Define "cronyism". Be specific. Give examples.

There's an old joke that a man asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million dollars. For sure, she gushes. Would she sleep with him for ten bucks then? Heck, no, she sputters, what kind of woman does he think she is?

"Madam," he replies, "we've already established what kind of woman you are. Now we're just haggling over the price."

The point here is that that bit of dialogue was just trying to establish the line of demarcation -- what, in the woman's mind, represented that magic monetary value that suddenly crossed over into prostitution.

We can use that lesson in a number of places, such as with the unhappy rumblings from various quarters that Commander Chimpy's nomination of his personal counsel Harriet Miers represents nothing less than naked "cronyism." Sadly, such accusations are cavalierly dismissed by White House Press Lizard Scott McClellan, who will wave off even the most egregious sins with something like, "Well, I don't agree with your characterization, we think Ms. Miers is wonderfully qualified, ... blah blah blah ...". Which is, of course, avoiding the issue entirely.

The problem is that that same White House Press Corps(e) who try to pin Scottie down on this are all asking the wrong question. What they need to do is first ask if this administration even recognizes the basic concept of "cronyism," then take it from there. How about a question along the lines of:

"Scott, there have been a number of suggestions that the Miers nomination is nothing but 'cronyism' by this administration and this president. So I'd like to ask, does this administration even recognize the basic concept of cronyism and, if so, can you explain what constitutes cronyism and how the Miers nomination doesn't qualify?"

Now, what's going on in that question? Lots of stuff.

First, it asks a very relevant question -- does McClellan, or Bush, or the administration, even acknowledge the very existence of the concept of cronyism? Note that this is most assuredly not a hypothetical question so Scottie can't blow it off with that tired dodge. How could McClellan answer?

Could he possibly say "no"? I don't think that would work. In the first place, he'd be crucified by those reporters, who would have a field day with the admission that the Bushista junta doesn't believe that cronyism even exists. And it would be fairly easy, I think, to find numerous examples of Republicans accusing, say, the Clinton administration of it to prove that, yes, members of the GOP know exactly what it is. Ergo, I'm pretty sure McClellan couldn't take this approach.

However, if he admitted that, yes, there is such a thing as cronyism, he's walked into a trap. Once he admits that such a concept exists, he's kind of obligated to define what he means by it. And regardless of what definition he comes up with, he'd be hard-pressed to explain how the Miers nomination doesn't constitute an obvious example of that.

See how that works? If you ask whether something is "cronyism," you'll just be told "no" and that will be the end of it. So you have to word the question differently, something along the lines of "Can you explain how that doesn't represent an example of cronyism?" I think that's a much tougher question to avoid.

More along these lines shortly.