I appreciate the dismissive sneer, precisely so, for what it’s worth; I have been, oh so, put in my place. In point of fact I quite consciously indulge in those types of redundancies, excesses, very much because of the essentially Leftist audience who will read, and then dismiss them, regardless as to how they are worded. It’s not as if a debate or dialog is being sought in the first place.

Regarding the dismissiveness per se, thanks for demonstrating one of the primary points made.

Via normblog and another blog, three recent articles serve to high-light this salient and ubiquitous fact: Christopher Hitchens, David Aaronovitch and Martin Kettle.

Hitchens is having to argue, oh doncha know kids, that Abu Ghraib isn’t like Guernica, nor is the taking of Fallujah comparable to Guernica. He also parenthetically notes: “One of the cleansers of Darfur, only recently, employed [the Abu Ghraib photos] as a tu quoque to pre-empt any American condemnation of his activities.” Such are the rationales the intemperate Left is helping to forward. But no mind, righteousness inheres to every utterance from the Left, those who question as much are to be cast into the outer darkness and subjected to sneering disdain.

And a sample from David Aaronovitch: “All of a sudden I began to experience the left from the outside. And the first thing that struck me was its capacity for smug certainty and uniformity of response. Look at the cartoonists, whose work trumps debate. You may have Blair the poodle, Blair with blood-stained hands, Blair the liar, Bush the absurd chimp, but never, ever, Galloway the consort of tyrants or Kennedy the comforter of “insurgents”.

Or Martin Kettle: “So much for the voters, then. The electorate may have chosen in their reduced millions to return a Labour government with Tony Blair at its head, but that was last week. This week, it’s back to business, almost as though the election counted for nothing. For too many journalists and Labour MPs, it is clear that the voters are now deemed to have come up with the wrong answer. If the democratic process chose not to get rid of Tony Blair, then they – we – will now have a go at remedying the voters’ verdict. It was all absolutely predictable but none the less shocking and outrageous for that.”

Coulter uses invective and caustically acerbic rhetoric – and then some – in large part because it is very much what the Left and adjoining precincts deserve. The Left wants to wage their own overly heated rhetorical battles and wars; they want to sneer and smirk at virtually any conception that disallows of their self-endowed, and oft proclaimed, self-righteousness; they not inoften demand carte blanche to engage in the most disparaging, disdainful, vacuously arrogating forms of ad hominem bile and spittle; they want to do so, often enough, with some form of post-modern gloss or other forms of sophistical pretension to place a veneer over their despising, totalizing contempt for virtually any and all opposition – and they want to do so and then be treated decorously, as high-minded moral agents.

What ‘distinguished acting career’? I’m not an expert in acting careers (Mr. Rich probably is, however), but I only remember Silver in a couple of cheap psycho-killer movies; the rest is TV stuff, correct? Is this really a distinguished acting career? And what does his allegedly being able to understand Chinese have to do with anything?

Don’t you think “C-list publicity hound” sounds like a mild compliment compare to Coulter’s typical stuff? Not that I’m against Coulter or anything, it’s just that comparing her with Rich seems kinda absurd.

Right. Describing people who oppose the unprecedented use of judicial filibusters to permanently deny judicial nominees with majority support a vote as “A High Tech Lynching in Prime Time”, and comparing them to segregationists, George Wallace, and the Ku Klux Klan – that’s what ‘thoughtful’ liberals are all about.

I entirely agree. That is exactly the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from those that liberals describe as “thoughtful”. It really never does get any better than that.

Neither overtly, nor less so, did I reference Frank Rich as an “archtype,” instead I referenced him more simply as one simple example, within this post.

Re, your characterization of Frank Rich as a “careful” and “let’s-give-credit…” kind of guy, we will, to put it mildly, simply have to disagree. It’s true, F. Rich is currently fronting as something of a “cultural critic,” but he forwards the same schtick he’s always forwarded. So again, we’ll have to part ways on our differing, indeed polar opposite, assessments of F. Rich.

(In point of fact, it’s within the referenced post, for one, that F. Rich examples himself as anything but thoughtful or careful. I don’t take someone like F. Rich all that seriously, he’s more of an affective leftist or pseudo-liberal than anything more substantial or considered, but the NYT gives him a forum nonetheless, so to that degree needs to be taken into account.)

Pretty sure she never apologized for it, nor did she become the icon of liberal “hate” for it. But that’s primarily cause out of the Left, this is small potatoes.

Is it obvious she has no love for conservatives? Of course. But do I seriously interpret it as a literal death wish on them, as in believe that she “wants to kill Texas Baptists”? Of course not. She’s obviously joking. It’s not particularly funny if you’re on the receiving end of it, but if you’re on the other side, I’m sure you do think it’s funny. That’s why all this “Gah, she wants to kill us!” whining is so hypocritical and absurd.

As to the only substantive point raised in the post:

“Bonevac goes on to praise Coulter for saying, “[Democrats] oppose Priscilla Owen because she ruled that a Texas law requiring parental notification for 14-year-olds to have abortions meant that parental notification was required for 14-year-olds to have abortions.” Of course the very decision that Coulter and Bonevac are talking about here was a dissent by Owen that was described by that well known leftie, Alberto Gonzales, as an unconscionable act of judicial activism that adopted an interpretation nowhere to be found in the said statute or its legislative history.”

This has been previously completely debunked years ago – Gonzales’s quote was not referring to Owen’s dissent at all.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/475onxpt.asp

Of course, assuming that Lefties are telling the truth about anything is a fool’s option, so the readers of this blog really should know better.

This from the same pack of conservatives up in druthers because a couple of their ilk took cream pies to the face? The lot who had a kid arrested for a relatively germane comment about ass-fucking?

the Daily Kos
the Democratic Underground
Randi Rhodes
Michael Moore
or
Ted Rall

Pick any one. They’re all every bit as hateful as she is. Why should the right give up our attack dogs while the left breeds more?

“There is no abrupt drop-off in rigor; it’s just slogans and rhetoric all the way through.” tad brennan

Harrumph! Which explains the entirety of your own posts, consisting solely of (highly generalized) slogans and rhetoric? Too, even if the anecdotal evidence referred to can be dismissed out of hand, as indicated, it remains an anecdotal and solitary instance nonetheless, hardly a reason for indulging – assumming one is concerned with rigor – in such sloganeering and rhetoric.

I use the phrase “the Frank Rich’s of the world,” also indicating “Rich and his ilk,” i.e., Rich was merely an example, relevant to the cited post. That you’re using that to be more generally dismissive is telling in and of itself.

Huh? Frank Rich of all people is the justification for Coulter’s hyperboles? Come on Michael, this is too much. Aren’t you being a bit Coulterish yourself here?