped Bush develop many of the legal theories the administration has used to fight terrorism at home and abroad. And he challenged conservatives to remember that they trusted Bush on other judicial nominees.

He quickly linked to a number of like-minded bloggers and writers, but with a couple of exceptions, these tend to be evangelicals -- Marvin Olasky, James Dobson and Jay Sekulow, to name a few. Conservative Catholic blogger The Anchoress doesn't get a link but mostly sides with Hewitt. As more conservatives plainly did not back Bush, Hewitt started warning about "the big sulk" and hardened his rhetoric against the opposition.

Unfortunately, the Loyalists get outnumbered pretty quickly by:

The Rebel Alliance. The bloggers who join rightist icons such as Ann Coulter, Pat Buchanan, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol in opposing Miers's nomination refuse to trust Bush. Many already felt betrayed by this president on a number of issues, including his lack of initiative in securing the Southern border against illegal immigration and his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance bill even after he noted its lack of constitutional merit. These rebels don't have a plan for taking over the galaxy, but they would like to stop what they see as another Bush foul-up before it winds up like the last few "trust me" Republican Supreme Court nominees, a string starting with John Paul Stevens and ending with Souter.

While the Loyalist Army comes under the command of mostly one man, the Rebel Alliance has several nexuses in the blogosphere. Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, The Corner at National Review Online, RedState.org and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge all want to see Harriet Miers either withdrawn or defeated. Malkin has provided lots of rhetorical flourish; addressing the notion that Miers should be confirmed because of the doors she opened for women in the legal world, Malkin remarked that conservatives want established scholars on the bench, not "bellhops."

Even with its superior numbers, the Rebel Alliance has its work cut out for it. Anyone expecting George Bush to back away from a fight or to fail to come to the defense of his friends has not paid much attention over the past five years. When moderates wanted Dick Cheney dropped from the 2004 ticket, Bush openly scoffed at the suggestion. Why would he act differently now?

Most of the rebels understand that the Democrats will likely give Miers a pass, especially since Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid suggested her to Bush. No one really expects a GOP Senate caucus that essentially ran from a fight with Democrats over the abuse of the filibuster to rebel against the president on a judicial nominee who will get broad bipartisan support. Even though syndicated columnist George Will and others lobbed highly accurate and extremely damaging bombshells at Bush's position last week, the morale boost the rebels received will be short-lived.

Will the Rebel Alliance abandon Bush if they can't derail Miers's nomination? Some are arguing to do just that, saying it's necessary to purge the GOP of its moderates to ensure ideological purity. But that still appears to be a fringe position. The rebels are so far being careful to limit the fight to Miers and to avoid the longer-range targets they'll have to face if they fail here.

But some critics of the Miers nomination have thought that far ahead and want to pull conservatives back from the edge of a disastrous schism. Which brings us to the third, centrist group:

The Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces. Those of us who find ourselves torn between the unconvincing, unrelenting positivism of the Loyalists and the potentially destructive Rebel Alliance occupy a no-man's land of political tiptoeing. We spend our blogging time raising our heads out of the foxholes to note the inbound missiles coming from both sides, and wishing the war would stop -- really soon.

Despite our normal support for the president, we Dogfaces fail to recognize George Bush's supposed brilliance in naming his personal lawyer to the bench, whatever Hugh Hewitt says. Even if Miers obviously has earned Bush's trust, she just as obviously has done nothing remarkable to earn the trust of conservatives; being a mover and shaker in the American Bar Association doesn't lend her much credibility among those who have watched that group get more and more politically activist in what we view as the wrong direction. Most of us have tired of the "trust me" approach. In short, we find ourselves with some sympathy for the Rebel Alliance.

However, we also see the realistic outcome of the bloody civil war that threatens to split the GOP over what clearly is a White House blunder -- one compounded by White House adviser Ed Gillespie's charging the Rebel Alliance with "sexism" at last week's meeting. With important mid-term elections next year and at least one more Supreme Court opening likely during Bush's term, we want to avoid a party schism that could make him a prematurely lame duck and hand the Democrats an opportunity to seize control of one or both houses of Congress.

So who will prevail? All I can predict is that if Miers is confirmed, the debate will continue into the next election cycle. And with this much rage building, the mid-terms look more exciting every day.