March 11, 2007

Why did the Wisconsin State Journal refer to me as "conservative commentator Ann Althouse"?

Well, let's look at the context:
WEST BEND Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Annette Ziegler has presided over 22 cases involving companies in which she owned stock worth more than $50,000, a Wisconsin State Journal review shows....

Supreme Court rules require judges to withdraw from cases in which they have a financial interest that is more than "insignificant"...

Ziegler is considered the conservative candidate.

The winner of the election will replace the usually right-leaning Justice Jon Wilcox, who is retiring. Ziegler's election to a 10-year term on the court would keep the perceived makeup of the court the same. If [the other candidate, Linda Clifford,] wins, the court could move to the left....

Conservative commentator Ann Althouse told a statewide radio audience Friday that Ziegler's approach to conflicts of interest makes her question the conservative jurist's fitness for the high court.

Althouse, a political blogger and UW-Madison law professor, said on Wisconsin Public Radio's "Week in Review" that "the more (conflict cases) there are, the worse it gets." She criticized Ziegler's public statements to an audience in Spring Green that she uses a "gut check" to decide when she's got a conflict of interest.

"I think a judge that puts the rules aside and relies on instinct is, first of all, revealing something about her thoughts about law in general. Second of all, if you go on instincts, you should have good instincts. And these don't seem like good instincts," Althouse said.

"Not disclosing that (conflicts) looks especially bad because you don't give other people the chance to judge, so I just think there's a whole cluster of concerns of about one's fitness to be a judge, under the circumstances."
That looks like that blatant journalistic bias, an effort to bolster my opinion by making it seem as though my normal instinct would be to support Ziegler. In fact, I have never said one word about which of those two candidates I would support and have scrupulously avoided taking sides.

AND: I should add, in case you're new around here, that I never use the label conservative for myself and repeatedly say that it is not apt.

MORE: And check this out. Here's former Madison mayor Paul Soglin (who calls his blog "Waxing America"):
But what I find most damaging to the Ziegler campaign is the normally tepid Ann Althouse speaking directly to the matter. Althouse prefers to raise attention to political issues without entering the fray...
Apparently, lefties statewide are toasting me.

106 comments:

Patrick said...

They should have written "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva commentator Ann Althouse told a statewide radio audience Friday that Ziegler's approach to conflicts of interest..." to avoid the charge of bias.

LutherM said...

(A) Your comment "if you go on instincts, you should have good instincts." could apply to more than judges. (B) So the Wisconsin State Journal said Ann was "Conservative". I think you are absolutely correct when you said "That looks like that blatant journalistic bias, an effort to bolster my opinion by making it seem as though my normal instinct would to support Ziegler." There is, however, another possibility - since Left-Wing and Conservative are relative terms, anyone near the People's Republic of Madison who is slightly to the right of Mao Tse Tung is a Conservative - unless someone is angry with you - then they call you a Fascist.

XWL said...

Shorter "reality check", LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE.

Longer, frequent and largely inane "reality check"s, certainly to follow in this comment thread.

The writers for the Journal you quote are most likely just being lazy, and repeating received wisdom, rather than checking their facts (and does an article like that really require two bylines?).

Never assume bad intent where mere incompetence will do.

(also, I'm a little surprised the star in the Madison.com logo isn't red)

David said...

As the Politically Correct nannies have reminded me many times, it is not how you view yourself, it is how your are perceived by others.
Therein lies the seductive power of percecption.

Bush reads Sharanski's The Case For Democracy and Mark Steyn's America Alone yet is derided as "The Shrub." Althouse eschews "instincts" for fact based decisions in the Judiciary and is accused of being a conservative.

Inconvenient facts such as these are the bane of the appeasers who prefer moral equivalency over reasoned discipline. Cherry picking labels to suit a political agenda is not the way to win public support.

Simon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJD said...

Why, oh why, do those mean awful people call me conservative?!

Oh, and please buy conservative ad space on my blog!!

whig said...

So if you deny you are a conservative, you are not a conservative?

me said...

I'm not an expert in judicial conflicts of interest. However, in the context of circuit court judges and Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, the standards are more lax than you might think.

For this reason, the "gut check" method, may be a more narrow standard, than any standard the requires a judge to recuse him or herself.

Ironically, Ziegler also doesn't consider herself a "conservative" either. From what I can tell, she will make a good judge. Linda Clifford is qualified as well. However, the Court needs to move to the center, and Ziegler is more likely to get balance the Court, in light of Wilcox's retirement.

Simon said...

AJD said...
"Why, oh why, do those mean awful people call me conservative?! Oh, and please buy conservative ad space on my blog!!"

Advertising targets the reader, rather than telling of the author...

Todd said...

I think it's about the context of your comments.

You made them on the Week in Review radio program, which always has two guests: one conservative and one liberal. You were that week's conservative guest, as you always are when you appear on the show.

B said...

I am a social conservative.

Ann is no social conservative.

She IS an incredibly interesting and thought-provoking writer and host, simply opening conversation where she finds something interesting. Though her writing is occasionally passionate at times, it is never restrictive to other points of view.

Frankly, because of the reasons just mentioned, almost nothing like "Althouse" exists elsewhere in the blogosphere. And THAT is why, above all other reasons, Ann will continue to have huge blogging success and recognition as long as she desires.

MadisonMan said...

I don't think I'm very conservative, and I thought your comments re: Ziegler on Joy Cardin's show were spot-on. If Ziegler is using her instincts to decided whether of not to recuse, she has lousy instincts. It's not passing the smell test.

The State Journal has been all over this Ziegler story, so it could be they're including you in the mix to sell papers. The bigger the controversy (and if it's inter-conservative, I'm sure that's good for their bottom line), the better.

Disclaimer: Linda Clifford lives a stone's throw from me.

reality check said...

Well as has been said up above, when one finds you have twice now actively run to be the Conservative Blog Diva, and then looks at who you want to sell ads to, and who you think is your audience, and who you blogroll, and who you guest blog for, and what your op-eds say, and who you link to, and who links to you,

Well, it's because the media is lazy and biased.

The Drill SGT said...

The basic problem in this story is the relativism of the situation. In the context of UW or an NPR program where the guy on the left is always the ACLU chapter president or the Madison Progressive Party Chairman, you are being invited to portray what appears to an NPR audience as the "conservative". Its the part you are being cast to play. I assume its the same at your faculty meeting. Only in the larger context are you a centrist or moderate.

The statement is accurate, but not particularly honest.

Curtiss said...

News Flash to Prof. Althouse: The more influential you become, the more people hang on your every word.

Maxine Weiss said...

Aren't Reality Check and Althouse supposed to be feuding?

Althouse called Reality Check "Little Man".

Surely that won't go unacknowleged, will it?

Peace, Maxine

JazzBass said...

what part of Madison did you miss, divine one? they don't play home defense where you live. no guns and no butter either, unless you're on their righteous side.

Simon said...

MadisonMan said...
"Disclaimer: Linda Clifford lives a stone's throw from me."

Cool. Tell her that Runaway Love is one of my favorite disco songs.

Wait, I'm thinking of another Linda Clifford...


reality check said...
"Well as has been said up above, when one ... looks at who you want to sell ads to, and who you think is your audience..."

And as I said up above, at most, the adverts reflect the perceived taste of the perceived readership. To jump from the ads to assesments of the blogger, you have to assume that the readership is right-leaning (unproven, since the vast majority of readers don't comment, but certainly credible), and then from there, assume that because the readership is right of center, the author musty be right of center. And that's not something you can back up.

And as to her op/eds, point to a specific example of an op/ed that's written from a distinctively "conservative" viewpoint of any kind (legal, social, eceonomic, etc.). Unless you want to concede that a robust view on national security makes one a conservative (in which case, y'all might as well pack up and go home for the next few elections) the closest that Ann gets to being conservative anything, IMO, is that her affinity for the structural constitution makes her at very least an honorary legal conservative. But even on that front, that affinity seems to be animated by an instrumentalist concern for the normative utility of federalism in enforcing individual rights, rather than a formalist concern for structural rules.

reality check said...

More like an incompetent view of national security. But for takedowns of her op-eds, I shall direct you to Glenn Greenwald and LGM.

If you want to claim that with an audience that is 99% right wing that she is not, I won't bother to argue with you, but I ain't going to give you a job in marketing either.

I think you should add your logic into her Wikiarticle. Get you some mean amounts of Wiki Karma.

Simon said...

Reality Check, if the only two defenses for your position available for citation is either Greenwald or a bowl of tapioca pudding, I'd bet the farm on the bowl of tapioca pudding, the average bowl of which is both smarter and a better writer than Greenwald.

And if you want to keep pushing Ann rightward, you go right ahead. The way I see it, the more a smart person sees what your side is like, even if they start out sympathetic, the more they want to push away from it. Keep talking.

LoafingOaf said...

Ohhh, reality check. Just because someone doesn't conform with, or gets links from, the Greenwald/Kos Townhouse and their orchestrated partisan agenda in the blogospehere (from which Campos takes his cues) doesn't make them a right-wing conservative.

hdhouse said...

Such a sling and arrow to be called a conservative....

Perhaps not a political conservative but a moderator of a conservative blog?..or one who blogs conservatively?

reality check said...

I think the free market has judged between you and Glenn, Simon.

And it is your writing that has been found to be worth less than a bowl of tapioca.

In the meantime Greenwald has written an Amazon #1 best selling book that still sells at Amazon for over $7, he has another book coming out in a few months, and and he writes for Salon.

His writing has been read on the floor of Congress, he has written for American Conservative Magazine, his writing is discussed around the net by liberal and conservative law professors, and he has broken at least one major story about the NSA monitoring program.

Now, I know that Ann finds him too complex to read or understand, but uh, no one else does. And I think Ann can be forgiven since she does have a well known jealousy of anyone that breaks from blogging into the big time where she wants to be.

But you really look like an ignoramus, and a right wing tool when you simply disparage Greenwald.

I ain't no smarty lawyer like you, but it's pretty apparent who other lawyers consider to be the smart one.

Please come up with better responses than this, or I shall begin to doubt some of your hagiographic efforts on behalf of our hostess.

reality check said...

In fairness to Ann, it's probably less her jealousy, than it is simply her frustration at constantly being taken down at a level in which high school students can understand whenever Greenwald comments on her articles.

Russell said...

Related question: does the Wisconsin State Journal ever refer to anyone as a "liberal commentator"?

Googlefight:
216,000 results for "conservative commentator"
29,500 results for "liberal commentator"

boston70 said...

Why the question about being referred to as a conservative?

I really am not sure what you are but I do enjoy some of your writing.

Like Chris Rock said I think all of us have some conservative and some liberal in us. I think it is too simplistic and narrow to identify as only one or the other.

One of the most fascinating things I read on your blog was your exploration of the libertarian movement and your encounter at the meeting in Chicago. I thought that was cool that you were thinking that may of been of some interest with you but then once attending realizing that wasn't exactly your cup of tea. I liked the idea of that exploration and your conclusions after that meeting.

Also it is predictable and boring when reading many blogs because you automatically know what their opinion is going to be as soon as some story comes out.

I enjoy blogs that surprise me, anger me at times. That's why I enjoy coming here.

Intersting remarks coming from the Wisconsin State Journal though. Aren't they the right leaning paper in Madison? I know they endorsed Bush in the last election and I think they also did in the 2000 election.

Seven Machos said...

Why do the far leftists here hate Ann Althouse, yet come here every day to bitch and complain? It is amusing yet scary? You remind me of the kid in junior high who has a crush on somebody yet, at the same time, hates the person.

Get over it, you weirdos.

boston70 said...

Ann, a question for you. If some publication asked you if you wanted to be "identified" with a political label how would you respond?

MadisonMan said...

I don't recall who the State Journal endorsed for President, but they did go for Feingold in the Senate race. So they may lean right, but they have several positions (they were vocally against the Marriage Amendment, for example) that can hardly be called right-leaning.

Ann Althouse said...

Boston70: Independent.

Simon said...

By your reasoning, the market has decided that Coke is "better" than a good bootle of Montepulciano and (to keep it topical) Supreme Court clerks make better lawyers than non Supreme Court clerks. There are entire industries that exist despite the total lack of merit of their product; Greenwald sells literally dozens of books, and McDonalds sells much more beef than a top-drawyer steak restaurant. Which just goes to show that the market often serves up the worst parts of the carcass if such is the prevailing tastes of a market segment. More simply put, he can sell as many books as he likes to idiots like you who'll buy anything that criticizes people you already didn't like, but he'll still be an idiot.

Simon said...

Sorry, last comment aimed at RC's reply above. I've got to stop doing this! LOL.

somefeller said...

Reality Check says: "I ain't no smarty lawyer like you, but it's pretty apparent who other lawyers consider to be the smart one."

Is Simon a lawyer? If I remember correctly he's said that he isn't a lawyer, but he likes to spend lots of time and effort reading about and commenting about law. In other words, he's someone who hasn't actually stepped up to the plate to go to law school, pass the bar and see if anyone is willing to pay for his legal advice. If that's the case, he's no more of a lawyer than some kid playing his guitar in his basement along to his Metallica CDs is a guitarist.

TMink said...

somefeller wrote: "If that's the case, he's no more of a lawyer than some kid playing his guitar in his basement along to his Metallica CDs is a guitarist."

Well, that kid is a guitarist if he plays guitar. I think you meant "rockstar" instead of guitarist.

But Simon rocks. I have read his stuff and it is thoughtfull and erudite. I know lawyers who are not his equal in terms of legal scholarship, so what is the point?

Trey

TMink said...

Russell, what a great idea! The gogglefight was very telling!

Trey

Seven Machos said...

I'm a lawyer. somefeller. What does it matter if Simon is or not? Are you a lawyer?

reality check said...

Okay, Simon, you're right. I give up. Uncle.

You're a better writer than Glenn Greenwald.

somefeller said...

"I'm a lawyer. somefeller. What does it matter if Simon is or not? Are you a lawyer?"

Congratulations, I'm proud of you. I'm a lawyer, too. And as far as what does it matter if Simon is a lawyer, well, if we're just talking about his thumbnail analysis of a particular issue, it doesn't, if we're just playing around in the world of dorm-room theory and pointless abstractions.

It does matter insofar as if he's going to play the more intellectual-than-thou role with regard to people like Glenn Greenwald who have actually proven themselves in the field (i.e.: gotten people to pay them for their work - this is a capitalist society after all) he needs the real-life bona fides to back it up. In the end, until he actually goes out and gets in the real legal game, he's just some clever kid spouting off who's never done the things to prove oneself the real world of law (i.e.: clerked for a judge and had to grapple with Constitutional issues for something other than blog-hits, close a difficult deal with other people's money, etc.). Sorry, the "I'm not a lawyer but I play one on the blogosphere" doesn't get very far with me.

somefeller said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
somefeller said...

And if you want an example of the more intellectual-than-thou attitude I'm talking about, check out the comment above about Montepulciano vs. Coke and steak vs. McDonald's, in which Simon is presumably the Montepulciano and the steak. Gimme a break.

Seven Machos said...

Talk about taking an more-intellectual-than-thou attitude! I have no idea if Simon is an attorney. I don't care. What he says is what matters, not the degree he bought.

We live in a great age of information. Any schmuck can go read International Shoe or Marbury. And, of course, a little over 100 years ago, it was quite ordinary for someone to pass the bar without graduating from law school. It was in those intervening years when a bunch of lawyers decided that law is some kind of academic pursuit akin to brain surgery. It's not. It's a lot more like plumbing than rocket science.

These barriers to entry that you want to put up to talking about the law are smug and elitist and snobby. It's more than a little totalitarian to suggest that only the right people can talk about law.

The Exalted said...

ann, maybe its because you've yet to meet a democrat you couldn't attack

on an unrelated note, are you really so incurious as to the us attorney scandal that you've blogged not a single comment on it?

Seven Machos said...

With great power comes great responsibility, I guess. On a related note, I notice nobody gives a flying poop about what is on your blog, Exalted.

boston70 said...

Exalted I was thinking the same thing.
I am not a lawyer so know crap about law but I thought this particular issue would be something that Ann would comment on. I watched some of the investigations and thought the entire episode was fascinating.

Ann, any comments/interest on the firing of all the DA's recently?

Internet Ronin said...

I'm curious about the U.S. Attorneys issue. I remember when Clinton took office, he fired all 93 of them (an unprecedented move, I believe). That was wholesale - this is retail, it appears.

Internet Ronin said...

I've never seen Simon pretend to be a lawyer, somefeller. That's a unfair statement you made, but you are an attorney (or so you say) so it is not a big surprise that you wrote that. Simon is very interested in the law, however, is passionate about his beliefs yet far more civil about them than most, and does a pretty decent job of research.

Sounds like you believe that the only ones entitled to remark on the law, questions about it, and its ramifications are the invariably self-important and abysmally self-governed minority to which you belong, the law degree-holders. True, your little clique exercises inordinate power in our nation, but we haven't yet granted your kind the outright monopoly, so we non-lawyers have as much right to opine as you do.

Judging for what some practicing attorneys have written around here, some of even know more than you do on occasion. Best take that advice you prbably give to your clients, somefeller, "Shut up and sit down." Who knows? You might learn something.

reality check said...

That hasn't been somefeller's point at all. Does twisting arguments into your own strawman work for you guys?

no one is saying that Simon cannot talk about the law. Simon is insisting he is a dinner of steak and a bootle of wine and that Greenwald is a combo dinner quarter pounder, coke, and Tapioca pudding.

How does Simon know this? What is his data for that? He may have read quite a bit about da law, but in what fires was his steak cooked? How were his grapes stomped? What real world experience has told him he is such a bootle? What dessert is he and how was his crust formed?

I have 2000 hours of Flight Simulator....

It would seem the free market disagrees with Simon. The free market seems to have judged Greenwald's studies and background as more effective that Simon's.

It's not that Simon can't talk about the law. It's that Simon insists he's wine and steak and Greenwald is the happy meal.

I mean, even Ann thinks Simon is being goofy.

I am gratified to know that all the lawyers at the Althouse blog are working their hardest to tear down the walls and let knowledgeable layman practice da law.

Internet Ronin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Internet Ronin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jas said...

Althouse should try a post to let her readers attempt to define her politically - where she falls on the spectrum. I think it would be an interesting exercise.

hdhouse said...

Seven Machos said..."Why do the far leftists here hate Ann Althouse, yet come here every day to bitch and complain?"


Who dat Seven Nachos? I don't think there are any liberals here who complain about Ann. Quite the contrary.

Besides we feel it our duty to counterbalance the pieceofcrap observations of the sillyright erst they sink this blog under their own weight.

Seven Machos said...

I don't think there are any liberals here who complain about Ann.

You do it all the time.

Karl said...

I have to say, even though I quit reading your blog six months ago because you were being so aggressively conservative, I stopped by today and I don't see anything really conservative on your whole front page. So maybe you have a point.

LoafingOaf said...

reality check: In the meantime Greenwald has written an Amazon #1 best selling book that still sells at Amazon for over $7, he has another book coming out in a few months, and and he writes for Salon.

His writing has been read on the floor of Congress, he has written for American Conservative Magazine, his writing is discussed around the net by liberal and conservative law professors, and he has broken at least one major story about the NSA monitoring program.


Since you're knowingly paraphrasing Greenwald's sock puppets, stating in nearly identical words what Greenwald posted all over the blogosphere under other names to pathetically hype himself, you're aware of his lack of ethics and you're cool with that.

hdhouse said...

7 Nachos...

I do not complain "all the time" about Ann. In fact, I rarely if ever complain. If she states an observation, I, unlike you, may challenge if I disagree or put forth a different take on that but that isn't "complaining"...not by a long shot.

Your comment means 3 things:

1. You want a "yes ma'am blog" where you reaffirm each other...essentially a perpetual ignorance machine, or
2. Your knees hurt from kneeling at the altar of asskissworship or
3. You confuse Ann Althouse with Anne Coulter or you lump them together as they are both lawyers and blonde.

This Ann knows fully well I have been both respectful and supportive and the AnthraxAnnie knows that she is an oar on the boat of the river Styx.

reality check said...

The sock puppet charge was explained and debunked long ago. The text comes from the wikipedia.

The people that keep claiming him to have run sock puppets are the ones with no ethics and no arguments.

Don't be an idiot.

M. Simon said...

Waxing America?

Is that like bikini waxing?

That has got to hurt.

Simon said...

You guys started a riot? On account of me? Boy, my ego's sure in good shape this morning!

From the outset - Reality Check, you really are a bore. The point of the comment wasn't to aggrandize my writing, it was to castigate and belittle his. He's coke. Scalia is the 1990 Montepulciano; our hostess is a Taittinger Collection 1981 Vintage Champagne. On a good day, I'm a decent microbrew that's been on ice. This analogy is making me thirsty!

(And FWIW - I don't mind anyone thinking my views are goofy. I might reconsider a view, but I'm not going to change my mind just to impress someone. I've been persuaded enough by arguments she's made to change my mind on some issues, of course, and I'll defer, but that's quite different to just kowtowing out of fear that - oh no! - I might seem goofy!)

Thanks to other commenters for standing up for me here in my absence - I agree with basically everything that's been said. Somefeller, you're making a comparison that just doesn't stick. The point isn't how many hours Greenwald can bill or how many books he can sell, the apt comparison is style and substance: what does he say, and how does he say it. His writing is apalling, and the substance of it is simply wrong. You (and he) can hurl as much abuse in my direction as you like, but it isn't going to change that he has put abundant proof of my point into the public record. I'm not asking anyone to believe me - I'm asking anyone in doubt to go read his blog, which amply proves the point.

Freder Frederson said...

Independent.

Except "independent" does not denote a philosophy, just a party affiliation. So Ann again gets pissed off because someone calls her a "Conservative" but still refuses to offer up a coherent political philosophy to describe herself. Is it any wonder we have to put labels on her.

And btw Simon, if not socially conservative, she has shown herself over and over again to at least be somewhat traditional and pedestrian when it comes to her opinions on art, sexuality, and society. Her taste in television and art certainly puts her on the conservative side of the spectrum.

And you simply don't get invited to guest comment on Instapundit unless you are a conservative. Like Ann, Glenn Reynolds, and libertarians in general, claim they aren't conservatives. But Reynolds certainly is, even if he holds some socially progressive opinions.

Freder Frederson said...

You do it all the time.

I complain about Ann when she makes one of her maddening posts where she posits a question that makes it sound like she is taking a position but then later when she is called on it (because she has said something really stupid) she can back off and claim "That wasn't what I meant at all" or "I never said that".

Her Eagleton obit is the most recent example. "Even today, do we really know so much more about mental illness?" That's an astoundingly stupid question. When I called her on it, suddenly the post was about the politics of picking someone with a history of severe depression. She wasn't questioning his ability to serve at all.

Then of course we all know now that Ann has never denied that global warming is occurring. Of course that leaves unanswered the question what exactly she does believe about global warming. One thing is certain, she has a Colbert-like hatred of polar bears.

ModNewt said...

I've been a frequent observer of this blog and sometimes commenter for the last 18 months or so. I wouldn't describe Ann as radically conservative, but I would describe her as generally conservative.

Simon said: Advertising targets the reader, rather than telling of the author...

I think you are being naive if you think that looking at the readers can't tell you something about the author. Most people want to read, view, and listen to opinions of people that they tend to agree with. Conservatives listen to Rush and O'Reilly because they spout conservative ideology. If you were to listen to only the phone calls on those to shows, most people could figure out the political bent of the hosts. Shoot, why so many lawyers post on this blog?

Finally, as some others have mentioned above; I was disappointed to see, Ann, that you had nothing to say (or if you did, it wasn't obvious) on the US Attorney firings. When the issue became news, the first place I came to read commentary was this blog.

Simon said...

Freder Frederson said...
"Except "independent" does not denote a philosophy, just a party affiliation"

Correct: it denotes where the who are political moderates, who don't really subscribe to the left's positions or the right's, are placed when discussing party affiliation.


"Ann again gets pissed off because someone calls her a "Conservative" but still refuses to offer up a coherent political philosophy to describe herself. Is it any wonder we have to put labels on her."

Why do you have to put labels on anyone who doesn't label themselves? Where is it written that one must have a coherent political philosophy? I doubt that most Americans consider themselves to have a coherent political philosophy, and indeed, I suspect that a significant number of both those who think they do and those who think they don't in fact don't have a coherent political philosophy by any objective measure.


"if not socially conservative, she has shown herself over and over again to at least be somewhat traditional and pedestrian when it comes to her opinions on art, sexuality, and society."

As we all know, "conservative" is a synonym for "pedestrian," because conservatives are at best bland, and at worst, bad people. Even if all of the above were true, it wouldn't even begin to make her a social conservative, the hallmark of which -- at least as that term is used in contemprary political discourse -- is not just a traditional view of such matters, but a desire to advance those views through the political process.

Let me put this in unmistakably clear language: no one who voted for Al Gore and Russ Feingold is a social conservative. They may be many other admirable things, but they aren't a social conservative.


"Her taste in television and art certainly puts her on the conservative side of the spectrum."

Really? What's "conservative TV," Freder?


"And you simply don't get invited to guest comment on Instapundit unless you are a conservative. Like Ann, Glenn Reynolds, and libertarians in general, claim they aren't conservatives. But Reynolds certainly is, even if he holds some socially progressive opinions."

Reynolds is a libertarian, not a conservative. It boggles my mind that people on the left don't understand the difference, and thus have to resort to re-inventing the wheel with weird theories to resolve the apparent dissonance between someone kind of on the right who none-the-less has social views that aren't really conservative.

Freder Frederson said...

It boggles my mind that people on the left don't understand the difference, and thus have to resort to re-inventing the wheel with weird theories to resolve the apparent dissonance between someone kind of on the right who none-the-less has social views that aren't really conservative.

It boggles my mind that social conservatives think that in a matter of twenty years or so they have so completely taken over the Republican party that they have the right to decide who is conservative based almost entirely on a few social issues.

Libertarianism is a conservative political philosophy, not a liberal one. In fact, it is more true to traditional American Conservatism and the Republican party of most of the twentieth century (which did not try to shove their social mores down the throats of rest of the people) than the socially conservative Republican party and its "family values" of today.

Freder Frederson said...

As we all know, "conservative" is a synonym for "pedestrian,"

Actually it is when it comes to art. Look it up.

Freder Frederson said...

because conservatives are at best bland, and at worst, bad people.

I never said conservatives are bad people. Bland I will agree with. But that is really the definition of conservative, isn't it? Conservatives believe in maintaining the status quo and conserving traditional values and mores and generally resist change. So by definition, they would be rather bland, more likely to prefer meat and potatoes at the Diner than try the new Thai or Indian restaurant.

Simon said...

Freder:
"It boggles my mind that social conservatives think that in a matter of twenty years or so they have so completely taken over the Republican party that they have the right to decide who is conservative based almost entirely on a few social issues."

So let's get this right. You're rejecting the authority of actual conservatives to say who is and isn't a conservative, while concurrently claiming for yourself - a liberal - the authority to decide who is and isn't a conservative? Funny!

And for that matter... Did you just call me a social conservative? LMAO! I can't wait to tell my social conservative friends that apparently, I'm one of them. They'll think it's funny, too, but not half as funny as they'll find the idea that Ann - pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and so forth - is a social conservative. You're a riot, Freder! If you hadn't already said you lived in Louisiana, I'd have assumed from your comments that you were a typical clueless coastal liberal boob. :p

Aero! said...

Ann, whether you're privately conservative or not, you're certainly a conservative commentator. You've admitted yourself that this blog focuses much, much more heavily on your negative feelings about liberals than your negative feelings about conservatives.

There's no reason why any newspaper should care what your politics are deep within your heart. What's important is how you act as a public figure.

AlphaLiberal said...

Ann, maybe they saw you are guest-blogging at Instapundit. Or, maybe they see your role in the right wing noise machine, blindly repeating false attacks on Democrats. Or how you attack liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, who definitely rocks.

I could go on but it won't be Monday for long!

AlphaLiberal said...

p.s. I liked your comments and thought they were fairly succinct and well-said.

AlphaLiberal said...

Simon said:
"Advertising targets the reader, rather than telling of the author..."

To which I must point out:
"We are known by the company we keep."

Naked Lunch said...

Simon
There is a reason Ann why never blogs about anything related to Bush or Republicans that could be damaging, and there is a reason why she blogs about literally anything that could be damaging to liberals or Democrats. There is also a reason why conservatives on this board never claim her - because they like the "SEE, even SHE agrees with us". It's hilarious.

hdhouse said...

Naked Lunch...

Just as a word of warning...don't try reason, logic and truth....they are non-starters with a certain segment here.

God knows I've tried but you can put 2+2 in front of them and if the answer isn't what they want they dispute the concept of math.

Freder Frederson said...

So let's get this right. You're rejecting the authority of actual conservatives to say who is and isn't a conservative, while concurrently claiming for yourself - a liberal - the authority to decide who is and isn't a conservative? Funny!

No, I am saying that it is ridiculous to claim that libertarianism isn't a conservative political philosophy just because it fails some social issues tests. There is no question that no one would have even blinked twice at calling Glenn Reynolds conservative in the era of Nixon, Eisenhower or Hoover. To exclude the socially progressive wing of the what is otherwise an extremely economically conservative (and except for personal moral issues, socially conservative) philosophy is ridiculous.

And for that matter... Did you just call me a social conservative? LMAO! I can't wait to tell my social conservative friends that apparently, I'm one of them. They'll think it's funny, too, but not half as funny as they'll find the idea that Ann - pro-choice, pro-gay marriage and so forth - is a social conservative.

Well, living in Indiana and playing the bass I am sure you are considered pretty "wild" by your social conservative friends (maybe you've been known to have a few too many beers once in a while). And you will note I didn't call Ann a "social conservative". All I said that was her social views were somewhat traditional and pedestrian. If Madison is anything like I remember from my college days (I didn't go there, but close enough to know its legend and vaguely recall--through a haze of drugs and alcohol--a couple weekends there), she is certainly conservative by the standards of UW.

phoenix said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
From Inwood said...

Prof A

Back to your original question as to why a newspaper would consider you a conservative.

I don't live in Wisc. & so I don't know the politics of the Wisc. State Jour. Since it is published in The People's Republic of Madison, I assume that its politics are Left of Center.

I don't think that Fox News or National Review, for instance would think you a conservative (or a liberal for that matter).

Let me, using Occam's-Razor thinking, suggest the following.

There was a book whose title was superior to its content:

"Been Down So Long, It Seems Like Up To Me"

I assume that, in the case of The Wisc State Jour, if it were honest it would sing:

"Been Ultra Liberal So Long, It Seems Like Centrism To Us"

QED, anyone to its Right on the social or economic spectrum is a "Conservative".

It follows then that any person who is really a Conservative seems to the the Wisc. State Jour & the MSM to be an "Arch Conservative" or "Ultra Conservative".

And the MSM, & I assume the Wisc. Jour, does have trouble identifying anyone as "Far Left" or "Ultra Left", except an out & out communist, who couldn't be called that, McCarthyism, you know. Angela Davis, for one was proud to call herself a communist, but the MSM kept protecting her, by referring to her as "Ultra Liberal".

As for you're being an "independent", three cheers, but many of us who are Liberal or Conservative, as the case may be, think of ourselves as independent as in "thinkers" or as to party affiliation, though no one is surprised to see us vote for candidates of one particular party.

And it seems that too many of those who are social liberals on the one hand & economic conservatives on the other or, vice versa, tend to think of themselves as "independent" or "centrist" no matter how extreme Left or Right their position on economics or social issues is (or how unthoughtful).

Seven Machos said...

It occurs to me that Ann Althouse is the Edmund Burke of our generation.. The more popular and insightful she is, and the less she fits the leftist mold, the more likely it is that she will be labeled a reactionary conservative for centuries.

Anthony said...

You also never hear the phrase "liberal think tank". You know, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a conservative think-tank. The Union of Concerned Scientists, however, is a non-partisan interest group.

Freder Frederson said...

You know, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a conservative think-tank. The Union of Concerned Scientists, however, is a non-partisan interest group.

Ahh, the double false equivalence of the right. Compare a bona fide conservative think tank to an organization that isn't even a think tank. Furthermore, I defy you to show me where it is ever described as "non-partisan"

Seven Machos said...

The allegations were echoed in a report issued last week by the nonpartisan Union of Concerned Scientists, which similarly accused the administration of politicizing the scientific research that guides the nation's policy decisions, reported the New York Times.

These arguments have been voiced most prominently by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonpartisan advocacy organization...

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonpartisan group that has been critical of the Bush administration's treatment of government scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists - The Union of Concerned Scientists is citizens and scientists working together for a common goal: a healthy environment and a safe world.


Google, Fred. It's your friend. And you are an idiot for issuing such a chalenge.

Freder Frederson said...

It occurs to me that Ann Althouse is the Edmund Burke of our generation.. The more popular and insightful she is, and the less she fits the leftist mold, the more likely it is that she will be labeled a reactionary conservative for centuries.

Give me a freaking break. She is a law professor at a second tier law school. And how she managed to land that gig is a mystery for the ages.

Freder Frederson said...

Google, Fred. It's your friend. And you are an idiot for issuing such a chalenge.

I stand corrected. Although apparently, I don't understand what non-partisan means. Because when I googled "AEI nonpartisan", turns out that AEI is non-partisan too.

Seven Machos said...

US News Top Law Schools

1. Yale University (CT)

2. Stanford University (CA)

3. Harvard University (MA)

4. Columbia University (NY)

4. New York University

6. University of Chicago

7. University of Pennsylvania

8. University of California–Berkeley

8. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor

8. University of Virginia

11. Duke University (NC)

12. Northwestern University (IL)

13. Cornell University (NY)

14. Georgetown University (DC)

15. University of California–Los Angeles

16. University of Texas–Austin

17. University of Southern California (Gould)

17. Vanderbilt University (TN)

19. George Washington University (DC)

19. University of Minnesota–Twin Cities

19. Washington University in St. Louis

22. Boston University

22. University of Iowa

22. University of Notre Dame (IN)

22. Washington and Lee University (VA)

26. Emory University (GA)

27. Boston College

27. College of William and Mary (Marshall-Wythe) (VA)

27. University of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign

27. University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

27. University of Washington

32. Fordham University (NY)

32. University of Wisconsin–Madison

34. Brigham Young University (Clark) (UT)

34. University of California–Davis

34. University of Georgia

37. George Mason University (VA)

37. Indiana University–Bloomington

39. Ohio State University (Moritz)

39. Wake Forest University (NC)

41. University of Florida (Levin)

42. University of Maryland

43. American University (Washington College of Law) (DC)

43. Southern Methodist University (TX)

43. Tulane University (LA)

43. University of Alabama–Tuscaloosa

43. University of Arizona (Rogers)

43. University of California (Hastings)

43. University of Colorado–Boulder

50. University of Connecticut

Freder Frederson said...

US News Top Law Schools

And your point is? "First" or "Top" tier usually refers to the first ten or so in the rankings (wherever UVA ends up, since they insist they are "top tier").

Seven Machos said...

The top tier is generally considered to be the Top 50. If you wish to think about it mathematically, US News uses four tiers. There are about 180 ABA-approved law schools in the United States. Therefore, each tier contains 45 schools.

People who say so much and know so little are generally poorly thought of.

Freder Frederson said...

The top tier is generally considered to be the Top 50.

By whom? Certainly not the legal profession. Mathematical symmetry does not a tier make.

People who say so much and know so little are generally poorly thought of.

Yeah, this from the guy who claimed "New York, DC, and Chicago have the highest murder rates and the strictest gun laws. Period."

Seven Machos said...

Fred -- I'm sitting here as we speak writing and updating one of the best-selling books about law schools. It's an area of expertise for me. You don't know what you are talking about.

Freder Frederson said...

I'm sitting here as we speak writing and updating one of the best-selling books about law schools. It's an area of expertise for me. You don't know what you are talking about.

Well, if your book advises potential law students that a regional law school like UW of University of Alabama (or any other in the U.S. News top 50) is "top tier" school and a degree from such a school will open as many doors as one of the schools in the top ten (which are truly national law schools), then the people who buy your book deserve a refund. I bought into that line of shit when choosing a law school and it was the biggest (or maybe the second biggest, after deciding to go to law school in the first place) in my life.

auntiegrav said...

Because you're so far left, you're Right. Not necessarily 'correct', however.

"People's Republic of Madison"....LOL, then cry because it is so true -unless you are a DNR employee, I guess.

Where are the People's Factories? Not in the Forbidden City, of course, but off polluting the special industrial zones. No smokestacks allowed in Red Regions.

Not that there is anything wrong with being Communist. Just admit it if you're wearing the flag and sleeping in community housing and picking up your vegetables on Red Square with all the other Party members.

Don't ask, don't tell. If you want Change, keep it in your pocket. Self-important Judges are just a symptom of a society that doesn't acknowledge it's disconnect from Reality through Consumption. Communists consume just as much as Conservatives, so what's the point of calling someone a Conservative who really isn't?
Confusion. Confused people buy more.

reality check said...

The top tier is 50? When everywhere else it is the top 10?

Hee hee, talk about affirmative action, talk about professional courtesy amongst sharks, talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations, talk about defrauding the consumer.

Seven Machos said...

I don't work for US News, kids. They have four roughly equal tiers. That's their deal. That's their system.

And, reality: you are suggesting that Duke, Northwestern, and Cornell are "second-tier" law schools. That's a stretch, even for insane morons.

From Inwood said...

Anthony & Steven M

I agree with you re the absolute misuse of "non-partisan" by the MSM.

We might say "There are no partisans on the Left."

BTW, Some also think that The Union of Concerned Scientists uses the term “Scientists” in a nominal sense or in a stipulative sense, rather than in a real sense or even as that term is understood by the non-scientific public. So when the UCS condemns Global Warming, some MSM reports, most MSM reports (all MSM reports?) say that a majority of “scientists” condemns Global Warming. The UCS & the MSM did the same with Reagan’s nukes or for that matter all nukes (tho now, in an about face nukes may be good since their use reduces GW. Nevermind). While those MSM reports may be true then in the nominal or stipulative sense, most honest people would recognize that they represent “lying with statistics”. Or are “fake but accurate”. When the MSM presents the UCS conclusion as that of “scientists” the unsophisticated listener conjures up weird research geeks with PhDs with bottle-thick eye glasses gazing at smoking beakers. OK sneer at him & her, but, more important, the busy educated listener thinks they're talking about "research scientists."

Reality check: anyone who teaches the birds & the bees or, for that matter anyone & his/her parents who is taught the birds & bees in a grammar school (unless they are teaching or are learning about “Intelligent Design" – OK, I just made that up) can join the UCS.

Please, check the urge to send that e-mail with an alleged gotcha, the gotcha being that, just as Prof Kaplan is not responsible for the misperceptions of his students, the UCS is not responsible for the misperceptions of its readers/listeners, even when the USC, unlike Prof Kaplan, is aiding & abetting such misperception. In any event, please do restrain yourselves before knocking off that rant about GW, nukes, war, or grammar school teachers & students.

LoafingOaf said...

Freder: Libertarianism is a conservative political philosophy, not a liberal one.

Libertarians and conservatives find common ground in opposing the direction "progressives"/socialistswanna take us. That's why libertarians tend to vote for more conservative candidates.

Libertarians aren't conservatives, though. Conservatives merely seek to slow down or resist the movement the progressives wanna take society, while libertarians wanna move society in a different direction entirely.

LoafingOaf said...

I bought into that line of shit when choosing a law school and it was the biggest (or maybe the second biggest, after deciding to go to law school in the first place) in my life.

Could it be that what doors are opened or closed to you is mostly your own fault? Sure, a top tier school has a bigger nation profile and may open more doors initially. But plenty of doors are opened no matter what law school you get your degree from. It might be best to pick a regional school in a region you actually wanna stay (then all the firms will be chock full of alumni) but what school you go to is not at all make or break. Ridiculous to say it is.

Freder Frederson said...

It might be best to pick a regional school in a region you actually wanna stay (then all the firms will be chock full of alumni) but what school you go to is not at all make or break. Ridiculous to say it is.

Ahh, bullshit. It simply is that, bullshit. All that matters is where you go to law school. Nothing else matters. And of course going to a regional school where you want to practice is as good as going to a nationally recognized law school (e.g., if you want to practice in Atlanta, UGA or Emory is as "good" as Harvard, Yale or UVA). But all other things being equal (and I mean absolutely all other things), a brilliant law student from a third tier law school (even one who could have easily gotten into and done well at a "top tier" law school--however you define that), is going to have a much harder time even getting an interview at the larger law firms, let alone land a job.

That is just the harsh reality of the law trade.

Freder Frederson said...

And, reality: you are suggesting that Duke, Northwestern, and Cornell are "second-tier" law schools. That's a stretch, even for insane morons.

Yeah, well I would consider UVA a stretch, but that's just me. "The school Jefferson founded". Bunch stuck-up confederates if you ask me.

From Inwood said...

Steven M

I may sound like a trimmer, but both you & the others have debating points.

I agree with you re your four tiers based on US News, but I remember a snobbish mot by Paul Fussell (in his book, Class) to the effect that once upon a time there were 25 colleges in America & now there are still only 25 colleges in America.

Perhaps I’m buying into the myth, but the five Ivies (please no conversion of proposition here, Simon) + NYU, Mich, Virginia, Chicago, & more recently Stanford & possibly one or two others are perceived to be (to use athletic terms for want of any better) the I-A of Tier One, while the remaining schools in the top 50, including, alas, my Alma Mater, are perceived to be I-AA. This “perception” is based on awards of court clerkships & Wall Street firm hiring, & the expressed perception of most of my friends & acquaintances, in or out of the profession. Of course such conclusion is not scientific & can easily be dismissed by serious persons as anecdotal, but then the US News’ rating system, while presented with an air of scientific precision, is, IMHO, not much better.

Interestingly, if I recall correctly from previous years & I admit memory is dangerous, (1) there is not that much difference in US News’ rating points between schools ranked, say 25, & 35, or ones ranked 35 & 45 & a school ranked 30 in 2004 might have moved up to 25 in 2005 & back to 30 in 2006, but there sure was a big point difference between, say #5 & #25, (2) the members of both the US News & my anecdotal Top 15 or so (sweet 16?) seem always to remain in such Top 15, though their rank within that group may change (&, of course, people I know outside the profession just throw out “top” names in no particular order rather than 1,2,3,4, etc), and (3) most of the “I-A” schools score incrementally higher in the US News' peer assessment & lawyers/judges assessment columns than the I-AA ones.

This is a long note from someone who doesn’t “know” anything, but I’m aided by the fact that no one else seems to “know” more. I expect that your book will be more nuanced than USNews & my anecdotal stuff, & I don’t mean that as sarcasm.

From Inwood said...

Seven M

OOPS called you "Steven", Sorry.

Regards

From Inwood

Seven Machos said...

I don't subscribe to or participate in ranking law schools. I think it's all conventional bullshit. However, if you are going to make an argument based on tiers -- which one of our goofy house leftists did above -- you must buy into some facts:

1. US News came up with the whole idea of tiers and there are four of them and they are equal in size.

2. Wisconsin does not fall into the second tier.

From Inwood said...

Seven

I, er, rest my case on Fussell's mot.

The world does engage in ranking law schools, which is why it’s “conventional bullshit” & I'm taking take a minute or two from my efforts in picking the teams in the March Madness pool to play this game.

Before US News, we were governed solely by elitists' gut feelings. (They'd say "educated guesses".) Now we are governed by a wider universe of gut feelings, as I noted, presented with an air of scientific precision. At least now I find my school certified in Tier I-AA rather than "Um, yes. Never knew anyone from there, but I hear it’s a good school."

Perhaps it would help to channel Orwell: Regardless of whether we use US News, my anecdotal ramblings, or some other “expert” re "who's who in law schools", or, more to the point here, who can we look down on, we should consider the possibility that some of the US News' Top Tier are more Top Tier than others.

Regards

Freder Frederson said...

1. US News came up with the whole idea of tiers and there are four of them and they are equal in size.

I had no idea that the concept of "tiering" was invented by US News. Nor when I referred to UW as "second tier" did I mean any more insult than it was not up there in the rarefied air with the Yales, Harvards, and other schools that are considered the creme de la creme of legal education (whether you want to arbitrarily set the cut off at UVA, Duke or Georgetown).

2. Wisconsin does not fall into the second tier.

Since you have deigned that any reference to a law school by a numbered tier refers only to US News' ranking system and that "Second Tier Law School" means "a law school in the top 51--100 of the U.S. News law school rankings", I guess I must concede the point. After all you are writing the book. So you must be right.

Freder Frederson said...

Some also think that The Union of Concerned Scientists uses the term “Scientists” in a nominal sense or in a stipulative sense, rather than in a real sense or even as that term is understood by the non-scientific public.

I don't know why you insist on the fiction that the UCS is some kind of nefarious organization that is trying to hoodwink the public. It is a advocacy group just like the Sierra Club or the World Wildlife Fund. If you go to their website and click on "About" you can clearly see why they chose their name and who they are:

"What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 200,000 citizens and scientists."

Fen said...

You've admitted yourself that this blog focuses much, much more heavily on your negative feelings about liberals than your negative feelings about conservatives.

And naturally so. Liberalism has become corrupted by victim groups and special interests. The Left side of the Democrat party has been hijacked by raving Moonbats. Althouse is merely taking the same path so many of us former liberal Democrats have taken: what the hell is wrong with my Party?

From Inwood said...

Fred Fred

Then why doesn't the UCS call itself "The Union Of Concerned ‘Citizens and’ Scientists"?

Even the two organizations you cite as analogous to the UCS, The Sierra Club & The World Wildlife Fund, do not call themselves "The Scientists' Sierra Club" or “The Scientists' WWF”.

I suppose that UCS lawyers & ethicists can make a case that its continued use of “scientist” in its name is still Kosher since the term is true in the nominal or stipulative sense even though this advocacy group as you call it is no longer exclusively made up of scientists & science students. I’m just asking if this is what you consider “full disclosure” or “the whole truth”.

But we digress.

Back to Anthony & Seven’s original point, which fits into the theme of this thread of Prof A’s: why does the MSM omit (OK, peace, neglect adding) qualifiers like "Liberal" or "Left-of-Center" when reporting on the truths revealed by Liberal or Left-of-center advocacy groups, while it is careful to add some version of "Conservative" or "Right-of- Center" when making it clear that, by golly, it is not just regurgitating the propaganda of Conservative (or even Libertarian) groups, no siree. (That is, when the MSM doesn't add the "Ultra Conservative or Arch Conservative" kiss of death, sorry, qualifier.)

And so, Prof A is a “Conservative” to a member of the MSM, whereas if she were a real “Conservative”, she’d be described as an “Ultra Conservative”.

Look, we’re just looking for “full disclosure”; just trying to tell you “the whole truth”. (I’d say “fair & balanced” disclosure, but I’m sure that that would set you off.)

The Exalted said...

seven,

are you claiming that us news has the market locked up on the phrase "second tier law school?"

to me, "second tier" means "second rate," which doesn't necessarily include UW but also is not confined to the rankings dreamed up by us news.

even for you, that claim is silly.

Ann Althouse said...

"Second tier" is a US News term of art. I'm claiming that. It's not a synonym for second rate. There are many first tier law schools that are second rate!

From Inwood said...

Prof A & The Exalted

For many years, for eons, preppies, Wasps, or just plain grads of Ivy League Law schools had a lock on the term "second rate", by which they meant "We can, my dears, by virtue of our exalted state look down on any law school other than our Ivies or a few, very few, others, such as Chi, U VA, & Mich. Their list didn't even include NYU, methinks. In fact, even if one had managed to get into an Ivy Law School, then his/her undergrad & prep school credentials were considered. Read, for instance, anything by Louis Auchincloss, starting with his "The Mavericks". But it couldn't go on. The gene pool was inadequate; again, read Auchincloss, especially his "Power of Bequest" & "The Power of Appointment". And so, to survive, Wasps had to stop looking down & start dipping down below the "Elite Eight" or "Sweet Sixteen" law schools, to use March Madness references.

As I've noted, IMHO, the US News’ rating system, while presented with an air of scientific precision, is not much better than Seven M's concise formulation of "bullshit". Nonetheless, it's there & gives one the power to be able to safely dip down below the "Elite Eight" or whatever.

If any of you doubt that I have a point & believe that this Ivy elitism never existed or has been relegated entirely to the "dustbin of History", consider the initial brouhaha with Harriett Meyers (before she self destructed, that is). Most commentators immediately zeroed in on her SMU credentials (ranked 43 on the latest US News, courtesy of Seven). Does anyone think that the next SCOTUS Judge will be from a school which is not only a US News Tier One, but also a more equal Tier One school than other Tier Ones?

BTW, in 2004, BC Law School, Top Tier (ranked 27th), but not theretofore considered entitled to get in on the secret handshake of Top Tier I-A, was immediately elevated to such rank when Sen. Kerry became Candidate Kerry vs. Ivy Grad School Graduate Bush. (Please, I’m not knocking BC Law School & it probably deserves to be right up there, it’s just that the elite had never so recognized it other than something out of “The Last Hurrah” ‘til they needed to for selfish reasons.)