WorldNutDaily Criticizes Michael McConnell

Andy Schlafly (any relation, I wonder?) has a column in the WorldNutDaily which claims that Michael McConnell is "hostile to conservative legal principles" and would be another David Souter, nominated as a conservative but moderate-liberal on the court. Seems like one more reason to support him in my book. If People for the American Way thinks you're too conservative and the wingnuts at WND think you're too liberal, you can't be too far off.

More like this

The results of a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll were released today, and they by and large indicate that young adults today are more progressive (based on stances on individual issues and on personal identification) than their parents' generation.

If People for the American Way thinks you're too conservative and the wingnuts at WND think you're too liberal, you can't be too far off.

LOL. Now there's a litmus test I could agree with!

St;

How so? So if you are in the middle of the People for the American Way and Worldnetdaily, then you are a "centrist"? You say that implying that PFAW is the equal to the extremists in the right of WorldNetDaily? Is this a version of the "but Michael Moore is the Ann Coulter of the right"? Sorry, but if it is, i disagree.

Sergio wrote:

How so? So if you are in the middle of the People for the American Way and Worldnetdaily, then you are a "centrist"? You say that implying that PFAW is the equal to the extremists in the right of WorldNetDaily? Is this a version of the "but Michael Moore is the Ann Coulter of the right"? Sorry, but if it is, i disagree.

I think that all such groups are equal in the sense that they are engaged not in serious analysis but in partisan polemics. They all engage in oversimplifications and sometimes outright distortions in order to persuade their followers to reach the conclusion they want them to reach. None of them have any use for subtlety or nuance in the positions of those they deem their opponents. That doesn't mean that they're always equally wrong or equally dishonest in every regard, and in some cases the idea they are advocating may well be correct for other reasons or on a deeper level. But it means that one should take what they say with a grain of salt and not accept it on face value, but should look deeper and do some research. And yes, I think that is true of PFAW, of Michael Moore and Ann Coulter, and certainly of the Worldnutdaily.

KipEsquire (concerning Andy Schlafly):

Her son. He's listed as an instructor at her Eagle Forum University.

"Eagle Forum University"?

Boy, do I smell some fishy accreditation issues in the offing when I see a college with a name like that...

In case anyone's morbidly curious, Andy and his brother Roger have posted reams of stuff to talk.origins in the past, with the predictable "scientific" creationist slant you might expect.

By Chris Krolczyk (not verified) on 12 Jun 2005 #permalink