Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

Critical of Roberts

Tom West is not amused "at the conservative gushings" over the Roberts pick. Here is all of it:

I am amazed at the conservative gushings over President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. What do we know about him? Almost nothing, based on what I have read. Yet Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Robert Alt, Peter Schramm, Powerline, National Review online, you name it--all these folks seem to be sure that this is a great pick. But I have seen very little that gives any serious evidence of what Roberts actually thinks the Constitution means.

I remember how conservatives rallied around Souter when he was nominated. Like Roberts, Souter’s record was very thin. He turned out to be a disaster.

Of course, we may one day discover that Roberts was all along a secret but passionate admirer of Clarence Thomas’s jurisprudence. If that proves to be the case, I will gladly admit that my suspicions were wrong.

Other things aside, I never rallied on behalf of Souter. I’ll get back to this later.

Ann Coulter is also disappointed. Powerline responds to her.

Discussions - 52 Comments

I wonder where
Coulter swiped her ideas from on that one. Frankly, I’m embarrassed whenever Coulter is taken seriously - be it as a scholar, journalist, or even a thoughtful pundit. She’s none of those.

Well, many "scholars" have been guilty of the same thing. I won’t write off Ann Coulter for one weak moment...perhaps too busy to properly paraphrase, who knows? I do know that she can be "over the top," but there’s room for that in the conservative movement. And her books are entertaining and informative...both Treason and Slander contain lots of factual information.

Dain, is there ANYTHING a right-winger can do that would offend you? "Too busy?" How long would it take to cite her source? A few precious seconds? Oh well, I guess if you’re defending Karl Rove it should come as no shock that you’d stick up for Ann Coulter.

I agree with Dain 110% Both of those books are just great. She says what needs to be said, and too many people are afraid to say!

Professor West and Ann Coulter sharing the same bed? Interesting.

Dain, while I am with you on many topics, I’m going to have to agree with Ms. Shaw on this one. There is certainly a reason to be wary of Roberts. There is no reason to throw the Rights full-fledged support before he is even confirmed, however, Coulter is so blatantly over the top and over zealous that she in many ways harms the Right and adds to that stigma of
"bigoted rich old white men who use self-involved minorities and women in the age of diversity to speak for them." I also wonder about her reasons for claiming to be a Conservative.

Dain, there have been so many nails put in the coffin of your intellectual credibility that the coffins’ weight has at least tripled at this point. But now you’re begging for another big nail with just a few sentences! You are always blabbering against Fung about how you care about facts, the truth, integrity, intellectual honesty, etc. but here you are trivializing and dismissing a quite valid and serious plagiarism charge.

Well, many "scholars" have been guilty of the same thing. I won’t write off Ann Coulter for one weak moment...perhaps too busy to properly paraphrase, who knows?

... and you also spout off with a classic tu quoque fallacy to distract from Ann’s misdeed(s). Does it somehow make it better that Ann has plagiarized just because some "scholars" -not sure what your quotation marks implied there, if anything- have done so as well? And yes, the "too busy" excuse is really lame.

As for how she’s "over the top" (you don’t say?? I’d
love to know what has qualified her for that assessment in your eyes), yet "there’s room for that in the conservative movement," this guy would beg to differ and, interestingly, he seems to use some of the same language as you do in describing yourself, only he appears to be truly principled in walking the walk. As you’ll see, his site "promotes the proposition that Conservatism can only endure as a viable and vibrant movement if it maintains a commitment to the core character traits of honor and integrity, honesty and virtue." I must say I respect the guy for taking on such a Sisyphean task!

Going back to your personal commitment to facts, honesty, etc., it’s amusing that you’ve seemingly given Coulter a pass on her "entertaining and informative" books (no argument on the first assertion!). Her books probably do contains some "factual information," but they are also widely known for being chock full of lies, falsehoods, inaccuracies, and other misleading garbage. Maybe she gets things like years of presidential elections right, but facts of that nature can be gotten from an almanac. Even some of those have been hard for her, though - she infamously claimed that Canada sent troops to partake in the Vietnam War, for instance. When she’s grinding her ideological axe though, things tend to fall apart, badly.

She even pathetically took to defending wannabe journalist James/Jeff Guckert/Gannon during the revelations about that great reporter from the Potemkin Press, aka Talon News Service.

I think Coulter "serves" to provide, in many cases (but certainly not all), just a ruder -and maybe more straightforward- version of what is espoused here at NLT. I’m not terribly surprised when she’s treated (by the right) as another worthwhile thinker on the right.

(Meant to write "Her books probably do contain...")

Dain, maybe you should consider a follow-up comment from "Dain (the real one)" to distance yourself from comment #2 ?? (teehee)

That the best you got, Timmy? Now who the hell left the play pen gate open?

The "lies" you cite from Coulter aren’t lies at’re the kind of guy who would call Shakespeare a LIAR because of such phrases as "the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." "Hey (you’d say), fortune doesn’t have slings OR arrows! That Will Shakespeare is a LIAR!" Coulter is interpreting comments from what? As for a missed citation...come on! Ever done any happens. Now, let’s talk about Al Franken!

I see NO REASON to assume that a guy who runs a website called "CoulterWatch" is actually a conservative. Got any evidence that he’s the real deal and not some Lefty plant meant to misdirect and confuse (much like the slimeball who keeps pretending to be me or Sandra or whoever)? The guy might be a raging liar...I don’t know, and neither do you.

As for "scholars" who have done FAR WORSE than Coulter, how about Doris Kearns Godwin? Or Michael Bellesilles? Or Ward Churchill? Liberals all, well-credentials, and yet not above plagiarism and/or outright fraud. I haven’t seen the Left disown any of them...and you call ME a hypocrite! I have not claimed that Coulter is always correct, nor that she was a premier conservative intellectual. I simply said her books are informative and entertaining...and they are. HAVE YOU READ ANY OF THEM?

And for all you Libs out there, your empty insults aren’t going to drive me away. You can call me dumb, ignorant, dishonest, fanatical, whatever...I’m smarter than the lot of you. But go ahead...keep misunderestimating me...that’s fine :)

I just couldn’t believe the "too busy to paraphrase" excuse used by Dain. Many people have lost their jobs, did not finish university or lost their professional prestige because they did not paraphrase. And I am glad that they did because plagarism is basically a theft. Ann is a joke and she really disgusts me.

I see NO REASON to assume that a guy who runs a website called "CoulterWatch" is actually a conservative. Got any evidence that he’s the real deal and not some Lefty plant meant to misdirect and confuse (much like the slimeball who keeps pretending to be me or Sandra or whoever)? The guy might be a raging liar...I don’t know, and neither do you.

By this same logic, YOU could be something other than the "real deal." What reason would anyone have to believe that you are?? "I’m smarter than the lot of you"???? Get a life.

Well, as proof of my statement, Melissa, look at this inane comment you just made. I haven’t asked anyone to believe that I’m anything in particular. My comments stand for themselves. Mr. "CoulterWatch," however, requires that we believe he is a conservative if his website is to have any legitimacy. Attacks from the "in-group" are always taken more seriously, or didn’t you know that? Mr. "CoulterWatch" sure as hell does.

And I do have a life, Melissa. A very, very nice one. Thank you for wishing me well.

Greene’s comment was interesting, not inane. I didn’t see where the Borchers guy at CoulterWatch has ASKED anyone to believe anything about him; he’s merely asserted that he’s a principled conservative. If he’s the "Lefty plant" that you speculated about, I kind of doubt he wields much political power, or has much influence within the Republican party, or among most conservatives. Because he is critical of some conservatives you suspect him of being a lefty plant. But Dain, you have claimed to be a "scientific conservative," and you’ve often pointed out how you are not some uncritical fan of the President, or his policies. Once in a while you do have some disagreement with Bush. But clearly, as you pointed out in your little poli-sci lesson, you are a member of the "in-group" when it comes to conservative Republicans. Thus, whenever you say anything critical of Bush, Republicans, or conservatives, even if it’s simply a strategy critique, why shouldn’t TRUE conservatives suspect you of being a "Lefty plant" with designs to "misdirect and confuse"??? Actually, Mr. Borchers of CoulterWatch has told us more about himself (some of which can easily be verified) than you have. I’d say the odds are much greater that YOU are the lefty plant. If not, just one very paranoid, conspiratorial-minded guy.

How illogical you people are. I’ve done nothing to harm conservativism, so why would anyone think I’m a plant? Mr. "CoulterWatch," on the other hand, has dedicated a whole website to slamming a conservative pundit. I call that interesting, if nothing else.

As for being "conspiracy-minded," whenever I post you people come out of the woodwork. Why is that? This is "No Left Turns" after all...but in fact it’s far more hostile than any other blog I’ve been on. Another interesting fact...Liberals apparently outnumber conservatives on this blog. Now I’m not saying your presence is coordinated or anything, but it does strike me as odd. Certainly we don’t see this at the Daily Kos.

As for knowing anything about me, go fish, pal. Why in the hell would I give any biographic information to people like you...who make blogging a bloodsport and ad hominem a tool of choice?

Isn’t it just possible, Dain, that the CoulterWatch guy really is a conservative and actually believes that Coulter is harmful to the conservative movement, and threatens its chances for further successes and long-term viability?? And he wishes to disseminate his views widely for conservatives to consider??

I never said that wasn’t a possibility. If you re-read my posts, you’ll see I said he "might be" not "is." I don’t you? And of course I’ve met conservatives whose sensibilities were offended by procuring and using the tools of the Left (e.g., street protest, interference with "enemy" gatherings). Nonetheless, most conservatives enjoy Ann Coulter and tolerate her in-your-face style and extreme translations of liberal weasel-words. There’s a niche for something like that in conservativism which has long been empty. She fills it...I say fine. Insisting on the Marquis of Queensberry rules in a back-alley knife fight gets you seriously killed. Ann understands do I.

Dain, I still think your posts are right on(most of the time anyway). Keep up the good work.

Dain (aka JTR)- I would just like to point out that if you’re referring to your ongoing debate with all of us crazy lefties, we’re not exactly in a "back-alley knife fight." It’s nice that you and your buddy Ann have this special insight to bond over, but what does that mean, exactly? That if you aren’t completely over-the-top vicious and nasty at all times, the liberals will get you in your sleep? Does that philosophy justify comments like:

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building." - in a New York Observer interview

Or maybe her heartfelt clarification of that statement:"Of course I regret [the previous quote]. I should have added ’after everyone had left the building except the editors and the reporters.’" - in a interview

Ah yes, Ann understands that she’d better be as savage as she can every day, or else liberals will take over the world and force everyone to become feminist-Muslims (Two of Coulter’s favorite targets- well known for their similar ideologies, of course!)

As for your theory that the liberals of the world are uniting to defeat you on NLT- uh, no, we’re... uh... **Note to other members of the Unified Liberal Organization: New agenda item- discuss how Dain(the real one) figured out our NLT plot at next Super Secret Liberal Convention. Keep secret so Dain(the real one)’s suspicions don’t grow.

And finally, while we’re on the topic of kooky theories, IS Ann Coulter a man? Hey, it’s not just her large, square head and husky voice that make me wonder! Consider: "I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care." You tell ’em, Mr. Coulter! Silly broads!

Phil...I know if gives you joy to think that I praise myself in posts under other peoples’ names, but it’s not true. You folks are just doing that to discredit me...fine, go ahead. At least JTR knows the truth, whoever he/she is.

The rest of your rant is just ad hominem. When’s the last time you said anything substantive? As I said before, you need to tell your keepers that the dosage needs to be upped.

So, if I understand Dain’s theory correctly, he hasn’t done anything to harm conservatism, his "comments stand for themselves," so he should not be suspected of being a liberal plant. But the CoulterWatch guy, who wants to ensure that honesty, integrity, truth, etc. - values that Dain has earlier professed, in various ways, to care about - remain part of the conservative philosophy, is harming conservatism, under the clever guise of helping it. And Ann Coulter isn’t a liberal plant because, well, she obviously isn’t harming conservatism! Somehow, I bet there are some conservatives out there who would be surprised to learn that, apparently, Dain is the sole judge of who and what are harming conservatism. But then all of these people are probably liberal plants, after all! Woah, my head is spinning.

Dain suspects that liberals outnumber conservatives here at NLT. I highly doubt that’s so (unless we’re talking about readers who actually bother to post comments, and even then it’s a stretch). This is the WORLDWIDE web, after all. If 2 or 3 liberals e-mail all their friends and say "Hey, check out this obnoxious Dain guy and his paranoia, ad hominem attacks and weak defenses of the very worst aspects of conservatism!" and then THOSE people tell their friends, well, you get the idea. I don’t know how heavy the traffic is for this site, but maybe 1,000 conservatives witness Dain’s various battles every day, and only a handful of them come to his defense. I won’t offer any speculation as to why so few would.

Also, just as an aside, I’ve noticed that several people here at NLT seem to have adopted "misunderestimate" as an actual word. Why? Not only is it not a recognized word, but it also doesn’t make sense. By its very nature, the word UNDERestimate indicates that a MIStake was made, so it’s rather redundant. If one has underestimated, one has made a mistaken estimate. I understand that many folks here are Bush loyalists, and he has (in)famously uttered the nonsense word, but taking your loyalty that far is just ridiculous. It’s also just not particularly funny, if humor is the idea behind that. I’m not offended or angered or anything like that, just puzzled why anyone would use the term or find it so funny when used. Unless those people are liberal plants, attempting to undermine the honor and authority of President Bush!

You misunderestimate both our intellectual capacity and our attempt at merriment. It is a word that makes the mind rich. Bush created one word. Shakespeare created a couple of thousand, at least. How odd "that bastardly rogue" must have sounded even then, never mind "backing a horse" or "one fell swoop," or "to be in a pickle," or "barefaced," etc. Misunderestimated stays. Else I take arms against a sea of troubles. Leave one for Bush.

As for who decides who is and who is not conservative, better me than you, Steve. Here’s a question for you...if Mr. "CoulterWatch" is really concerned about integrity, etc., why does his website focus only on a single person? Wouldn’t it be more logical (and helpful) to focus on the debate at the margins (e.g., address Coulter, but also Franken, the Kos folks, etc.)? If he really is a conservative (and I seriously doubt it), he’s being a "useful idiot." He efforts do nothing to help the Right but allow the Left to say "see, even conservatives say she’s a liar."

As for the conservative-to-liberal ratio on the website, I know the actual initiators of threads lean to the Right (albeit only mildly in some cases -- Mr. Moser strikes me as having Libertarian tendencies), but the commentators(?) certainly have many liberal "champions" (wretch). What you describe ("hey, guys, check out this guy on NLT") is what I think is happening. Not much of a conspiracy, granted, but more than just random sniping. Fine with me...the level of the lib’s commentary has been mediocre at best...nothing I can’t handle.

"Fine with me...the level of the lib’s (apostrophe should come AFTER the "s" here, Dain- there’s more than one liberal at NLT commentary has been mediocre at best...nothing I can’t handle."

The reason you can handle it, Dain, is because you continue to ignore what you can’t explain away. You write my last post off as "nothing substantive," which is taking the easy way out once again. I’ll break it down nice and simple for you: You seem to be taking the stance that Coulter might be a little extreme, yes, but she’s amusing and says what others are too afraid to say. I’m saying that she makes statements that are extremely insulting/harmful/insane. Either tell me that I’m wrong about your stance or defend it, because I think your position is rather precarious. Unless you agree that it’s a real hoot to talk about blowing up the NT Times building with all of its editors inside.

Oh, excuse me, is that what passes for a substantive comment, Phil? I keep forgetting that you are institutionalized.

What part of "extreme translations" and "over-the-top" don’t you understand? Like a good little Leftist, you catch a conservative in an extreme/stupid comment (generally a joke like Reagan’s "we begin bombing in 5 minutes), and then you INSIST that supporters not just admit that it was a poor joke but also MORALLY EXTERMINATE the offending party. Two can play at that game, so...Phil, name a prominent liberal that you admire or respect (or at least think of as useful). Go ahead.

As for spelling errors, unlike you, I don’t sit at my computer with a pocket dictionary making SURE that everything is JUST PERFECT. You are obviously obsessive, and FYI...a spelling error and/or typo here and there doesn’t say anything about a person’s intellect. Trying to goad me with such corrections is childish and small-minded...exactly what I’ve come to expect from you.

if Mr. "CoulterWatch" is really concerned about integrity, etc., why does his website focus only on a single person? Wouldn’t it be more logical (and helpful) to focus on the debate at the margins (e.g., address Coulter, but also Franken, the Kos folks, etc.

1. How does his focus on a single person contradict his concern about integrity and the like?? I don’t see where those two things are connected. He’s trying to help the right, and if he wishes to focus on what he sees as the worst of the worst among his compatriots, so be it. I’ve read read blogs and sites from Dems against Dean, and only Dean, and I certainly don’t suspect them of being conservative plants. Yeah, you’re definitely being paranoid.

2. Maybe he’s calling out Coulter as a liar because SHE IS!

I’m smarter than the lot of you.


the level of the lib’s commentary has been mediocre at best...nothing I can’t handle

1. I’ve only been perusing readers’ comments here for 2 or 3 weeks, but from what I’ve seen so far, no Dain, you really aren’t handling it well at all. For instance, your response to this question from "not a jessie fan" was quite inadequate:

Thus, whenever you say anything critical of Bush, Republicans, or conservatives, even if it’s simply a strategy critique, why shouldn’t TRUE conservatives suspect you of being a "Lefty plant" with designs to "misdirect and confuse"???

That’s a good question, and your response that you have "done nothing to harm conservatism" is extremely weak. Why, when you offer your suggestions or mild critiques, should you not come under suspicion as being a "useful idiot," too, since any lib. who gets wind of what you’ve said could go "See, even this conservative guy, a loyalist at this right-leaning blog, doesn’t think Bush has made the right move in Iraq" or whatever. You’ve accused the CoulterWatch fellow of something that you could just as easily be guilty of, using your own bizarre rationale.

2. Much like Rush Limbaugh, you’ve confused cockiness with competence. You get high marks on the first, just as Rush does. While you and Rush both lack in the latter, at least he’s made buckets of money. Maybe you should follow Rush’s lead, and start your own AM radio show?

...and yes, what about her quote about the NY Times bldg.?

Dain, you make spelling and grammar mistakes in almost every post, so by calling it "a typo here and there," you’re being rather kind to yourself. Call me childish if you will, but I can’t help but find some irony in such a high number of mistakes made by a person who claims to be "smarter than the lot of you." Perhaps if you were even slightly humble, I wouldn’t pounce on every error.

Why should I name a prominent liberal? I never praised some screaming pundit on either side, so I don’t really feel obligated to name a person on the left for you to tear into. My point is that Ann Coulter makes hateful remarks that accomplish nothing (well, nothing other than amusing boneheads and enraging Muslims). I’ve provided just a few examples of such remarks, but she’s made plenty more. Yet you act like she’s said maybe one or two silly things that were really no big deal. Even if she was just kiddin’ around, the "jokes" were in an extremely poor taste. Anyway, she says herself that she means everything she says.

I’m not cocky, I’m just truthful. Jeffrey, your comment here is just your opinion...if you chose to believe I’m doing poorly against all these lefties, then that’s fine. You’re probably one yourself, and I couldn’t care less about impressing you.

As for Mr. "CoulterWatch," I never take someone at their word when they are doing things that are counterintuitive or saying things that clearly violate the spirit of what they claim to be. Rush Limbaugh’s program has lots of "Republicans" and "conservatives" who call in to criticize Bush (or whoever is the liberal target of the day), but we all know they aren’t Republicans OR conservatives, don’t we? All I’m saying about Mr. "CoulterWatch" is that his actions don’t match his supposed political values. I’m just as likely to be right as any of you folks, and I think you know that.

As for the NY Times quote, it was in poor taste. I doubt she meant it to be taken literally, and only raving political fanatics would take it literally. I’m really sorry that you folks obsess about such little things. If you want to counter her, then address her major arguments about the history of the Left or McCarthyism...has the Left become so intellectually anemic that it is forced to obsess about minutiae?

FYI...a spelling error and/or typo here and there doesn’t say anything about a person’s intellect. Trying to goad me with such corrections is childish and small-minded

Not so fast, Dain -

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote." Fox News, Hannity & Colmes, August 17, 1997.

Last I knew, spelling, grammar, and punctuation were crucial aspects of a literacy test.

Forgot to mention that the quote is from none other than well-known comic Ann Coulter.

I never take someone at their word when they are doing things that are counterintuitive or saying things that clearly violate the spirit of what they claim to be.

Please explain how the CoulterWatch guy’s actions are "counterintuitive." As he makes clear, he’s trying to root out the corruption and the dishonesty from conservatism; he’s trying to improve it. How is this "counterintuitive"?

I’m just as likely to be right as any of you folks, and I think you know that.

What do you mean by "right" here - right-wing or correct (about your suspicions of CoulterWatch guy)?

Something you should be careful of when you are trying to minimize Coulter’s inflammatory comments is that she has been asked if she is serious with her most extreme comments and, as Mr. Thompson has mentioned, she’s indicated that she isn’t kidding around - she wants to be taken seriously.

Phil... when you say "calling it" I think you meant "calling them" or "calling these mistakes." Geez, what a retard. Jeffrey... "Last I knew" is awkward. Perhaps you meant to say "When last I checked," or even "when last I heard." Be careful...we might not let you vote if you continue with mangling written English!

If you boys want to play stupid grammar games, fine.

I don’t think being literate is too much to ask from voters. Do you? You must admit that at least it’s a reasonable point to discuss...illiterate voters would have difficulty making informed decisions about candidates, wouldn’t they?

As for Ann herself, she’s admitted to being hyperbolic to call attention to issues she thinks are important. You don’t have to like it or agree with it. Yet, regardless of how you feel about her, she has made hundreds of perfectly valid points in her writing, and she does accomplish her mission, which is to bring into question the reasonableness of the Left.

By the way, did either of you oppose the impeachment of one William J. Clinton?

Oh Dain, it’s cute when you try to get us on our own "mistakes," but you’re really reaching with those corrections. I could point out that neither Mr. Pierce nor I really made a mistake (like when I said "calling it," I meant calling the ongoing sloppiness in your posts or that there is nothing technically incorrect about saying "last I knew"), but that doesn’t really matter, because neither of us is claiming to be a grammar/spelling whiz. It’s just that you’ve bragged about being "smarter than the lot of us." Now you’re saying that it’s not a bad idea to require voters to be literate, yet you don’t seem to fully grasp the proper use of apostrophes.

All jokes about your own level of literacy aside, I’m sure you realize that literacy requirements would essentially weed out the poorest elements of our society and make darn certain that all upper-class citizens could still vote. I’m also sure that all of those well-informed viewers of FoxNews also read several newspapers and magazines.

I asked two questions in comment #30 - they remain unaddressed.

Oh, I think the examples I provided are incorrect, but since you don’t agree, how about these examples from post #18 (under your name, I believe).

feminist-Muslims (Two of Coulter’s favorite targets- well known for their similar ideologies, of course!)

Is "Two" a proper noun? I see no period? Sloppy, very sloppy.

"I think [women] should be armed but should not vote ... women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it ... it’s always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."

Assuming you are quoting Ann Coulter here, where’s the citation or link? Tsk, tsk...stealing without attribution!

As for who would be hurt by literacy tests, I think it’s a toss-up (at least given the exit polls last year). Indeed, Kerry got slightly more of the "no-high-school-diploma" vote. Check it out for yourself. 2004 Exit polls. Regardless, we have age and citizenship rules about voting, why not literacy as a prerequisite? Are you suggesting that the wealthy are a monolithic class of exploiters? Be careful...your Marxism is showing through (which I think is Ann’s essential point in her writings).

Now, Jeffrey, what are these questions you ask? Ah yes, why is picking on Ann Coulter counterintuitive. Well, is she the ONLY source of "dishonesty" in conservativism? The focus on just this one pundit seems odd to me -- doesn’t it to you? Like a vendetta or something, isn’t it?

By "right" of course I mean "correct," silly.

Now, why don’t you answer my question about Bill Clinton (post #31)?

Ok, Dain, I’ll play your moronic game. I opposed the impeachment of Clinton. So what about it??

I wasn’t requesting that use of "misunderestimate" be banned here at NLT. I was just curious why it is used here. It’s your blog and you’ll do as you wish, of course. I don’t think that Bush’s command of English entitles him to a creative license in its use -actually, I question if his learner’s permit should even be renewed- whereas Shakespeare was, obviously, beyond qualified. Also, I think your willful addition of this word with a redundant syllable to your vocabulary compromises your commitment to academic excellence, as well as any critiques of Ebonics. Would you trot out the Shakespeare comparisons in defense of using "aks" over "ask," "git" over "get," or "sistah" over "sister"?? It’s true, language evolves and new words are created (in a similar fashion to Ebonics, actually, the word "dirt" began in English as "drit," but gradually "dirt" was adopted, as it was easier to pronounce), but it appears that your distinctions between valid and invalid word coinage occur on a partisan basis of sorts.

I didn’t ask you, Kim...I was asked Jeffrey and Phil that question. In matters in the context of what they’ve been saying.

Dain, the difference between me correcting your mistakes and you correcting my "mistakes" (I still say you’re reaching with those) is that I didn’t claim to be the smartest guy on NLT. (I know, I know, you meant smarter than all us liberals!) I really have no interest in correcting your grammar and spelling; but you WERE boasting of your superior intelligence.

What exactly does Bill Clinton have to do with what we’ve been discussing?

First of all, this is the REAL Sandra. I would like to say that I don’t appreciate whoever was using my name to pretend they were me. That’s very imature and rude so please don’t do it anymore.

OK, second. Phil and Jeffrey, you’re both jerks. Sorry to resort to name calling, but I am tired of you picking on Dain all the time. Fung as well on other threads. Dain I know you didn’t ask me, but I very much supported impeaching Bill Clinton. I only just graduated college this year, so maybe I’m too young to know what I’m talking about, but I think Clinton was the worst president this country has had in a LONG time. Finally, I think Ann Coulter is funny, even if she is a bit harsh sometimes. At least she means well for this country, which is more then can be said of some of the Liberal posters on this site.

Way to go, Sandra! Of course, they’ll just make fun of you now...something along the lines of Sandra/Dain. Unfortunately, there isn’t a way to prove anything on this software, so I guess we’ll just have to take it. (p.s., I think they’re jerks, too!).

Phil, I do think I’m smarter than you liberals, but grammar doesn’t prove anything one way or another. If you are willing to cool it with the grammar police, then we’ll put that behind us. It gets tiresome very quickly.

As for Clinton, you didn’t answer my question.

After reading the tiresome comments on this post, I wonder as to why I ought to respond, but I think I should. For Dain:

Like I said before (though I don’t want to be labeled as a Leftist plant), if someone (like Coulter) uses inane comments which can be used to categorize the entire Right (as a result of her fame) as extremists, then why do we need to defend her? I say we let her fend for herself, and I personally disassociate myself from her. I don’t understand why the focus of "Coulterwatch" is counterintuitive. There may exist a rhetorical purpose for her comments, but, regardless, it makes it easier to pigeonhole an entire party into the old "bigoted, rich, social elitist" group. I think this is the reason why the website was created.

I opposed (and still do) President Clinton’s impeachment. I do believe he committed an impeachable crime (lying under oath), but I think setting such a precedent (based on what I believe are petty intentions) even further mires the two-party system in a battle for blood, mudslinging, non-substantive bickering. Look at Duke Cunningham and Dick Durbin for example. When I vote for a poltician (who gets paid), it is not for his ability bicker and polarize. (big surprise Democrats are now looking for a way to impeach Pres. Bush)

As for Lindicott, in address to your criticisms for conservatives adopting the word: "misunderestimate." You criticize the word based on its unsound logic (though many words are the same, "irregardless" for example), and then claim the Right can’t criticize the study of ebonics in school because of the old "living language argument." Well, while I agree that the language changes over time and new words come into use, does that mean that a "language" based on use by a minority of people set in a particular demographic ought to be adopted by our schools. It seems strikingly different then a famous political figure coining a phrase that the public adopts. Do you not?

As for Thompson and Pierce: This comment section aside, the two of you are just as (if not more) qeustion-begging and presumptious as Dain ever is, but are able to hide it under your (not so) subtle PC.

Fred, I find that a reasoned response, although I think you underestimate Coulter’s importance to the Right. For instance, the Powerline guys, who are far from hysterical or radical, have often praised Coulter’s writings as a form of therapy...she’s a needed break from PC pieties. I find her work refreshing in the same way that people enjoy outrageous comedians...they exaggerate the stupidity around us and, because it is too painful to cry about, we laugh (hat tip to Robert Heinlein).

So, I guess if you focus on Coulter’s effect on the Right’s image, then she might be considered counterproductive. On the inside, however (and that’s her primary audience), she’s a breath of fresh air. Most of us understand that more sober, circumspect "analysis" is called for, but nonetheless we appreciate her acquisition and use of the tools of the Left (i.e., sarcasm, hyperbole, righteous anger) to strip the Left of its camouflage.

As for Clinton, I find your response less reasonable. Essentially you voted for pragmatism over principle and the rule of law -- not a very laudatory action. Have you ever considered becoming a Supreme Court Justice? They’ve made an art of substituting perceived public good for the rule of law.

I’m with Sandra on this one. Dain can definitely take care of the lefties when they pick on him. Any time, any day.

Fred - are you Fred Bills, by any chance?? Your comments sound similarly astute and savvy as his have, that’s why I’m wondering...

Ohio Voter, yes I’m Fred Bills. Thanks for the compliment.

Dain, my main worry with concerns to impeachment is principled in a certain manner. I think, as a result of, among other things, the Supreme Court, that the country is moving towards using the Constitution and separation of powers in an improper manner. Since it is believed (properly so) that the legislative branch has lost much of its purpose because of the Supreme Court’s (newly) expansive jurisdiction (everything now seems to be a constitutional issue), people look to use the Constitution itself as a last place to turn. Now, in lieu of legislation, amendments are proposed (think "flag burning amendment) to counteract the power of the Supremem Court.

It may just be me, but I have pride in being able to carry around the United States Constitution in my pocket(about 25 pages long) and being able to read it in one sitting. There is something "exceedingly restful" about a document that so obviously applies to all mankind equally based on an idea about human nature and the polis. Not so with other constitutions. Look at the EU’s, for example. I think it is close to 3000 pages long, which leads me to believe it has specific purposes/functions for specific peoples, races, religions, sexes, cultures, et al. A political regime, then, not based on the basic idea that all men are created equal, with the ability to govern themselves. It is this which presupposes demcracy, not vice versa. Therefore, I do not want the United States Constitution to become the scrapbook of legislation through amendments which will probably do the same thing.

I believe the same can be said in regards to the separation of powers. If the two parties are going to become so polarized as to only look for a way to oust the majority party, irregardless (that’s for you, Lindicott) of the choice of the people, then one is hard pressed to show how the Republic has not become something else. I believe in the Republic (properly understood), and do not want to go the route of progressivism.

Mr. Bills, you yourself admit that Clinton had committed an impeachable offense. He had also sullied his high office with tawdry behavior unfit for a CIC. Given that impeachment is an exceedingly rare event in our government’s history, I somehow doubt its use threatened to overturn the Republic. Instead, because of "pragmatic" concerns, we have forever lowered the bar for appropriate Presidential behavior and taught our people that personal integrity matters very little in our politicians.

As for "polarization," I think you are a bit late on that score. It’s a fait accompli, and I’m afraid the only course of action is now to WIN. I’m not talking about exterminating the Democratic Party, but we do have to beat them until they change their ways. Moreover, we will have to persist while the toxins of the 1960s and 1970s run their course through our demographic bloodstream. To use Biblical vernacular, "this generation must pass away" before we will be able to restore the Republic to its proper working small feat. I’m afraid it will take bolder men and women than those in government today to accomplish this.

Dain, what do you mean by "beat the Democratic Party until they change their ways?" Change their ways so that they’re essentially Republicans too?

JTR and Sandra: Stop sucking up to Dain. He’s a big boy and doesn’t need the two of you to cheer him on. Either you’re both actually Dain himself, or you’re both pathetic sycophants.

Oh, and Dain, another question: WHY are we debating Clinton’s impeachment? I still don’t see why you brought this up and how it relates to Clinton. I know we’re not as swift as you, so maybe it should be obvious, but this just really seems like a non-sequitur.

Lay off Sandra and JTR...their opinions are just as valid as yours, and their powers of discernment are clearly superior to yours.

About the Democrat Party, yea...beat them until they weed out those who live in a Marx-inspired fantasy land and the other haters (e.g., minority bigots who use "progressivism" as a cover to stick it to "whitey"). You people (and yes, I’m talking to you, Phil) are so cynical, so hateful, so self-absorbed that it’s hard to even talk to you anymore. Amerika isn’t a nation in your eyes, it’s an agglomeration of squabbling tribes dominated by mythical fat-cats who squeeze them for "surplus value." In short, we need to beat you until you stop seeing only the bad in America and start to appreciate its unique goodness.

The real reason you hate Ann Coulter is that she’s vaguely familiar...just look in the mirror.

And Phil, if you want to talk about Clinton, you need to answer the question. Also, justifying why you did or did not support impeachment would be helpful.

Opps, addressed it like a letter again. Sorry about that. Comment #49 is by Dain, not Phil.

Fred said "As for Thompson and Pierce: This comment section aside, the two of you are just as (if not more) qeustion-begging and presumptious as Dain ever is, but are able to hide it under your (not so) subtle PC."

Well, if you’re not counting this comment section I guess I’m in good shape, since I can’t recall having ever posted comments here at No Left Turns before this thread.

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/07/critical-of-roberts.php on line 1876

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2005/07/critical-of-roberts.php on line 1876