Ann Coulter’s Roots Show: True Elitism

As Thomas Frank demonstrates in his book, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, grassroots movement conservatives have been conditioned to hate — yes, hate — all things “Liberal,” specially the uber-caricature that conservative demagogues (like Ms Coulter) have drawn of “Ivy League Liberals” or, more broadly, of “Elites” imperiously ruling from their Liberal urban centers, far removed from the “heartland” — where real, salt-of-the-earth, Americans live. And, yet, as Mr Frank writes, while grassroots conservatives go on loathing these phantom “Elites” of their imaginations, the real elites — the corporatists, fascists and fundamentalists religious demagogues — lie, deceive and condescend to their blind flock of conservative followers, whom remain ever obedient and distracted.

And now, Ms Coulter — the product of an “Elite” education herself –, the poster girl for wingnuts everywhere, and one of the loudest mouth pieces in today’s conservative movement, strays from the script and let’s her true roots show:

Harriet Miers went to Southern Methodist University Law School, which is not ranked at all by the serious law school reports and ranked No. 52 by US News and World Report. Her greatest legal accomplishment is being the first woman commissioner of the Texas Lottery.

I know conservatives have been trained to hate people who went to elite universities, and generally that’s a good rule of thumb. But not when it comes to the Supreme Court. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, such a revelation about Ms Coulter’s true allegiance and character is not enough to bring her down from the pedestal that conservatives have sat her on. Because, as Ms Coulter alludes to, and as Mr Frank wrote, grassroots movement conservatives are true believers, and there’s just no way in hell that their prophets and messiahs can be shown to be infallible — Ms Coulter writes:

Unfortunately for Bush, he could nominate his Scottish terrier Barney, and some conservatives would rush to defend him, claiming to be in possession of secret information convincing them that the pooch is a true conservative and listing Barney’s many virtues � loyalty, courage, never jumps on the furniture …

Clearly, Ms Coulter is not a grassroots movement conservative, she’s a political opportunist, a true elite and a fascist, fully aware that her vile rhetoric against Liberals, Democrats and Progressives is merely means to power — which she’s willing to deploy in the aid of her class and her ideological peers.

Like Mr Bush, with his most recent Supreme nomination, whose shown himself to be more interested in advancing cronyism and corporatism — with some imperialism thrown in for good measure –, I wonder if Ms Coulter and Mr Bush have gone too far this time in letting everyone see what their true colors are? Here’s Ms Coulter, again, thumbing her nose at those silly salt-of-earth types, which should let the business of ruling and of deciphering the law to their betters:

One Web site defending Bush’s choice of a graduate from an undistinguished law school complains that Miers’ critics “are playing the Democrats’ game,” claiming that the “GOP is not the party which idolizes Ivy League acceptability as the criterion of intellectual and mental fitness.” (In the sort of error that results from trying to sound “Ivy League” rather than being clear, that sentence uses the grammatically incorrect “which” instead of “that.” Web sites defending the academically mediocre would be a lot more convincing without all the grammatical errors.)

[...]

To be sure, if we were looking for philosopher-kings, an SMU law grad would probably be preferable to a graduate from an elite law school. But if we’re looking for lawyers with giant brains to memorize obscure legal cases and to compose clearly reasoned opinions about ERISA pre-emption, the doctrine of equivalents in patent law, limitation of liability in admiralty, and supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367 � I think we want the nerd from an elite law school. Bush may as well appoint his chauffeur head of NASA as put Miers on the Supreme Court.

Now, grassroots conservatives are truly upset over the Miers nomination; because, as we’ve seen, movement conservatives expect their loyalty over past decades, but specially to the current occupier of the White House, to be reciprocated — and they’re simply tired of waiting. If the nomination proceeds all the way to Senate hearings, and if Ms Miers conservative bona fides are not made clear at that point, the gig may be up for the elite in Republican circles — and, yes, this is a big “MAY BE UP,” as I think that conditioning is not easily over come… besides, where would grassroots conservatives turn to… Roy Moore and a third party?

Of course, if grassroots movement conservatives are not interested in the third party route, they can do what Ms Coulter would have Ms Miers do — just go away and stop presuming that such a salt-of-the-earth type could ever hope to sit where only ivy grows:

[S]ome 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.

[...]

However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on “The West Wing,” let alone to be a real one.

[emphasis added]

You can find Ms Coulter’s column here.

Vote No On Roberts and Live to Tell About It

Vote no on Roberts!

Democrats must shore up their base and claim the title of an effective and vigorous opposition party. Accordingly, the best course at the moment is to begin making principled stances on high profile issues that can further a narrative describing what Dems believe in and stand for (ex., a) broadening the rights of Americans that have been historically marginalized; b) guarding domestic programs and the social well being; c) represented the little guy that cannot hire big time lawyers, like Roberts, to represent him before the Court). That narrative, at the moment, is set against the backdrop of a drowned New Orleans; which, as Dems in the Judiciary Committee have already cited, clearly illustrates the failures of Republican policies and of their administration of our government’s readiness and response.

With Roberts Dems have been given a perfect opportunity to describe the judge’s frequent refusal to answer forthrightly on so many issues, as unsatisfactory to the American people and that they — the American people — at a time of such political polarization, where the Court has, of recent, very narrowly decided many contentious cases dealing with national elections to eminent domain, deserve a judicial nominee that’s more forthcoming and ready to share with the country what the nominee’s views are on the many issues that Americans care about.

To my mind, Senator Biden did a good job of laying the ground work for such a tact when the Senator said, the American people would be rolling the dice with Judge Roberts, given that he’s refused to let the American people begin to understand his political philosophy. Now the Dems need to run with that, and device a message along the lines of: after being promised by President Bush that he would unite us, not divide us, and at a time when our country cannot afford any further polarization, the American people deserve a judicial nominee whose philosophy is clear and whose motives are transparent. Further, because judge Roberts has refused to answer so many vital questions, and because President Bush has not released the documents that would help the Senate better understand judge Roberts’ philosophy and his motives, we cannot in good conscious — on behalf of the American people — endorse him to sit on the Supreme Court.

Now, because the filibuster is off the table, Roberts is likely to win confirmation; however, the point here is to rally the base and to send a message to the administration. Moreover, this is the only way that Dems can begin to chip away at the Republican strangle hold on the national discourse. The fact is that Republican talking points and their surrogates dominate the public forum; accordingly, it is only through bold moves that Dems can hope to inject their narrative into the national discourse.

And, yes, don’t be surprised if Republicans and their media surrogates begin an all out assault against such an “obstructionist, partisan and bitterly divisive” move by the “obstructionist, partisan and bitterly divisive” Democrats. I mean, come on, would you expect anything else from Republicans? No matter what, Republicans and their allies do one thing, if nothing else, exceedingly well, and that’s attack, attack, attack. So, please, save your breath if you think that the ammo must be saved for the next big fight, rather than “wasting” it against Roberts. Again, understand this, this is one continuous big fight, and all enemies respect is one thing: a strong show of force. A strong Nay vote on Roberts, say 42 Nay votes, would bolsters the Dems credibility as an opposition party that’s ready to go to the matt over the issues that are important to the American people.

If you’ve not done it, contact your Senators and encourage them to demand more from Roberts and to vote no on him, we deserve serious answers. Also, as Howard Dean has suggested, use the DNC letter writing tool to send a letter to your local papers. We gotta turn up the heat on Roberts and let our Dem Representatives know that we expect results from them not just rhetoric.

Our Progressive ideological ancestors bled too much, fought too hard, died too frequently and surpassed too much for a bunch of soft bellied 21st century wankers to let them down now. The least we can do is make a call, write a letter, encourage a friend and let our representatives know that we expect results and some backbone.

Jesus Blogs

I love it when Jesus blogs — he’s funny:

BREAKING: Jesus blogs LIVE on Intelligent Design!

Thanks a lot, you dingleberries.

No, not you . The people who were supposed to meet me when I returned to Earth. Sure, they’re fundy morons, but they’re also my ride. So here I am, posting on your blog from a bus station in Kansas because they’re apparently so self-absorbed that they have no idea I’ve returned.

I know, I know. You’d expect me to announce my comeback at Powerline or Little Green Footballs or even on the 700 Club. They’re “my people.” Or at least they use my name more often than anyone else. The New Testament was written over 100 years after I died and they think they know me. Jerks.

I’m posting here because, unlike them, your minds aren’t hardened like cement, and your testosterone levels aren’t jacked up to 11. I may actually have a chance of getting through to you.

Anyway. Can I tell you something about Intelligent Design? Like, real insider stuff? I know, it’s like passing out a cheat sheet for a final exam, but my dad is so pissed with all the crap going on down here that he’s threatening to put his fist through the time-space continuum. Try living with that. You have no idea.

Let me see if I can tell you this without blowing your mind. Okay. The Clifs Notes version for your short attention spans:

Water = intelligent. Air = intelligent. Ozone layer = supremely intelligent (and it kept the fire marshal off Dad’s back). Polar ice caps = intelligent. Plankton = brilliant. The natural food chain = intelligent (and delicious). Plants = intelligent. Swiffer = off the intelligence scale.

Read the rest at DailyKos.com.

Girl Fight!!!

The following diary was originally posted at DailyKos.com and at MyLeftWing.com — I’m sure the author won’t mind, as she wants as much circulation of her challenge as possible. Also, the diary is too damn funny to not share with as wide an audience as possible.

Wherein I Challenge Ann Coulter to Debate Me

Let’s Do It For the Troops!

Any and all funds raised by our debate will immediately be donated to DISABLED VETERANS! Whaddya say, Annie baby?

That’s right, Ms. Coulter. I hereby issue you a challenge: Meet me in St. Louis, or wherever you please � and let’s have ourselves an honest-to-goodness debate.

Now, I realise that the concepts of both �honesty� and �goodness� are foreign to you, but you can do the research, right? — you’re a big girl.

(Metaphorically and chronologically, of course — god forbid you take that phrase literally and make the panicky teenaged decision to eschew even the meagre sustenance you’ve allowed yourself thus far. By the by, Ann � may I call you Ann? � where on earth did you get the idea that heroin chic was still fashionable? My god, woman, that is SO 1993).

Where was I? Oh, yes � a debate. �Twixt you and me, Annie baby. We can find ourselves a suitably impartial moderator � say, anyone who hasn’t ever seen you or read you. I wouldn’t want the inevitable revulsion of any sentient being to your previous work to create a bias in my favour.

Now, you may be saying to yourself (no doubt with your trademark sneer pasted on your Botoxed visage � how DO you do that, by the way? Do you get the injections WHILE sneering, in order to preserve that look?), �Why the heck should I debate this nonentity? What do I have to gain?�

Weight, for one thing � but never mind that now.

If I were you, Annie darling, I’d be asking the same question. Let’s start with the purely superficial advantages to your accepting this challenge:

• I’m a good 40 pounds heavier than you � you get to look even THINNER!
  (Be still my heart! � I’d wish you the same, but I’m pretty sure yours has been still for at least a decade.)
• It’s one more chance for you to demonstrate your superior debating skills while looking as fabulous as you can. Perhaps it might even be televised, thus assuring you another chunk of film for your archives.
• If you DO manage to talk someone into televising it, you can get your roots touched up and call it tax deductible.
• Free publicity � now what media whore (and I use the term with every ounce of disrespect I can muster) could resist that?

I have absolutely no doubt you will reject this challenge, should it cross your unprincipled path. Cowardice and self-interest demand you never set foot near a podium facing anyone who has even the slightest chance of upstaging your shallow, venal vernacular. Your rabid right wing talking points wouldn’t do you a bit of good, Annie dearest, in the face of actual facts delivered by someone who actually outmatches you in obnoxiousness AND wit (granted, the latter is an unfair comparison, since you seem to have plagiarised most of what you try to pass off as wit, anyway).

And trust me � I have it on excellent authority that I not only outweigh you physically, but intellectually, as well. (That authority being, oh, everyone I’ve ever met.)

Nevertheless, I am compelled to issue this challenge to you, Annie, sweetheart; too often lately, I have accidentally been exposed to your risible claims as to the inferiority � nay, TREASON � of the average liberal, and it will not stand.

Accustomed as you are to the cushion of your Fox News berth; to the faux-gallantry of your fellow traveler in fascism, Sean Hannity; to the woefully inadequate foils offered in sacrifice to you like so much rotting meat to a vulture� it is high time someone who is your intellectual, moral and physical superior threw down the gauntlet and dared you to pick it up.

I dare you, Annie, dollface, sweetums, puddin’ � I double dog dare you. Debate me. All I need is a couple days’ notice to raise sufficient funds for travel and accommodations wherever you decide to meet me.

(Okay, it will take less than an hour to raise the funds — but I need the rest of the time to arrange babysitting and get MY roots touched up.)

Let’s see if my hunch about you is right; let’s see if you really are the craven coward your curriculum vitae evinces you to be…

“Separation of Church and State is Absolute”

I came across this on Talking Points Memo, via Andrew Sullivan :

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish — where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source — where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials — and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. — John F. Kennedy

President Kennedy was right then, and he remains correct now — and always.