I don’t; I just said it’s not bigotry.
Thank you Humpty dumpty.
The next time someone posits that the SDMB doesn’t slant left, we can always link to this thread. :rolleyes:
So there’s only one possible right answer to all questions of social policy, and the liberals have a monopoly on those answers? Are you kidding? What makes you say that social policy is any less complex than economic policy? Aren’t social and economic policy intertwined? And aren’t the effects of social policy much more difficult to measure, making their benefits much more difficult to determine?
Or are you implying that conservative social policy is grounded solely in racial and/or gender animus? Is the conservative opposition to public funding for the arts a result of bigotry? Against whom? Isn’t it possible – just possible – that some conservatives oppose federal educational standards because they want more control over their own children’s education, and not because they hate children in other states? And isn’t it possible – just possible – that people like Alan Keyes honestly believe that affirmative action is deterimental to the minority groups it purports to help? Or can opposition to affirmative action only come from hatred of minorities, and the purported reasons can only be lies?
When you say that conservatives must be bigots, you’re only showing your own inability to comprehend the issues.
Yeah, well, we’re talking intelligence and credibility, not charisma here.
I was flipping channels a few minutes ago and Will was on “Hannity & Colmes.” I’m more convinced than ever of the validity of Dewey’s Axiom. Listening to Hannity interview Will was not unlike listening to a high school science student ask a Nobel Prize winning physicist questions about rocketry.
I’ve seen O’Reilly interviewed. He isn’t nearly as intelligent when he lacks the crutch of a “talking points memo.”
And Maher? Spare me. I caught a bit of his HBO show where Christopher Hitchens was a guest. It was…well, it was not unlike the Hannity-Will exchange I describe above. **
Ivins is too in love with her “feisty, folksy charm” schtick, but she’s a sharp wit. In the book show dustup between Franken and O’Reilly (and boy, is it tough to pick the bigger idiot out of that incident), Ivins managed to remain cool, classy, and reasonably intelligent. Comparing her to Coulter is just bizzare.
Oh, and a couple more names for the “smart conservative pundit list:” Bill Kristol and David Brooks. Both started in print, natch.
Ummmm. Have you checked the title?
Actually I think we are talking charisma.
Don’t mind him, he’s one of those Australians. You know how they get!
Re: G.F. Will
Brings to mind Dorothy Parker(?) about Cal Coolidge “He looks like he was weaned on a pickle.”
Wills too damned smart for his own good. He’s very attuned to picking out the nuances in extremely complicated situations. Trouble is, like the hammer that sees all problems as nails, simplicity renders him moot. Plus, he wears a bow tie, which has been statistically shown to correlate to sexual perversion and/or Libertarian tendencies. It shouts to the world “I’m a nerd who daren’t be non-conformist, but this trivial eccentricity is all the rebellion I can muster.”
And Dewey, lay off of “fiesty, folksy” Molly. If I recall correctly, you’re just another recovering peckerwood like me, for all your high-falutin’ New Yawk ways, and are never more than one full step away from a double-wide and a package of pork rinds.
Jimmy Hightower, I’ll grant you, lays it on a bit thick.
In which case, Paul Harvey has a place here. Who can resist his avuncular storytelling ?
I’ll toss in a vote for Charles Krauthammer. I don’t know if folks in other parts of the country see him regularly - he’s a regular panelist on Inside Washington, a locally-produced political gabfest, one that always keeps the conversation civil (much less shouting than most of the others).
I almost always disagree with Krauthammer, but I wouldn’t mind having dinner with him. He’s got a sense of humor, even laughing when one of the more liberal panelists pokes him on the subject of one of his knee-jerk responses to things.
Conspicuous by absence: that snotty lite yodelfart Tucker Carlson. I take it none of you Tighty Righties will weep when he goes to the Wall.
(He goes first. Bow tie.)
I don’t know about charisma, but Florence King is utterly hilarious. She deserves her own catagory in Dewey’s Axiom of Credible Punditry since, IIRC, she started out not as a columnist but as a writer of soft core porn.
Dewey: The comparison of Coulter and Ivins is that they both toe the party line without question. Ivins is not vicious like Coulter, and I didn’t mean to imply that she is. But I’ve never seen her stray from the straight Dem talking points.
Actually, I like Tucker if for no other reason than he is extremely serious about not taking himself too seriously. I like Jonah Goldberg for the same reason – anyone who throws Star Trek and Simpsons references into his punditry is OK in my book.
Tucker’s got a new book coming out about life in the TV talking head world. It’s not a political book – it’s more of a “behind the scenes” kind of thing – and it’s gotten some decent advance press. It might be worth picking up.
Scylla: thread title notwithstanding, I read the OP as asking about conservative pundits who aren’t complete fricken’ morons, not about conservative pundits with whom you’d like to share a beer.
Also:
Koeeoaddi’s Corollary to Dewey’s Axiom: pundits who started in soft-core porn or music-themed magazines are the best pundits of them all.
Another name for Dewey to consider: Cal Thomas. His domestic politics leave much to be desired, but I’m on board with his foreign policy, especially Israel.
Hmm… I quite like Andrew Sullivan. He’s generally very readable, often makes points that at least make one think, and attacks things from an angle too many miss. On the flipside of the coin, I’ve heard rumors about him being more than a little hypocritical at times and he has a tendency to bend over backwards in order to continue endorsing some conservative people, but in the end I’ve found he will attack them if pushed hard enough (recently started slamming Bush for his overspending issues).
Why I can’t stand a conservative on social issues:
They support individual rights - except, oddly, for homosexuals, or women who want abortions, or people who don’t want to be forced to pray in a different religion than their own, or people who a business would like to discriminate against, or people who would like to make a symbolic protest by burning a bit of cloth …
They think that their right to make money outweighs your (and everyone else’s) right to breathe clean air and drink clean water; or to have a safe workplace; or most other things.
They think that providing public education and public health and basic welfare are somehow evil. Presumably they would prefer the poor to be ignorant, sick and starving.
Basically I’ve never heard any socially conservative argument that didn’t boil down once you got past any pretty double-think language to “Screw everyone else Jack, I’m OK”.
Now since this thread seems to be about commentators and pundits, I think I’d better leave. If another one starts with this topic, I’ll join in.
Another vote for Chris Patten. He espouses old-style compassionate conservatism, and has integrity coming out of his wazoo.