What happens when an unelectable candidate meets an unelectable candidate?

Wesley Pruden, now editor emeritus of the Washington Times, writes:

What happens if it turns out that we’ve nominated two unelectable candidates for president? Do we get our money back?

Logic, common sense and the Constitution insist that either Barack Obama or John McCain must be elected Nov. 4. Right now it’s difficult to see how.

Well and wittily put. Unfortunately, the rest of the column does not live up to the opening. It is boring and trivial.

In a justified spirit of “I told you so,” let me repeat again that if, in the crucial weeks after McCain’s victory in the New Hampshire primary, most of the conservative and Republican opinion-shaping establishment, including, most likely, Pruden himself, had not continued to ignore, dismiss, and diss the ONLY candidate who stood in the way of McCain, the highly intelligent and talented Mitt Romney, for such profound reasons as that Romney was “plastic,” “too perfect,” “not a regular guy, “too wealthy,” “a flip-flopper,” and (David Frum’s brilliant reason) “I don’t know why he’s running,” we would probably not now be in this hideous fix.

- end of initial entry -

Harry Horse writes:

“…Pruden himself, had not continued to ignore, dismiss, and diss the ONLY candidate…”

Please allow me to suggest you reconsider the use of the above word. I’m sure you can guess the reasons. I’m not trying to be a smart a**; it really is so out of character with the rest of the discourse on your site, which is perhaps my favorite on the web. I sincerely offer this suggestion in the friendliest possible terms I know.

LA replies:

What?! I can’t use a bit of slang? Does traditionalism mean that one cuts oneself off entirely from the vernacular? I protest.

And notice, my dear Harry, that I was constrained to “cover up” in your comment the spelling of a word that is definitely more improper than “diss.”

James M2 writes:

I was delighted by your ignorance of the word “grillz” a few months ago, and share Harry Horse’s sentiments. “Diss” is to vernacular as baggy pants are to fashion.

Mark Jaws writes:

“…Pruden himself, had not continued to ignore, dismiss, and diss the ONLY candidate…”

I happen to agree with Harry Horse about your using the term “diss.” Slang is slang, but “diss” is the product of the degenerate and perverse hip hop culture, which if left unfettered will drag our language and culture to depths that even Hollywood has not contemplated. As the web’s premier traditionalist blogger, you have the obligation to steer clear of such plebeian vernacular. Your fans expect nothing less of you, Mr. A.

LA replies:

The criticisms of me on this point remind me of the first time I heard the word “diss” used by someone I knew. About ten years ago, a very conservative acquaintance, who had to change plans and not meet with me as planned, said he was sorry to “diss” me. I was a little disconcerted by such a person using such a term. It felt strange, but I guess over the years the word became more familiar to me and I’ve used it occasionally at VFR. But now I realize that readers’ response to my using it is the same as my own initial response to someone else using it. So I will endeavor not to use it again. (Note: This is, however, not a promise. If the word feels especially “right” in some context, I may use it. But I get the point that it’s generally not appropriate.)

However, while Mr. Jaws correctly criticizes my use of “diss,” I would like to take exception to his use of “fans.” I am very happy when people get value out of my work and follow and participate in the site. I rejoice in the great commenters that post here, and in the community of like-minded people that VFR has helped create. I also deeply appreciate it when people stand by me when I’m unfairly attacked. But “fans”? Perish the thought. In fact, I have a record on this point that I can’t go back on now. In my response to a form letter from William Buckley in 1996 asking me why I was ending my long-time subscription to National Review, I told him that one of my reasons was that NR (and by extension the conservative movement), as shown by its ads for National Review Cruises, seemed to be more about “stars” and “fans” than about defending our civilization. And that degenerate aspect of the mainstream conservative movement is far more advanced today than it was in 1996.

Donald W. writes;

By the way, I had no problem with your using “diss.” :-)

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 15, 2008 03:03 PM | Send