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 has gone from an impassioned conservative advocate to a shrieking harpy.
Ann Coulter is very taken with herself these days....
I think she read the tea leaves wrong and that she'll retract what she said with a non-retraction at a later date.
She earned her place. Once you've "made it", you can make a few mistakes and still fall back on your achievements.
I have good hope for Miers, but there's a chance that Ann is right though.
Yes, but her latest book is now out in paperback. So maybe she'll get a sales boost out of it.
Upcoming Stories: Benedict XVI Affirms Catholicism; Bear Feces Found In Woods
I think the exact opposite. She has proven her conservative integrity to me by bravely challenging President Bush in this instance when he is just plainly wrong. The child that tells the emperor he is naked is not the emperors enemy.
<< 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." >>
What are the ivy leaguers' euphamisms for 'low-road hypocrisy?'
I think Lifson is whining and doing exactly what he accuses Coulter of doing.
She also attacked Roberts.
I was scanning radio stations on Tuesday and came across her on Hannity and she just sounded down right mean ...I don't know anything about Miers ..but, Ann was just basically calling her an idiot ...I didn't think that was right at all ...critiscism is fine, just don't sound like a hateful person when you do it
Thomas Lifson, Thomas Lifson?
Sorry, kid, I've heard of Ann Coulter; who are you?
I don't think so. Why did Mr. Lifson - someone I respect very much - choose to address a meaningless point (grammar) rather than any of the substantive criticism of his article? This strikes me as something he and Ann should be working out behind closed doors and in private.
There was an entire field of candidates who were young, experienced, intellectually respected, and known judicial conservatives. Instead the President picked someone who was old (less than 15 years younger than the justice she is being picked to replace!), without judicial experience or any other extraordinary experience to make up for it, and intellectually/politically rather blurry and unknown.
To challenge this pick makes someone a truthful, reasoning conservative in my book.
And by all accounts its working. The Libs are ecstatic, often quoting Ann with glee.
One has to admire the subtlety...
As I recall, Lifson used "which" when he should have used "that." (Correct usage is "which" for a nonrestrictive clause and "that" for a restrictive clause. Or to put it more simply, use "which" when a comma is required.)
No doubt Lifson finds this irksome, but his remarks in response are no more to the point than hers.
He's a brilliant, long-established commentator who is not widely read because few people are smart enough to fully understand his writings. (I do happen to disagree with him on this nomination, but that doesn't take away from his considerable ability.)
Some "liberal" newspapers got complaints about Ann's columns; and pulled her columns. I'll wager they are ruing that Knee-Jerk decision of theirs. lol!
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.