Rich Lowry, Editor of the National Review, has the gall to bitch about Al

[La_Serpiente]

For those of you who have read Al Franken's new book, Lies and the Lying Liars that tell them, there is a scene in there which Rich Lowry, Editor for the National Review, says on C-Span that Democrats are sissies. Well, Al became a bit perturbed so he called up Mr. Lowry and asked him if he wanted to fight. Mr. Lowry was taken aback by Al's challenge and asked Al to call him back tommorrow. So Al did call him back tommorrow to see if Mr. Rich would fight.

So Al called him up and Mr. Rich and Al, both of them in a conciliatory tone, decided to settle it over lunch.

Mr. Lowry, in order to save his face, wrote a column here:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20031013.shtml

in which he implies that he would've beat up Al anytime and anywhere. However, to preserve his masculnity (the way he writes, it seems to me that he endorses the idea that politics and culture should be masculinzed ??? whatever the fuck that is? He also feels that true masculinity is when one refrains from violence, which I kind of agree with)I guess some of his conservative friends became furious when they found out that he was associating with "liberals".

Here is what Mr. Rich says about Al:

"And it would have been a decidedly low-risk encounter. Franken stipulated during his challenge that he was nearly 50 years old and suffered from chronic back pain -- a kind of plea for mercy before we even got started"

I think it is very obvious that Al, although that was probably his condition, was probably just joking and didn't really intend to fight Rich. I guess Rich takes things too seriously. He's a tad bit tense from what his column says to me. Seems like he got a shtick up his ass.

But then again, I guess this is the only thing he can come up with. Sure NewsMax will do some kind of review of the book or whatever crap, but I'm sure they'll find very little. If they cleaned out their own house, maybe they'd find a lot more lies that "veritus".

[Hieronymus]

1. Rich Lowry

It seems Ann Coulter got one thing right when she described Rich as a girlie boy.

[La_Serpiente]

2. I bet he's a closet homosexual

I bet he's a closet homosexual. He's obviously obsessed with this concept of masculinity.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bicentennial_baby]

10. You....

just earned yourself an Alert buddy...

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

12. I hit alert as well, that's the sickest, most disgusting post

I've ever read in here. Many posts in this thread are offensive, in fact, so I will leave it.

[bicentennial_baby]

13. It's up there

It's not the first Ann Coulter rape comment I've seen here, but I am amazed that it got a few replies from people who apparently did'nt see a probelm with it. :puke:

[Manix]

5. Lowry is a typical chickenhawk Repuke.....

real tough guy on the keyboard.

[charlie]

7. Nothing more terrifying to a pencil-necked neocon scribe

than being mistaken for a pencil-necked neocon scribe. Lowry kicked up a minor shitstorm last year when he was on the NRO blog flexing his vocabulary and got carried away with his keyboard bravado:

QUESTION I, FOLLOW-UP: (Rich Lowry)
Lots of sentiment for nuking Mecca. Moderates opt for something more along these lines: “Baghdad and Tehran would be the likeliest sites for a first strike. If we have clean enough bombs to assure a pinpoint damage area, Gaza City and Ramallah would also be on list. Damascus, Cairo, Algiers, Tripoli and Riyadh should be put on alert that any signs of support for the attacks in their cities will bring immediate annihilation.” Then there are those who think we really can't do too much differently than what were doing now (my original proposition).
Posted 4:37 PM |

MORE QUESTION I: (Rich Lowry)
This is a tough one, and I don’t know quite what to think. Mecca seems extreme, of course, but then again few people would die and it would send a signal. Religions have suffered such catastrophic setbacks before. As for the Saudis, my only thought is that if we're going to hold them responsible for terrorism, we had better start doing it now, not after an even more catastrophic attack. And, as a general matter, the time for seriousness—including figuring out what we would do in retaliation, so maybe it can have some slight deterrent effect--is now rather than after thousands and thousands more American casualties.
Posted 4:36 PM |

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/2002_03_03_corner-archive.shtml#10503547

Few people would die, he sez. City of a half million, with thousands making their pilgrimage into it every day.

Ctrl-Alt-Delete.... SH-BOOOM!!
Ctrl-Alt-Delete.... SH-BOOOM!!

Yer a tough hombre, Rich.

[sendero]

8. while I do not consider 'courage' ...

.. to be a gender-associated trait, I have a reply for anyone accusing anti-war leftists of being (I'll use the PC word instead of the one I prefer) *wimps*.

That reply is - "there's no bigger *wimp* than anyone who was/is afraid of Saddam Hussein". Who's the wimp, someone who is willing to kill 30K civilians to assauge their fear or someone who is not?

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Hehe......

Al baby is getting under some RW thin skin...I LOVE it. Go Al! I loved that chapter of the book. He outed Lowry as the "all talk, no substance" RWer he is.

>>>>>He preferred to rely on incomplete information in order to create an untrue impression. This is a deception, a kind of lie.<<<<

Franken had watched Lowry give that speech on C-SPAN...how did he use incomplete information? A kind of lie? I don't think so. Suck it up, Lowry...be a MAN! hehe!

[spooky3]

11. I think Al was trying to make the point that

saying Democrats are sissies is as juvenile as having a fist fight to settle your differences.

[Zolok]

14. Rich was on Imus today....

coincidentally enough....I didn't hear enough of it to blog it (as I usually do with Imus' more demented rightical chic guests)...frankly the boy's views are so tedious and dull one wonder's how Don Imus remained awake for the interview.
I listened to the Ramones instead.
Apparently I did divine that Lowry has some "Everything is Bill Clinton's Fault" type book out from Regnery.
Say, how much does Regnery pay in advance for boilerplate junk like this anyone know?
The only memorable bit was Don and Rich mocking the Valerie Plame affair, I guess that is a first a National Review columnist laughing at a clear case of treason.
I suppose I could,cruelly mock Rich's peculiar squeaky self satisfied voice...but that would be a cheap shot...so I'll just dismiss him as a vain naive' power woshipping little t**t and leave it at that.

www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com