Posted on 10/05/2005 7:18:07 PM PDT by quidnunc
Ann Coulter is one of many conservative pundits criticizing the SCOTUS nomination of Harriet Miers. I relish the opportunity to debate the matter with those, like Ann, who take a stance different from mine. In fact, because I believe that serious debate is such enlightening fun, I will continue to publish views on this site that differ from mine. Sadly, Ann has taken the low road, rather than debate me on the merits of my argument in favor of Miers.
On her website today (though not in her syndicated column that contains some duplicate verbiage) she dismisses my defense of Harriet Miers on grammatical grounds. It is bad enough that she fails to deal with the substance of my argument. What makes it truly embarrassing is that she is chooses a point which is highly debatable at best. I would much rather discuss subtance rather than the fine points of grammar disputes.
-snip-
Ann would be much better off criticizing my frequent and often embarrassing typos. But best of all would be a straightforward critique of my ideas. That would be the high road. The road not taken.
Maybe I am too involved in the matter to be of sound judgment, but it seems to me that Ann has just provided support for the thesis that at least one conservative pundit trashing Miers is nothing but a pompous elitist.
By the way, Ann, if you are going to put me down as a barely-educated moron, at least click on the "contributors" link on the website whose name you dare not mention and check out my background. I have three Ivy League sheepskins on my wall, and taught at two Ivies. I don't really have to try to "sound Ivy League."
She should be. She's hot, rich, and smart. I would be too.
SO are many other hundreds of people in the world.
DO we need to give all smart, rich people Brownie Buttons?
Something IMHO about a Smart Rich Beautiful (HUMBLE) person that is far more attractive in life and not to may around but when you find one it's truly ones treasure...
I don't think Ivy League degrees allows one to either disregard the rules of grammar or sit on the Supreme Court. I enjoyed Ann's points, like I always do, and they do have some merit. What's more, I admire the fact that you don't need to question where she stands, as she's always direct with her biting sarcasm and parody.
I also think she's justified in her skepticism. She might be a bit premature with her judgment, but her points are valid; I don't recall the last time a "trust me" argument has worked in favor of conservatives.
No, she said Miers gave money to democrats "only" 10 years ago, when it was 17 years ago.
She complained that she wasn't from a top-tier school.
Coulter said she wished it would have been a black or a minority!!!
Coulter wanted Janice Rogers Brown, of course. Who could barely get the votes for her current position, and for whom the gang of 7 was ready to jump ship. Apparently Coulter thought that there would be LESS opposition to Brown for the Supreme Court than there was for her appeals court?
She said we should start a "bush impeachment"
She said Miers couldn't take "two punches", and that Biden would look smart compared to her.
I think people should raise questions. I don't mind Ann raising questions. But not the personal attacks.
But of course, nobody cares if Ann calls Sheehan a loon. Are we supposed to? We don't complain about Howard Dean if he says something bad about a democrat either.
Not to single you out, but this statement simply amazes me. Coulter, and conservatism, are essentially about integrity and telling the truth.
That is why we laugh about the left and their disdain for the truth if it conflicts with their ideology. It is what separates us.
Say what you will about AC, but do not say she fails to say what she means and mean what she says.
Since you appear to be an expert on this perhaps you can explain why. Much of the criticism against her has dealt with not knowing anything about her yet you're able to make this definite assumption so I'd like to know what I've missed...aside from the "she ain't who I'da picked" rhetoric.
<< I think Lifson is whining and doing exactly what he accuses Coulter of doing. >>
Precisely.
Check post # 9.
If it makes you feel better...
Third and finally, some jobs are so dirty, you can only send in someone who has the finely honed hatred of liberals acquired at elite universities to do them. The devil is an abstraction for normal, decent Americans living in the red states. By contrast, at the top universities, you come face to face with the devil every day, and you learn all his little tropes and tricks.
Conservatives from elite schools have already been subjected to liberal blandishments and haven't blinked. These are right-wingers who have fought off the best and the brightest the blue states have to offer. The New York Times isn't going to mau-mau them — as it does intellectual lightweights like Jim Jeffords and Lincoln Chafee — by dangling fawning profiles before them. They aren't waiting for a pat on the head from Nina Totenberg or Linda Greenhouse. To paraphrase Archie Bunker, when you find a conservative from an elite law school, you've really got something.
Her argument wasn't all based on his grammar.
It does, I would not be happy as an apostate convert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.