E Pluribus Unum

And even more...
UPDATE: From the Google cache of the purged comments at Free Republic, we find some unpolished diamonds:

To: SkyPilot

"Of all the people to talk about why we should not be worried, it should not be you."

Sky,

Your complaint would make sense if I had been responsible for the Souter pick. For the record, I was an open skeptic of Souter, and an extremely aggressive advocate for Clarence Thomas. Like you, I want no more Souters -- and, like you (or so I gather), I don't think Harriet Miers is the best possible nominee.

39 posted on 10/07/2005 4:31:14 AM PDT by Tony Snow

In my opinion, only an extremist would so unabashedly support the single most extreme ideologue on the Court. He really is something else. How about this gem from last January

Those eager to exploit differences between blacks and whites in America ignore the fact that the differences have all but vanished. One might as well complain about the gas mileage of a 1959 Edsel.

Nagin's comment was typical of the guy. He says what he thinks -- even when he hasn't thought. In declaring New Orleans the Chocolate City, he followed the grand tradition of mentioning race in order to silence all imaginable opposition.

The riff -- for which Nagin apologized a day later -- was harmless. Nagin is more an entertainment figure than a statesman, just as New Orleans now is more a theme park with a port than a city of consequence -- although both aspire to greater things in years to come.

And don't forget his piece in Jewish World Review where he stakes out his credentials as a Kwanza expert:

"The inventors of Kwanzaa weren't promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism."

This guy isn't a Kool Aid drinker. He runs the concession stand. It must be good to live in his world.

Jesus, and I thought they struggled with simple math. Apparently, simple statistics are just as hard, even for those with impossibly high IQs:

"ex·trem·ist n. One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics."

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 28-March 1, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all registered voters):

"Recently the South Dakota legislature passed a law that bans abortion in all cases other than to save the life of the mother. Would you support or oppose this law in the state where you live?"

Support
35%
Oppose
59%
Unsure
6%"

Of course, I understand that Snow didn’t actually take this position:

”If one argues that a woman would suffer trauma by bringing such babies to term, what would prevent other women from citing trauma as an equally cogent reason for their abortions? Trauma introduces an obligation to pay special heed to the victims of rape or incest.

Offer counseling. Provide lavish pre- and post-natal care. Take time to grant them as much support as the state can provide. And prosecute ruthlessly the creeps who violated them. That alone could do as much as anything else to help such mothers get a decent night's sleep. It also would remove a popular bit of cover for sexual predators, who try to "undo" their crimes by urging their victims to abort.”

Just an argument, you see? Like “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?”

You know, they don’t have to apologize for being wrong about everything or even for helping to bring the country to its nadir. They could at least show the good grace to keep their delusions of mainstream thinking to themselves