The Lonely Goatherd Blog And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats - Matthew 25:32
Up to the minute notes on the current state of free thinking and free living: Kentucky moonshine - original analysis and reporting from MoreThings, and all round pop culture museum of sight and sound - photo galleries, mp3 and video downloads.
Al Barger and MoreThings - getting people's goats since 1998.
Live free or die!
I wouldn't want to ask people to just give me money cause they like my website, but do please take a quick look at Barger's Boutique. You might find yourself a little something-something for 2 or 3 bucks that you just can't resist! Any of the round images you find around MoreThings will get you to an Amazon page to buy my stuff and help ol' Al keep the lights on.
To explicitly state the obvious, these external links go to interesting and provocative websites, but they speak for themselves. I don't necessarily agree with anything they say - especially that no-goodnik Richard Marcus.
All original content on MoreThings.com copyright 2008 Albert Barger or the respective authors
July 09, 2008
Ann Coulter on Jesse Helms I never entirely knew what to think of the recently departed Senator Jesse Helms. He wasn't particularly a libertarian, but all the right people hated him. It's hard not to love the person whom all decent liberals for a generation thought was Satan incarnate.
Also, his active support of Ronald Reagan in the 1976 primary against a sitting president gave him a critical victory that set him up as the 1980 frontrunner. That seems somewhat important.
On a policy level, I appreciated very much his tenure running the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mostly, I appreciated his critical and highly non-deferential attitude towards the United Nations. He was certainly a good steward of our national sovereignty.
All decent people ie liberals truly hated every last thing about Jesse Helms, but racism has always been the trump card. He was an opponent of some Civil Rights legislation at the time, which doesn't sound so good - though there might be other reasons than hating black folks why someone might oppose the legislation.
But it's not like he was in the Klan like Robert Byrd. His own hiring practices and personal attitudes seem to have been reasonably progressive. Ann Coulter, of course, thinks that Jesse Helms hung the moon, and wrote him a beautiful and loving obituary. She relates one interesting little anecdote that seems to be at least a counter example to the stereotype of Helm's supposed "racism"
In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.
Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."
Ann Coulter, Daddy's Girl What kind of monster would spawn the likes of the dreaded Ann Coulter? Her beloved father John Vincent Coulter passed recently, and Miss Ann gives him one of the more touching tributes I've ever seen. This was quite an illuminating and unusually personal glimpse into her dark and twisted soul.
She's SUCH a daddy's girl. You can see how she got like she is coming from this guy. Daddy apparently spent some years in his youth as a red-huntin' FBI agent. Some would object to such things, and there were certainly excesses - but I for one am glad that we've had such as John Vincent Coulter checking backgrounds on people working at nuclear plants, for starters.
Most interesting to me was her brief accounting of Daddy's brave service as a strikebreaker.
In the early 1980s, as vice president and labor lawyer for Phelps Dodge copper company, Father broke a strike against the company, which culminated in the largest union decertification ever -- at that time and perhaps still. President Reagan had broken the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. But unions recognized that it was the breaking of the Phelps Dodge strike a few years later that landed the greater blow, as described in the book "Copper Crucible."
There was massive violence by the strikers, including guns being fired into the homes of the mine employees who returned to work. Every day, Father walked with the strikebreakers through the picket line, (in my mind) brushing egg off his suit lapel.
By 1986 it was over; the mineworkers voted against the union and Phelps Dodge was saved. For any liberals still reading, this is what's known as a "happy ending."
You can practically see her chest puffing up with pride, as well it might.
But those couple of resume highlights are just the framework to explain his personality. This may be the best thing Ann Coulter ever wrote. I challenge you to read this tribute and maintain your hateful attitude to her. God bless Miss Ann and John Vincent Coulter.
On Ann Coulter and the John Edwards Faggot Massacre Oh no, Ann Coulter's really in trouble now! She made a joke at the conservative CPAC convention referring to John Edwards as a "faggot," which of course proves that she hates homosexuals and wishes them harm. In her own best defense, Coulter later said, "C'mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean."
Wrote a story about it, yes I did. Read all about the JOHN EDWARDS FAGGOT MASSACRE. See all 8x10 color glossy photographs, complete with the circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back.
Here's a bonus bit of rightwing hand wringing from Albert Mohler, who declares, "So . . . why would Ann Coulter use that word? And, even more troubling to me, why would any in her audience laugh? There is nothing remotely funny about that word in any context."
Says who? Gay jokes are an absolute staple of comedy, and generally not even derisive. But Coulter's remark isn't really even a gay joke, actually. Still, it's good that there's someone who can tell me what's legitimately funny. *******************************
While we're at it, I just found this defense of Ann Coulter from a good feminist liberal name of Elspeth Reeve working at The New Republic. Read her Weenie Roast.
Googling Ms Reeve, I was not surprised at the ridiculously vicious and/or condescending responses full of Stalinist zeal she got from around the web against even a good liberal who might have just a small part of a grain of sympathy for Coulter. Here are a couple of them:
Also, I have a special section of anti-Ann Coulter images, "Ann Coulter's Badges of Honor." (Actually some of the stuff on pages 18 and 19 among other could fit here as well.) If you think Ann Coulter is Hitler and Satan rolled into one, then you'll love all these images of Ann Coulter as "fascist party doll" wearing brown shirts, rolling with Hitler, and lots of other clever images. Yet, I see pictures like these, and the people making them say that SHE is the hater. Look and judge for yourself. 2021222324
Ann Coulter Attacks Paul McCartney I was particularly entertained by a story about Ann Coulter at Pugbus.net. I found it through Google News, and wondered what in the world beef Ann Coulter could possibly have with poor getting divorced on his 64th birthday Sir Paul? Geez, what a bitch!
I was really pleased with the way they roped me in. It is now clearly marked at Google News as satire, but was not originally. So I wasn't sure. I started getting suspicious after a couple of paragraphs, but all this crazy outrageous stuff they're putting in her mouth sounded plausible. I could almost believe that she'd say
"Paulie should drag his dyed-hair-wearing, sugar-coated- song-writing, one-legged-whore-humping ass out to pasture," wrote Ms. Coulter in yesterday's Parade magazine.
Hey, I could imagine her writing something like that. My first clue that it was probably bogus was that Parade magazine wouldn't print that, not that she wouldn't say it. But I had to read most of the article before I was sure- which is a pretty good trick, keeping me strung out an impressively long time.
However, I was pretty sure they were pulling my leg by the time she's supposedly saying, "Brad Pitt is so in denial about being gay that his closets have revolving doors. He's been a serial bitch for a string of man-eating shemales, starting with Gwyneth Paltrow." Then they carefully cleared up any conclusion with "The fine print: the editorial content of this site is fictional. Be advised to believe half of what you see and nothing of what you read."
What makes it noteworthy or funny to me on further reflection is thinking through the creator's intent. Who exactly is the object of satiric derision here? The first obvious thought would be that they're mocking Coulter's abusive style.
But not really. Perhaps it's something of a Rorschach test, but I found myself sympathetic to the totally ridiculous and hateful arguments that they put in Coulter's mouth. As regards Sir Paul, I would rather see him being publicly shitty about his ex rather than looking sad and mopey. I love you Paul, but buck up, old man. Plus, the Brangelina stuff was just comedy gold.
I say they ended up making Ann Coulter a sympathetic character. Or maybe I'm just as twisted as her.
To Jasmin Borhan, Executive Vice-President of Corporate Communications for Bertelsmann:
Dear Ms Borhan,
Fellow named "Sprague Dawley" has a "Diary of a Rat" blog entry blasting away at Ann Coulter, but really more bashing Random House for publishing her, and Universal Press Syndicate for publishing her weekly column. He lists you there as the corporate contact for her book publisher whom we should wag our fingers at in disdain for publishing the evil one.
See, that's because, "Her comments in her new book and on television that the widows of men who died in the World Trade Center are exploiting the deaths of their husbands and reveling in financial gain from the catastrophe." Perhaps readers could peruse her book and make such judgements for themselves. Wait, no, they don't need to do that. Sprague Dawley et al have already figured it out for us, and there's no need in making her writing available at all. As he titles his column, "Enough Is Enough."
Now, besides the delightfully Stalinist flavor of his spiel, that argument about Coulter exploiting the widows is so perfectly, perversely backwards- and it's not the first time I've heard it. Saying that they're full of crap isn't exploitative. John Kerry using them in campaign ads as the whores for his grief-pimpin' in order to try to get elected president- now THAT is exploiting widows and the national grief- which was exactly Coulter's point of criticism.
So then first of all, thank you for publishing Ann Coulter. She makes ME crazy about half the time, and makes me want to give her hell myself. But if she makes me a little crazy, she's REALLY gotten the goat of every pinko in the land. Where could she even keep that many goats? Does she own a farm or something?
However angry her detractors get, Ann Coulter is doing a good service for the public discourse. Indeed, the vitriol of the hatas is strong evidence of her virtue. In short, Ann Coulter is one of the most truly transgressive major political writers in the world today. She carefully and gleefully tramples routinely on the ground where more timid writers fear to tread. She's the cheerfulest warrior around, and has never ever legitimized her opponents by appeasement.
What really tells me she's doing God's work though is when the rightwingers go ballistic on her, trying to prove that they're "compassionate conservatives." Really though, a "compassionate conservative" like President Bush is just a liberal who wants to be thought of as frugal. To me, her work is even more a rebuke of mealymouthed RINO conservatives than of liberals.
Anyway, it's funny how some left wing types react to Ann. It certainly shows their true colors and double-triple standards about free speech and intellectual diversity. I'm not sure about Sprague specifically, but many of these folks have a hissy fit about censorship and intolerance if anyone says anything critical of the Dixie Chicks. You're just like book burning Nazis if you tell some radio station you're not interested in hearing the Chicks.
But boy howdy, are they in a huge hissy fit not just saying they don't like Coulter's writing, but trying to shame and pressure her publisher for even offering her books. Sprague would obviously very much like to suppress Coulter, for he's got nothing to say in response to her arguments but to sputter indignantly that she's making.... MONEY. Why, you're just trying to sell as many books as you can- and you don't even care that Sprague Dawley doesn't agree with her!
I wasn't real thrilled with ex-fans calling radio stations to ask them not to play the Dixie Chicks, but if they're unhappy with programming on a station that they listen to, that's one thing. They're customers expressing dissatisfaction with the product. But no one was trying to pressure the record label to drop them, or stop them from having concerts. A couple of schmucks aside, no one was threatening them or trying to disrupt their shows, as Coulter hatas have been known to do.
It's a Nazi book burning in progress if ex-fans destroy their own copies of CDs they no longer want to hear- but trying to get you to stop offering Ann Coulter books for sale to anyone, well that's just their free speech protest. This Sprague Dawley was right pleased to add a postscript to his story that a bookstore owner has suggested that numerous adverse reactions gave him regrets for having Coulter do a book-signing in his shop. Yup, they're ready to send anyone who would object to gay marriage off to "The Death Camp of Tolerance" to learn to accept diversity, but harassing book stores for selling her books or having her in to sign them- well, that's different.
Also, check out my collection of anti-Ann Coulter images- her Badges of Honor, I'm calling it. Quoting Dan Quayle, Ms Coulter is fond of saying of her critics, "I wear their contempt as a badge of honor." Woo, doggies, do some of these people go nuts with the Coulter-as-Nazi nonsense. Again, I've not seen stuff this harsh even about Michael Moore, who really IS a lying weasel. These incredible screechings are indeed high praise. I bet she's way proud to have earned such high honors. She should be.
THIS doctored image from the Vietnam war on the UC Santa Cruz website is especially sweet. Imagine the reaction if some rightwing idiot photoshopped in, say, Natalie Maines rather than Coulter. Couple a few things like that with stuff like this fool making a big point of publishing what he believes to be Coulter's actual residential address that she's gone to some effort to conceal.
Thankfully, she's absolutely not interested in playing victim, and actively refuses to connect the dots. The beautiful thing is how she absolutely doesn't reward their tantrums by appeasement, getting her feelings hurt, or being intimidated by their evilest tactics.
Indeed, it went by little noticed in her June 14, 2006 appearance on Jay Leno's show, but ol' Jay inadvertently laid her the main biggest trap she could ever fall into. By way of trying to make nice after politely and professionally smacking her around a bit, he asked her if she employed bodyguards. It was an open invitation to play for public sympathy over the threats that she surely gets. Thankfully, she's way too much of a man for that, and swatted the idea away with a little kiss for the big tough conservative men she travels with and trusts for protection.
Besides the actual content of her books and columns, this example that she sets about how to handle the heat of being an object of intense public hatred is also a fine contribution to public debate. I particularly admire and take personal inspiration from Ann Coulter's example in these matters. Please thank her for me.
I hate in order to prove my everlasting love for Ann Coulter. Reckon wonder who a fellow would have to shoot to get a date with Ann? All the worth-shootin' Kennedys are long dead... No wait, that's not what I mean to say, let me reload and take another shot at it.
I hate to love Ann Coulter. She's a bad, bad person. It's a horrible vice that speaks to the moral rot at my soul. It proves I'm heartless. But I can't help myself. I love Ann Coulter.
I suspect that Miss Ann would not approve of the likes of me. For starters, her new book is called Godless. Us vs them here makes it that athiests are liberals and conservatives are believers. I'd fall on the wrong side of that divide, I'm afraid.
But her whole PR run on the book has been built on these now famous and publicly repeated statements from the book about the New Jersey widows "enjoying" their husbands deaths. "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." Predictably, there have been a bunch of people of all political stripes clucking their tongues in exquisitely sensitive outrage.
This whole public theater of Coulter's has a beautiful Andy Kaufman thing going. She's the national political wrestling villain, an evil heel. Oh god, I think it's going to be a gusher! I'm just saying.
Let's pause to note for a moment that she's got a perfectly legitimate point about professional widows and victims. Left wing types have gotten to be pretty clever about sending out widows, grieving mothers and victims to do their dirty work, to a significant extent shielded by our compassion, taking foul advantage of our social niceties.
I object strongly to this emotional fascism, and the specifically depraved, life-energy draining vampirism of this whole setup of pushing the victims out as spokesman. Yes, it's dishonest and intellectually corrupt- but that's not the worst of it.
The worst thing is how this whole strategy depends on playing up to people's senses of pity- and that's just as wrong as can be. I'm sure the author of Godless would appreciate me invoking Nietzche, and specifically his Anti-Christ in her defense. Then again, some folks do seem to think that SHE is the Anti-Christ. But I digress.
"Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities. The loss of force which life has already sustained through suffering is increased and multiplied even further by pity." -Friedrich Nietzche The Anti-Christ section 7
Nietzche was arguing against Christianity specifically with this argument, and he certainly had a good point. But it's not all inclusive. Coulter has her better and lesser points, but she does not play to pity. Her idea of Christianity is something else.
But the cheesiest Christians have nothing on the modern church of liberalism. Take it as it applies, but the poopie-lickin' pity parties make me nauseous like Nietzche. Coulter looks at them that way, too. That's the main real reason I love Ann Coulter.
The New Jersey widows and Cindy Sheehan are the absolute epitomes of the genre. These women and their backers are doing damage to our life force by their tactics, regardless of the specific policies they advocate. They pour in pity to corrupt the purity of the essence of our precious bodily fluids.
Coulter gleefully leaps overboard with her gratuitous pokes, of course. Maybe their husbands were getting ready to divorce them? Now damn it, that's just being a bitch. I'm calling a five yard penalty on the field for unnecessary roughness. Bad Ann!
But that's nothing compared to the ridiculous presumptions of moral outrage from every grief pimp in the land. Coulter might be given to sweeping with an extremely broad brush, of overreaching, guilty of pig stealing and goat humpin.' But that's a moral misdemeanor at worst- far less than the felonious offenses against Geometry and Theology of her opponents.
Let's start with Hillary, who reacted to the NJ widows remarks by attacking Coulter as "heartless." First off, that's a COMPLIMENT to a pirate like Ann. It's a pretty wussy attack. You're HEARTLESS. Eeew! Of course "heartless" would be the perfect antithesis of the grotesquery of pity as Nietzche describes it- so thank you.
Plus Ann gets extra points for being willing to point out the obvious: If Hillary Clinton wants to be concerned over poor women being victimized and treated badly, she might ought to start closer to home with, among others, Juanita Broderick.
Nearly every pundit in the land it seems has rushed to defend the honor of these poor women being treated so badly by Ann. Of course, you'd expect the Democrats and pinkos to jump on this.
For example, the sanctimony of David Carr tut-tutting her "Deadly Intent" and her audience in the New York Times was pretty funny as a response. In the church of liberalism, Monsieur Carr is trying out for the role of Church Lady, demonstrating his little superior dance. "Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom's basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us." Well, isn't that special?
Our Blogcritics are falling all over themselves to get in the front of the I-hate-Coulter parade. Candy Kayne leads a special two-minute hate called, "Why I Hate Ann Coulter, and You Should Too." Here's the money quote:
It's disgusting that Ann Coulter uses the misery of someone else to sell her vitriolic venom in book form. Her book continues to sell at a rapid pace, but at what cost? She reaps the benefits of the deaths of innocent men and women in 9/11 at the same time she tramples on the tears of their children and loved ones left behind.
That's your emotional fascism, right there. In the first place, it's all ass-backwards: It's Kerry putting these women in his commercials that was trying to benefit from the deaths of their husbands, not Ann criticizing them. But beside that, you can't smack these women down in the public arena, cause you'll hurt their poor orphaned kids' feelings.
Oh, HELL no. You do NOT get to shut off debate by beating down opponents with your pity stick like that. By the time you get to making Kerry campaign commercials, you're WAY past any claims like that.
Steve Huff is reduced to a legal investigation wanting to discredit Ann and perhaps have her jailed as a "felon" for apparently listing a business address as her legal residence on her public Florida voter registration files.
Huff's story itself is a FAR more grievous offense, arguably an actual victimization (whatever the exact legal parameters of publishing such private info on obvious high risk targets), not just a couple of catty remarks as Coulter made of "The Witches of East Brunswick." For the sake of making his dumb point about her voter registration, he absolutely lists what he believes to be her actual street address of residence. Avoiding making such info public would of course be exactly the legitimate reason for Coulter to fudge public records like voting registration.
Thankfully, Ann Coulter is not about playing victim- but she certainly could. She's certainly had a lot more public disruptions and half-assed attacks trying to actually prevent her from speaking her piece than any of the Film Actors Guild crowd has ever suffered, despite their exquisite fantasies of repression. She's just not carrying on about it.
More specifically though, I'd bet you dollars to Homer Simpson's donuts that Ann Coulter has gotten more, worse, and more credible death threats than any Dixie Chicks ever thought about. What kind of schmuck would I be considered if I published Natalie Maines' secret residential address on a public web page out of spite like that? I'd actually DESERVE the scorn.
But considerably cheesier are some of the numerous compassionate conservatives denouncing Ann to prove their great gushin' mother humpin' compassion. Brother Blogcritic Pete Blackwell insists that "Coulter Victimizes the Victims." Here's the finale:
Even if you violently disagree with the political views of the terror widows and Cindy Sheehans of the world, you can at least understand that they are motivated by their pain and grief. Coulter, on the other hand, is motivated by nothing other than greed and vindictiveness. And she's cashing in big-time.
See, ol' Pete's not like those heartless bastards who don't focus enough on the pitiful sufferings of others. But other than grasping for a cheap feeling of moral superiority or the fear of the whip of being called heartless, there's no rational reason to assume that pain and grief are their motivations rather than other obvious common forms of human venality. Cindy Sheehan sure seems to be a lot more concerned with talking about her dead son on television than she apparently was in actually raising him as a boy. Why should I think anything but the worst about her at this point?
"I wear their contempt as a badge of honor" Ann Coulter is prone to quoting. [Note my anti-Ann Coulter pictures.] As Charles Manson was being led off to prison at the end of his trial in the Helter Skelter movie, he says to the prosecutor "You know, if you beat a man with the whip, and he LIKES the whip- you're just making a fool of yourself." Then again, if it was Ann wielding the whip... But I digress.
I just know that I'd rather be considered a big meanie than to waste my precious life energies on cheap pity to appease the misguided moral demands of weenies. I would ten times rather be "heartless" than once a grief pimp.
I'd MUCH rather play pirate, helping Ann Coulter make the pinkos walk the plank, rather than being an insufferable prig enforcing an arbitrary and selective public deference to pain.
Harriet E. Miers and Blood in the Water You can distinctly smell blood in the water around the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court. Prediction: This nomination gets withdrawn before they ever get to any senate hearings.
President Bush gets to pick the nominees, and he's a stubborn kind of fellow- which isn't always a bad trait. But pretty nearly absolutely NO ONE really likes this nomination, so how's it going to work?
Of course, this nomination immediately got a very bad response from conservative types. You wouldn't necessarily be surprised that Ann Coulter went bloody nuts about this pick. But even such a Bush booster as his former speechwriter David Frum who personally knows Miers was singularly unimpressed.
My first clue that there was serious trouble was the immediate and total opposition of George Will. CLICK HERE This guy's the great American Tory, a spirit of moderation and contemplation who is- for my tastes- too willing to settle for "realistic" options. When even this guy immediately responded that the US Senate should flatly reject this nomination, that's serious trouble for a Republican pick.
I smelled blood, though, when I saw THIS COLUMN on October 13 by Peggy Noonan. This former Reagan speechwriter is generally the most eloquent and reasonable mainstream spinner for Republicans. Instead, this genteel operative was writing a detailed exit plan for just how to back out of this nomination. Bad sign for Dubya, there. Real bad.
Charles Krauthammer has an alternate scenario for backing out of the Miers mess. CLICK HERE
It's only gotten worse. Jonah Goldberg at National Review was one of the last significant conservatives wanting to at least reserve judgment until her hearings, but now even he has gotten disgusted and thrown in the towel. Heck, George Will has gotten even more radical, declaring that any Republican senator who votes for Miers "can never be considered presidential material. "
Ann Coulter offers perhaps the best straightforward and simple explanation of why movement conservatives are so opposed to Miers:
The sickness of what liberals have done to America is that so many citizens - even conservative citizens - seem to believe the job of a Supreme Court justice entails nothing more than "voting" on public-policy issues. The White House considers it relevant to tell us Miers' religious beliefs, her hobbies, her hopes and dreams. She's a good bowler! A stickler for detail! Great dancer! Makes her own clothes!
That's nice for her, but what we're really in the market for is a constitutional scholar who can forcefully say, "No - that's not my job."
We've been waiting 30 years to end the lunacy of nine demigods on the Supreme Court deciding every burning social issue of the day for us, loyal subjects in a judicial theocracy. We don't want someone who will decide those issues for us - but decide them "our" way.
Exactly. We don't just need a vote against Roe, but a major level geek scholar who can break it down in words and cite precedents and all that to explain exactly where they went off track constitutionally with that and many other decisions.
We're precisely NOT looking for "common sense," which just means some gut reaction in line with the gut reactions of other people. Barney Fife could have used some common sense, but it will do us no good on the court. It's as if we're trying to appoint Judge Judy to the Supreme Court. The difference, of course, is that Judge Judy actually has judicial experience.
Meanwhile, the Democrats are almost all going to vote against her. That's a political given. The main thing, of course, is that they would dearly LOVE to stick it to President Bush. This would be a major rebuke.
Also though, Miers would obviously vote to overturn Roe in a heartbeat. She's on record supporting a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. You can try to argue that this theoretically doesn't necessarily say anything about how she'd vote on Roe. But nobody believes that of someone such as Miers with no hint of exhibiting any deeper constitutional philosophy- nor should they.
This clear opposition to Roe would compel most Democrat senators to vote against her, but they've got a lot more cover. She just legitimately has a very weak resume for this ultra-important job. Even all the right wingers say that she's simply flatly professionally unqualified for the job, regardless of any specifically political considerations. The right wing nutjobs thus provide legitimate cover for Democrat senators, and they're right in doing so.
Meantime, President Bush seems to be depending on nothing but absolute party loyalty to get ANY Republican support. With nearly every Democrat likely to vote against her, it would take not much more than half a dozen Republicans to absolutely sink the nomination.
In fact, Bush seems likely to lose half the Republican senators for various reasons, starting with that the politics are all running against supporting this weak nominee. For starters, it seems highly unlikely that any Republican senator intending to run for president in 2008 would support Miers. With big chunks of the base madder than a wet hen about this, Republican presidential hopefuls absolutely don't want conservative activists thinking that they're just Bush toadies.
That goes just as much for Republican senators having to face their general homestate electorate. A Republican in any kind of tough re-election battle next year is going to be highly motivated to find some good reason to part with this not very popular president. Voting against Miers would distinctly please most movement activists, and would be seen among independent swing type voters as a desirable sign of independence.
Indeed, why would any Republican senator vote FOR Miers? Even trying to do the best thing for the Republican Party at this point starts to point toward bailing. The personal politics will be against it. Plus, they can legitimately justify to themselves that she's just completely unqualified.
Oh, and don't neglect to mention cronyism. The Miers nomination has almost been worth it just for the pure founts of exasperation it has generated from Ann Coulter. She had the funniest explanation for the Miers pick, also one that looks especially bad on Bush. She suggested on Hannity and Colmes that Bush picked Miers because he "hates" conservatives. He was mad because conservatives had made it abundantly clearl that they found Alberto Gonzalez unacceptable. Oh yeah? You don't like this crony pick? I'll get you a crony pick that you'll like even less.
I hate to think that the leader of the free world would be acting in such a childish manner over such a critical appointment. However, that seems like at least as good an explanation for this hamhanded move as anything I've seen.
In any case, it would be difficult to argue that this nomination was not a move of major hubris, knowingly picking an underqualified crony for this crucial appointment, and expecting his people to just fall in line because he said to. For personal entertainment value, I'd likely to see Democrats and lefties going all moonbat on us, but they just won't have to. Republican senators will likely kill this deal for them.
It's the strangest method of grieving I've seen since Paul Wellstone's funeral. Someone needs to teach these liberals how to mourn.
Call me old-fashioned, but a grief-stricken war mother shouldn't have her own full-time PR flack. After your third profile on "Entertainment Tonight," you're no longer a grieving mom; you're a C-list celebrity trolling for a book deal or a reality show.
Personally, I'd be inclined to take a considerably harsher view of Cindy Sheehan than Coulter does here. Thus, I'm avoiding saying much. I suspect that if my urge is to be harsher than Coulter, it might be best to hold my tongue.
Ann Coulter, please meet Separation of Powers Ann Coulter should be put to the lash. I'm afraid, however, that a setting of Ann Coulter, Al Barger and a lash would somehow result in me being her woman in some terribly shameful way.
So from a keyboard at a safe distance, I'll call her out for willful ignorance regarding the Terri Schiavo case, as evidenced in THIS COLUMN. Now besides all the ugly and irrelevant attacks on Michael Schiavo, she was willfully blind to the limited powers of government. The significance of this separation-of-powers business should be central to any political conservative, yet she willfully viciously discards this basic principle when it interfered with the pro-prolonging Terri's torture stance Ms Coulter was intent on making. FOUL!
She was particularly peeved over arguments against federal or state legislative interference in the Schiavo manner based on principals of federalism. She acknowledges the argument that it wasn't W's proper place to get involved, and then simply mocks rather than actually answers the argument. Her best argument there was the simply factually unsubstantiated claim that "strict constructionist" states rights opponents of federal involvement in the Schiavo case were the same people who opposed the 1964 Voting Rights Act. She's just pulling that one out of her ass.
She had one interesting summary sentence about this whole legal process:
"Our infallible, divine ruler is a county judge in Florida named George Greer, who has more authority in America than the U.S. Congress, the president and the governor."
Why yes dear, the weight of local judges generally should be deciding how to apply the laws on custodial matters, not legislatures or the US Congress. Of course, this local judge was scrutinized by a half dozen layers of judges over him, challenged repeatedly all the way to the US Supreme Court.
It is the job of state legislatures, and still not really of the US Congress to make the laws determining who gets to make major medical decisions. They set the policy, and it is primarily the job of the courts to neutrally enforce these policies made by the legislature in individual cases. That's the main thing courts are supposed to do.
So yup, as regards personal custody cases in Pinellas County, Florida, George Greer swings a bigger gavel than the US Congress or even his mighty highness King George. That's exactly how it's supposed to be.
Thank God and the founders for that, and now poor Terri has truly gone to her rest.
Terri Schiavo's So-Called "Supporters" The Terri Schiavo case has become a cultural Rorschach test, with enough conflicts and ambiguities that different people see different things in it. Therefore, I won't necessarily 100% describe my own reactions as totally and unequivocally "rational" and based absolutely only on the facts in front of me. I approach that as nearly as I can, but all have fallen short of the glory of God.
That said, some of the supposed "supporters" of Terri Schiavo really positively UNimpress me. Rather than generalizing, here are a couple from Easter Sunday that particularly caused me to want lay my oak walking staff upside their heads:
Am I supposed to believe that this little drama queen display for the cameras was about anything other than getting attention and some cheap moral glory for the subject, one Mary Porta?
This display reminds me of my late ex-bootlegging grandfather Brown Barger. He was polite, and generally more discrete than me in holding his tongue. He got along fine with nearly everyone, including the local Holy Roller types. Nonetheless, he was particularly unimpressed with all the speaking in tongues, and rolling and weeping in the aisles stuff. Within the family, he expressed the opinion that such displays were much more likely some demonic possession than anything to do with God. That, or they're just looking for cheap attention. **************************
Perhaps I can come up with a caption for this picture of Rev Jerry Lane of Chattanooga, TN. "I am the final arbiter of morality in even the most difficult cases. Vengence is Mine, sayeth Jerry Lane."
I'd like to lay my oak staff to his head Charlton Heston style, and say, "Let my people go." ************************** Also, I was far less than impressed last week with Greta Van Susteren. She's usually one of the less overtly partisan hacks at Fox News, but she's lost several pegs of respectability with her Schiavo material.
Specifically, she spent most of a show interviewing people who claimed to have known Terri Schiavo back when she was alive. She dug up some old co-worker to claim she wasn't happy in her marriage, and had talked about leaving her husband. She came up with a couple more slightly cheesier than that.
Now, besides the question of whether you can believe anything these random people say, or the context of it, why is this national news for America's #1 fair and balanced news source, especially these years later? This nonsense seems to be nothing but a cheap shot at a man who has been making difficult decisions, and who has lost his wife. Not just lost her clean in some car wreck, but in a horribly torturous and drawn out manner. *************************
Likewise, screw Ann Coulter. I'm usually sympathetic to her, but her numerous references to Michael Schiavo as an "adulterer" have me ready to smite her. Is it her considered opinion that it was morally incumbent on Michael Schiavo to remain utterly alone all these years? Terri Schiavo's breathing corpse is nothing to tell your troubles to at the end of the day. Was Michael Schiavo supposed to remain alone and celibate for 15 years? ************************** Likewise, the Schindler family and their representatives don't deserve much higher commendations. They got some shyster to come up claiming he heard Terri trying to repeat after him, "I want to live." This account is what is technically known as a BIG FAT FRICKIN LIE. The corpses shell laid up in that bed has shown no form of language ability after many thousands of hours of prodding and leading.
Her mother, Mary Schindler, is generally supposed to be about the top sympathy getter in this mess. She loves this and obviously milks it for every bit of attention and sympathy she can generate.
I was particularly unimpressed to hear her at microphones in front of the hospice on Tuesday the 29th calling out publicly Michael and his new companion by name. Someone less sympathetic than me might call her an uncaring, manipulative, grandstanding bitch. If she were really motivated by Terri's welfare, she'd recognize that Elvis has long since left the building, and let her go to her rest. Shoving the husbands new companion up his ass publicly like this only adds insensitivity to the self-indulgence of keeping Terri's corpse breathing.
Then there's Jesse Jackson, who is surely not just looking for another martyr into who's blood he can dip his figurative shirt.
There are some questions on the margin about Terri Schiavo's consciousness. Does she have any feelings of pain or pleasure, does she have at least some passing bit of consciousness of her surroundings? At best, she'd have a sub-animal consciousness. She certainly doesn't have the mental capacities of even a chicken, which are pretty dumb animals.
Not being a neurologist, nor ever having seen her in person, I couldn't level any kind of "clinical diagnosis." However, as just a sensible human being, I can make out a pretty good idea from these two photographs.
This shows Terri Schiavo years ago, back when she had a human consciousness. She sure was pretty, and looked like an active and vital young woman. It's too bad she died in 1990.
This lays breathing for perhaps a few more hours or days at a hospice in Florida. This corpse's shell isn't Terri Schiavo. She left the building in 1990.
Personally, I regard this 15 years in a hospital bed as cruel and unusual punishment. I know of absolutely NO ONE who would choose this for themselves.
Dear Schiavo "supporters:" Thanks a lot for grotesquely dragging out her death these many years. You're really helping out.
Having already complained to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe about other Democrats attacking him, Dean recently said: "I'm feeling a little more Job-like recently." That's comforting. A few snippy remarks from the likes of Dick Gephardt and Dean thinks it's the wrath of the God of Abraham. Yeah, that's definitely the guy we want leading the nation in perilous times.
Now, come on- even all y'all pinkos have to admit that this is quite witty. Also, admit that this is a fair criticism of Dean, even if you like the man. After all, in the Christian terminology he now believes in, all have fallen short of the glory of God.
Oh yes, she may be a pain in the ass, but she knows how to stick it up in Howard Dean and break it off.
Which I suppose gets to my dis-ease with Coulter. Obviously she's one of the hottest chicks around, but I'm afraid that if I ever got with her that SHE would end up pitching. I fear that it would be some kind of a Crying Game deal, where the hot chick turns out to be swinging a big ol' wanger or something. I shudder to even consider the "or something."
While presenting Al Franken with his comedy trophy at yesterday's New York Magazine Awards, Fey lauded the liberal author of "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" for skewering the likes of Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, adding: "Have you ever seen Ann Coulter in person? It's like seeing a rat. It's like, ewwww!"
Come on, Ann- don't let her get away with that! Show up on her set with a ball bat. Cuss her out. Get in that ass.
Ann Coulter pimp slaps Peter Arnett Rand bless Ann Coulter. Dissection of liberal and fifth column media types being her specialty, the world really needed her specifically to properly break down the Peter Arnett treachery. And oh yes, she has it down.
Arnett also bragged about the demoralizing effect his reporting was having back home: "Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."
Any journalist who boasted that his reports were helping demoralize the enemy the way Arnett was boasting that his reports were demoralizing his own country would be brought before the Columbia School of Journalism on ethics charges. What journalists mean by "objectivity" is: relentlessly attacking your own country while engaging in mindless boosterism of the enemy. At least now we know.
Damn, she's evil. If we'd just strap a bazooka on her back and drop her into Baghdad, the war would probably be over in a day.