Ned Rice, who is billed as a staff writer for the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (who?), has a piece in the National Review, in which he claims to be entirely serious, urging Bush to withdraw the Miers nomination and replace her with Robert Bork, who was already shot down in 1987. In the process, he peddles the tried and true false line that Bork was undermined by lies from the left to paint him as a radical. That is nonsense. Bork is a radical. If anything, the confirmation hearings only began to scratch the surface of just how dangerous he would be on the court.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The latest development in the Harriet Miers confirmation fight is this ridiculous talking point from the White House, via James Dobson:
Some of the other candidates who had been on that short list, and that many conservatives are now upset about were highly qualified individuals that had been…
Jonathan Chait has an essay in Friday's LA Times about Robert Bork and the myth of his unfair demonization and martyrdom. Among the partisan and pedestrian right (though in many cases not the intellectual right), Bork is still viewed as The One Who Started It All, the Supreme Court nominee whose…
Just noticed this very odd response by Mark Olson to my post about Robert Bork's mythical martyrdom. Much of the rhetoric in Olson's response would serve as a perfect example of how to execute the strategy known as poisoning the well, as he puts his own unique characterizations on events and…
I have been challenged to defend my claim that Robert Bork is "insane". It's not a terribly artful term, I admit, and I meant it figuratively rather than literally. But I will certainly defend the assertion I've defended many times before, which is that Robert Bork's views on constitutional law are…
Sort of a side note....
aw, heck. I'll try again.
I was wondering what people's feelings are on referring to conservative extremists as "radicals". I've been thinking lately that perhaps the better term for such types is "reactionary", and reserving the radical label for the lefties.
I dunno....is this just semantic hairsplitting on my part?
Jillian wrote:
Historically, I think the distinction you make is more common and might well be more accurate.
I am still laughing at the notion of "snort of a side note" that would be so common for a TV comedy sketch writer. I was hoping he was making this suggestion because he realized that Bork would make such awesome comic fodder, but alas he is just another "reactionary" whacko. That is the correct/right, word isn't it??
Rice just wants new material for his (late, late) day job and figures that having Bork on the court would make his job easier. I'm sure he's also in favor of Gary Coleman for Governor and a porn star for Secretary of State. How lazy.
...the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (who?)...
It's on CBS after the Letterman show. I've seen it a couple of times on Friday night/Saturday morning. It's actually pretty funny. He sports an Irish or Scottish accent (I can't tell which).
Craig Ferguson is Scottish (see IMDB's page). He's most famous for playing Mr. Wick, the boss, on The Drew Carey Show (which he played with an English accent).
It's somewhat interesting that at least one of the writers is a rightwing reactionary, since Ferguson tends to take a fair number of jabs at Bush and other people in the administration (of course, late night hosts make fun of whoever is in the White House).