What is your opinion of the New York Time's William Safire?

I have watched a lot of the News Hour with Jim Leher recently and I am undecided on my opinion of him when he comes on with Mark Shields. Is he supposed to be the counterpoint to Shield's view? I know where Paul Gigot stood in his views. He seems consevative but knowledgable much like David Gergen is.

of Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity" phrase.

That should tell you something about that idiot right there.

An Old Time rightist - which means he has been left in the dust by this hard core radical group that now runs the country. He is now irrelevant. The neo-cons rule; Safire is the kind of right winger we used to deal with.

I suspected his conservative views but only have seen him twice.

Sorry. An inveterate (and invertebrate) editor. My apologies.

fits right in with Whoreen Dowd, Berke the Jerk, Doofy Dave Brooks and the other Whores that lie in the SCREW YORK TIMES

Enough said.

a rarity in a repuke ...i never read his political columns only his "words" piece every Sunday in the NYT Magazine section

a congential liar? I believe it was. He also slammed Janet Reno waaay back when she was first appointed. Said she was a Republican and owed the right wing big time. Don't care for the "dear man" as he can get pretty radically ridiculous.

n/t

At least Brooks made his points quickly.

You'll have your answer. Safire was desperate to remove the stain of Nixon from himself, so he worked overtime to stain Clinton by describing everything about Whitewater and Lewinsky in Nixonian terms. Go look it up. You'll be amazed at what he wrote, and how often the mainstream media followed his lead.

has-been.

i can stand him more then alot of the right wingers that write op ed pieces

the one who started attaching "-gate" to every scandal? and now when anyone puts "-gate" on the end of anything, i retch.

That's all I have to know-and the garbage he spewed/is spewing today proves that he's never seen the light.

and delusional in his old age.
Sometimes he doesn't even make sense.
MzPip
:dem:

It's quite useful.

and epistemology is totally Orwellian through and through. Conceptually, even the rules and foundations are posionous to true thought, progress and truth in general. This neutral, self important pontificating for that "classical" point of view emtpties, twists, and deprives language of life and meaning to ultimately serve one ideology and elite ideologues.

Agian they filed into a vacuum better served by bi-partisan lovers of language rather than political shills. Political shills stick their patrician noses into everything from religion to clubs to cultural standards. Would it were ALL only means to the end of absolute power. Unfortunately, I think he seriously thinks he has true unquestionable value here- and loves it as much as he believes his readership loves him.

Cross my t's, dot my i's and kiss my asterisk.

"creative" grammar. I save that for the boards.

I have more respect for him than most. Which isn't saying much. Every now and then his libertarian side comes out and he writes an ok column. The rest of the time he's as much of a raving lunatic as any of them.

His column "on language" in the NYT is pretty cool, though.

And ignore everything else he writes or says.

noun vs. verb


Main Entry: 1slog
Pronunciation: 'släg
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): slogged; slog·ging
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1824
transitive senses
1 : to hit hard : BEAT
2 : to plod (one's way) perseveringly especially against difficulty
intransitive senses
1 : to plod heavily : TRAMP <slogged through the snow>
2 : to work hard and steadily : PLUG
- slog·ger noun


vs.

Main Entry: 2slog
Function: noun
Date: 1888
1 : hard persistent work
2 : a hard dogged march or tramp

And just for good measure - expletive deleted!!!

On 20 Feb 2003 he wrote:

"The firm opponents of a just war draw succor from the yes-butters, whose fears are expressed in dwelling on the uncertainty of great enterprises."

To which I responded:

Of all the possible terms use to describe a war, 'great enterprise' must be one of the least appropriate and least accurate. Given a choice between a great catastrophe (trying to pretend it is a great enterprise), and inaction, even inaction looks like a better option.


I stand by my evaluation. (expletive deleted) him.