Too bad he wrote a great math book in 2003.

What a decline.

Because come on now, they're really supposed to be at home barefoot and pregnant, as God intended.

But the Derbster isn't a leading anything, he's a monstrous pig predator polanski-wannabe, with arrogant provincial brit perspectives (yah hear me, andy!) and a narcissism adroitly stroked by the other william f buckley pool boys...

and if that's not enough, i've got some ad hominem shit on him, too...

Derbyshire is just a full blown crank. He's one of those people that, while often rather intelligent, are socially and emotionally dysfunctional in some way. Such folks can actually play a useful role in society, but only as long as they're kept on the fringes. When you start mainstreaming them...well, this is what happens.

Mike

Speaking as a man, I would argue just the opposite. I'd say that if anything, the country and the world would be much better off if men weren't allowed to vote or hold any public office whatsoever.
The entire span of human history supports my argument.

Ann Coulter argued the same thing a few years back, and how did it hurt HIS career? Obviously, there's nothing so vile, unpatriotic and, in general, evil a neocon say that the base won't just eat up like candy, as long as it pisses liberals off.

What a moran. Not that he deserves to be taken seriously, but Derbyshire clearly doesn't know his history. Women's suffrage arose out of the Progressive movement (early 20th century version) and the hope was that with the 19th Amendment, an avalanche of new voters would sweep Progressives into power. But this didn't happen. Instead, women voted almost exactly the same as men of the same economic and social classes. Women have proven to be no more left, on average, than men. The guy is a doofus.

Derby's no idiot. He knows that, from a demographic standpoint, he and his kind (conservative white aristocrats) are due for permanent minority status. Unless...they can lock out women, minorities and other Democratic voters somehow.

I've already heard a few rumblings from the right about how we let too many people vote (e.g George Will right before the election).

Sad and scary. Odd too because he wrote a decent defense of abortion rights -- though I've seen better -- for New English Review in the form of a negative review of the Ramesh Ponnuru book arguing against abortion rights.

Shorter Derb:

Because women don't vote the way I want them to, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

I'd like it older white people didn't vote.

We could also do without people with less than a few years of college.

Maybe we should just appoint an ethnically diverse panel of highly educated young people to decide who gets to vote. That would be like democracy.

p.s. I'm guessing Derbyshire gets rejected by women frequently, and hasn't gotten laid for years, if he's even physically able to.

I'm guessing he doesn't get a lot of dates.

Also ... McGruder is incorrect, I'm pretty sure. True, there's not a large difference between men and women in voting patterns, but there is a small one and it's been quite consistent for decades. Women are slightly more likely to vote Democratic; in some elections the gap is considerable.

Personally, I'd like to bring back trial by fire to determine whether someone is a heretic.

And he's married, actually. Wonder how his wife feels about this.

Mini-Hannity should've asked Derbyshire about Roman Polanski.

I was going to say "what a d*ck!" but then I realized he'd take it for a compliment.

Meg Whitman must have agreed with him, at least up to a point (don't vote, but run for office) and at least until recently...

Does he have daughters? Sisters? A mother?

Couldn't bear to watch. The transcript was pathetic enough. I hope he gets help.

Because women don't vote the way I want them to, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.

More accurately, "Because women can't possibly be voting the way I want them to (even though they do) because we lose whenever we lose, they shouldn't be allowed to vote at all."

Not "shorter" than yours, I know. :)

LOL -- oh, Lord, puh-leeze don't take Derbyshire seriously; it encourages him. As a political writer, well -- he's possibly the second best ever to have been in a Bruce Lee movie. (Although it's a tossup, to be fair.)

Still, I wish somebody had been able to offer my personal favorite rebuttal to the bizarre notion that women aren't people, and shouldn't be allowed to vote: the Iroquois had a rule that only men could speak around the council fire.

But only women could choose which men.

For Derbyshire, his suggestion of no suffrage for women is a great improvement over his previous suggestion of murdering them. http://bit.ly/PppX

Derbyshire is merely stating the fact that today's conservative like only white men. Rich white men at that.

Add him to pile of antiquated, outdated, useless to the future lumps.

Steve, Steve, check the calendar. Tomorrow's October First, not APRIL First!

-oh, you mean the piece was SERIOUS?

I never noticed how men outnumber women on this site. It must be 10 to 1. Explains a lot.

I'm not well positioned to comment on the voting patterns of women in the United States, but in the United Kingdom women, far from inclining "hard left", actually trend conservative. In fact, the female vote is probably the single most important demographic factor in the Tory Party's pre-1997 dominance of British electoral politics.

Given that The Derb is an expat Englishman, I'm surprised that he is either unaware of this or, apparently, deliberately ignores it.

He's not stupid, in fairness. At times he can actually com up with some very good output indeed and seem a lot less nutty or partisan than some of his NRO Corner stablemates. The problem is that he also happens to be a truly jaw-dropping bigot, even allowing for the fact that I suspect he deliberately chances his arm because he enjoys getting a rise out of people.

"The conservative writer/columnist more or less jumped the shark when he expressed contempt for the victims of the Virginia Tech shooting massacre."

No. Derbyshire jumped the shark long before that when he called the execution of Chelsea Clinton.

We shouldn't try to force people to be good? Then what do we have all these laws for? Is Derby actually proposing that we legalize murder and (gulp!) permit election fraud by liberal community organizations, because we shouldn't force people to be good? And does this mean he's against abortion laws too?

I really don't think he's thought this through all the way.

I guess we should just be happy he didn't expound about the glory of days gone by when brown people could be owned.

Is there any conservative who isn't a rich, white bigot?

Is there any conservative who isn't a rich, white bigot?

Religious zealots and ignorant tools. Usually they are poor white bigots who do not seem to understand that if they worked with the poor of other skin colors they would be better off.

The country would be better off if Derbyshire didn't vote.

You know it's almost refreshing in it's selfishness. He's just blatantly saying he doesn't think women should be able to vote because it would help His Team Win.

Kind of like a baseball fan saying "I think the game would be better if the Yankees were allowed four outs."

He's not hiding behind some nebulous "principle" like religion, morals, biology - unconvincing and wrong though those may be.

WOW!! This article is so far slanted, I had to turn my head sideways to read it! I seriously would put both Derbyshire and the author of this article in the slightly demented category.

First of all, I followed the link to what you called "contempt". Nowhere didhe suggest even a vague dislike of the victims of the VT massacre. Red flag #1 that you are full of BS. He was stating what he HOPES he would have done in the situation.

Secondly, who the @#$% is Derbyshire? You find an absolute nut case, slap the label of "leading conservative author" of a premier conservative political outlet (The National Review? Come on!) in hopes of exploiting this man's opinions to insidiously reflect THE republican party, ALL conservative authors, and ALL conservative political outlets. This is nothing but a desperate albeit extremely transparent attempt to mislead your readers into believing Derbyshire is the "voice" of the republican party. In fact, this achieves exactly the opposite of your intentions, my dear. (Bless your heart.)

And, by the way, thanks for reminding me of Ann Coulter's snarky, insincere comments regarding women's rights to vote. Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see she was being sarcastic. Oh, I forgot...that's just another opportunity for you to stretch the truth a little. I suppose everyone is allowed to use the internet, aren't they?

We shouldn't try to force people to be good. -John Derbyshire

So, what is he arguing for? We should give them clubs and have them work it out that way. Or would he at least allow for AK-47s?

There was a relatively period when John Derbyshire was being repeatedly trotted out as "See! He's a Republican, but a reasonable one!" because he was willing to go on the record as stating the earth is more than seven thousand years old

The racism in these comments is much more revealing than anything in the article.

Well the truth is out. In his opinion, the second best alternative to deposing a Black Democrat is to dienfranchise the biggest voting blocks who traditionally side in opposition to your prefered party.

I'm glad you can stand to listen to and read this garbage, I am not able to.

Sheepherder, you're outa your mind: there ARE folks in civic life who are deliberately provocative, for fun and profit.

Derbyshire is one, Coulter another, and there is a long list... but most, if not all of 'em, are on the right.

And they have essentially taken over the Republican Party. As TNR pointed out the other day, the political opposition, which used to represent a range of interest groups, has BECOME a single interest group itself, and its sole organizing principle is the kind of pointless political provocation exemplified by Derbyshire and Coulter.

"It's extraordinary." No, Steve, it isn't.
One of the most repulsive things about Dirtyshower, is how he presumed Alan Colmes really wanted to go along with the trash (like a "real man" would.)
BTW Colmes deserves more attention and less scoffing from us.

If you believe anything in politics these days without researching it, especially if it is stated as facts without a reference to the source, you are out of your mind. Sources and credibility are sorely lacking in this article, and it appears on this website. Integrity here has completely bottomed out.

"sources and credibility are sorely lacking in..." in what?

The post is a transcript of an Alan Colmes show. If you doubt that Derbyshire was moaning about women being able to vote (just like they were, you know CITIZENS or something), then say so.

I dunno that Derbyshire called for the "execution of Chelsea Clinton", as somebody posted upthread, but I do know that the guy is a toad -- anybody who reads his stuff will have seen literally dozens of instances in which he says outrageous things (like how just maybe all the ethnic Chinese in America might legitimately be locked up on suspicion of espionage, but then: he'd go with his wife and children because "we Derbyshires stick together").

Of course he bitched about killing Jim Crow because he thinks (if that's the right word) the law can't make people moral: he's culturally British, and utterly clueless about what it means to be an American. (Not unlike his fellow Brit Peter Brimelow, he's living proof we need a better naturalization test, because he managed to become a US citizen without learning what "American" means.)

He's not to be taken seriously, on any grounds, in any way. That he's become typical of conservative "thinking" is a painful insight into... well, your side of the aisle, sheep.

What exactly are you bitching about?

If your complaint is that somebody said "white bigots" above, ask yourself: is it your contention that there are NO white bigots?

Or that they are under-represented in the Republican Party -- for which underrepresentation Derbyshire is your EXAMPLE?

The term provocative is based on one person's set of beliefs. You can only apply provocative to how you respond based on your opinion and beliefs. You can't say that Ann Coulter is provocative, because that would imply that she is provocative to everyone, which isn't the case at all. We get it. We get her. You're angry so you call her provocative (among much more deliberating foul names spewed from the hatred of the left). We disagree, so we call her snarky. It all depends on what pool of putrid vomit you are standing in, I suppose.

"If you believe anything in politics these days without researching it, especially if it is stated as facts without a reference to the source, you are out of your mind. Sources and credibility are sorely lacking in this article, and it appears on this website. Integrity here has completely bottomed out."

---Benan states that Derbyshire is a leading conservative writer (by whose standards?)

---Benan states that the National Review is a premier Conservative Political Outlet (again, where the stats you used to make that determination?)

Look, I've already stated Derbyshire is a nut case. I care about that much who he is. What I am bitching about is the tactics used by this author to manipulate facts.

"He's not to be taken seriously, on any grounds, in any way. That he's become typical of conservative "thinking" is a painful insight into... well, your side of the aisle, sheep."

The fact that you think anyone, liberal or conservative, takes him seriously shows that YOU are a victim of this manipulation. The fact that you have been led to believe that he is "typical" (seriously?) of conservative thinking indicates there are many more of these victims.

"If your complaint is that somebody said "white bigots" above, ask yourself: is it your contention that there are NO white bigots?"

You've completely left the stadium here. I don't know where you're going with this one.

By the way, my first statement about integrity bottoming out here refers to the whole website...not just this article.

One of the most repulsive things about Dirtyshower, is how he presumed Alan Colmes really wanted to go along with the trash (like a "real man" would.)

I don't think he really thought Colmes wanted to go along with it. He thought he could -- in a subtle version of the classic male-to-male confrontation game -- SHAME Colmes into saying he agreed with the proposition. He implied that Alan was just too AFRAID to say what he really thought, hoping that Colmes would then try to get manliness points by playing along with the yuk-yuk about how men secretly think women are all children who shouldn't be allowed to so much as buy a bus ticket on their own, much less vote (with the unspoken corollary implication that if a man doesn't believe that, he's not a Real Manâ„¢).

That manipulation gambit is even more repulsive than genuinely thinking Colmes wanted to agree. He was trying to MAKE him agree.

Good thing Colmes showed some (truly manly) backbone, although what he was being asked to endorse was just bad enough this time to make it fairly easy for him to stand up straight.

The comments in the 2001 article about Chelsea were cruel, stupid, juvenile, and insincere. Just a nasty little man picking on an innocent young woman to impress his buddies. However, the money quote is this one about our current Secretary of State:

But given her far-left paper trail and her amazing capacity to make people detest her where'er she treads, Hillary's maxed out: She has no real future.

Derbyshire had no future then and doesn't have one now. He's still cruel and stupid and too far from reality to escape the National Review ghetto of wingnuts.

---Benan states that the National Review is a premier Conservative Political Outlet (again, where the stats you used to make that determination?)

What planet are you from? The National Review has been an leading conservative intellectual outlet for decades! What next, are you going to claim the Wall Street Journal is just a local trade publication? That Rush Limbaugh is just another skinny shock jock?

Is Sheep really trying to say that The National Review, the star in the heavenly crown of the sainted William F. Buckley, the go-to rag for supposedly "intelligent" conservative thought for half a century (or is it more) is NOT a "premier" venue for conservative thought?

Does he actually consider it to be some kind of fringe outlet? If so, Sheep should let us know what he does consider a "premier" outlet, if, I say again, the FREAKIN NATIONAL REVIEW!! somehow does not meet his criteria.

That is about as true as saying Ashton Kutcher is the voice of all democrats. If it's true, show me the numbers??? Otherwise, it's opinion, your opinion.

Wow...so now it's the Bible for conservatives?

If I did give my criteria, it would mean nothing. It would serve no purpose in this discussion, because I do not speak for any person's political party. I'm not a Republican and I wouldn't think about re-joining the Democrats for fear of losing my soul.

I see we conveniently skipped over the tougher-to-debate issue of Derbyshire being a leading conservative author, which is actually relevant to the article and this discussion, and my original point.

Wow...so now it's the Bible for conservatives?

It's about as close as they come, given that it was founded by the father of modern conservatism, William F. Buckley Jr., has been the home of the most prominent conservative voices for decades, presently publishes articles by the most prominent conservatives -- Bill Bennet, Johah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, Ramesh Ponnuru, Byron York, Mark Stein, et al -- and even describes itself as:

"America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for Republican/conservative news, commentary, and opinion."

Allow me to add: you idiot.

That is about as true as saying Ashton Kutcher is the voice of all democrats.

Does Ashton Kutcher publish a roster of columnists in a prominent left wing opinion journal? I. don't. think. so.

If it's true, show me the numbers??? Otherwise, it's opinion, your opinion.

Okay, now you're just embarrassing yourself.

The paid circulation of The National Review (150,000-200,00, as you'll see at this link) makes it the top right-leaning opinion journal, generally at parity with The Nation on the left.

Now go home and read up on the well-known and universally acknowledged* FACTS of your own side's media outlets. Sheesh.

*except for ignoramuses like you.

The point of Benan's article wasn't the ludicrous opinions of Derbyshire, nor was it that the National Review is irresponsible for allowing him to write for them. The point of Derbyshire's article was summed up in this statement:

"Just so we're clear, a leading conservative writer at one of the premier conservative political outlets, argued publicly against a woman's right to vote and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

This statement is irresponsible and deliberately misleading, which makes Benan (in terms Democrats use) a sleazebag.

"Just so we're clear, a leading conservative writer at one of the premier conservative political outlets, argued publicly against a woman's right to vote and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

That is a true summation. Derbyshire IS a leading conservative writer at what we have DEMONSTRATED to you IS one of -- if not THE -- premier conservative political outlet(s). Derbyshire did, as the transcript of that conversation conclusively shows, argue publicly against both female suffrage and the Civil Rights Act.

Benen's statement is therefore true, from top to bottom. And if you --somehow-- are able to believe that it is not, well, sir/madam, I must unfortunately conclude that you ARE an idiot.

Did you not anticipate me actually going to read it? From your very own link:

"National Review’s reliable rightward slant hasn’t hurt it over time, either. But its circulation dropped slightly in 2004, going from 156,157 to 155,271, according to audit reports. The magazine’s circulation is still down from its high in 1996, during the heart of the Clinton presidency, when it was over 200,000."

Your red text looks like a quote, but it's not. Nowhere does it states it is a top right-leaning opinion journal. That sentence is not found at all in your link *anywhere*. As a matter of fact, that piece was published in 2005. It is four years old!

Are you related to the author?

Julia, I just proved you wrong. I don't know what else to say, except you got caught in a lie.

"Just so we're clear, a leading conservative writer at one of the premier conservative political outlets, argued publicly against a woman's right to vote and against the Civil Rights Act of 1964." This statement is irresponsible and deliberately misleading, which makes Benan (in terms Democrats use) a sleazebag.

As we've shown, it's accurate. National Review is the premier conservative outlet. It's ranked among the highest trafficked websites in the U.S. on Alexa at #1382 with over 6400 websites that link to it. John Derbyshire, who's written numerous books and countless articles, has weekly entries in National Review.

Not only was Steve Benen quite correct, you've just embarrassed yourself beyond redemption.

Nowhere does it states it is a top right-leaning opinion journal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mediakit/

Buh-bye.

"National Review’s reliable rightward slant hasn’t hurt it over time, either. But its circulation dropped slightly in 2004, going from 156,157 to 155,271, according to audit reports. The magazine’s circulation is still down from its high in 1996, during the heart of the Clinton presidency, when it was over 200,000."

And how does this disprove my statement, drawn from that article, of the range of The National Review's circulation as being between 150,000 and 200,000?

Your red text looks like a quote, but it's not.

:: rolls eyes :: You haven't been at this very long, have you? Do you see any quotation marks?

Nowhere does it states it is a top right-leaning opinion journal. That sentence is not found at all in your link *anywhere*.

No, but what other conclusion one can draw from it being the only right wing publication discussed in comparison to the other high circulation left-wing publications? It's clear that it is the TOP conservative journal.

As a matter of fact, that piece was published in 2005. It is four years old!

Oh for pity's sake. Things have not changed in terms of relative importance of the opinion journals in the last few years.

The ABC guaranteed paid circulation for 2009 is 160,000. And at that link (the current advertising kit) you will find a quote from Dr. Henry Kissinger which runs as follows:

“I have no doubt that National Review, the principal conservative magazine, will be as strong, shrewd, and principled a voice for a realistic and purposeful Post-Cold War American foreign policy as it has been in changing the direction of American domestic politics, and winning the Cold War.”

Not that I would ordinarily quote Kissinger on anything, but I wanted you to know that the pre-eminence of NR is also "just HIS opinion."

Julia, you have fallen into the trap of believing that people like sheephearder can be reached with reasoned, thoughtful arguments and information. They cannot. Don't give him the pleasure of your apoplexy--he's enjoying it much too much.
And I know whereof I speak, having done the same SCREAMING AT IDIOTS way too often. And I'm old enough to know better.

Julia, I just proved you wrong. I don't know what else to say, except you got caught in a lie.

Um, no.

:: laughing ::

Psst: other people can read, even if you can't.

And you know, that hideous thing about Chelsea Clinton could have been written by sheepherder. Hey! Derbyshire's trolling Benen's blog!!

Don't give him the pleasure of your apoplexy--he's enjoying it much too much.

I'm not apopleptic, I'm showing off! :: grin ::

Honest, as you may have seen in other threads and on other blogs, this kind of thing is sheer entertainment for me. I like making idiots look like idiots, hoisting folks on their own petards and all that. It's very gratifying. Even though I recognize it will make no difference to what they think, isn't it fun for us to see these dopes get their rhetorical throats cut?

Let me guess. sheepherder's IP is masked, too.

"...Nowhere didhe(sic) suggest even a vague dislike..." sheepherder @ 5:16 PM.
Apparently your reading comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Mr. Benen made no mention of "dislike" (your word), he used the word "contempt" which is clearly visible in the following passage from Derbyshire's undoubtedly Rambo-esque pen: "...let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here?...why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake...". Try and find a better example of contempt, try. Oh, wait, there's some poster who continually mis-spells Mr. Benen's last name...

"Who the @#$% is Derbyshire?" (I do hope I quoted you correctly on that?) First, read the article by Mr. Benen. Second, go to the link provided by Mr. Benen. Third, click on "search", then on "NRO authors". Scroll down to "Derbyshire" and there you are! That wasn't hard, now, was it? Of course, not. It's so easy, anyone who actually wanted to find out...oh, that's right. Never mind, then.

"You find an absolute nutcase...". Finally, agreement! Then you went and ruined it by pretending you don't know that "National Review" ISN'T the premier conservative magazine. My dear.

"...Ann Coulter's snarky, insincere comments...".
One of those adjectives does not mean what you think it does. "Snarky": sarcastic; "insincere" = false or fake. So, which is it? Was Coulter making a sarcastic remark or a false one? He could have meant both, but that doesn't support your argument then, does it? And before you start squealing with pleasure*, I used the pronoun I meant to.
*There are some places even I won't go...

"...just another opportunity for you to stretch the truth...".
Project much, do you?

"I suppose everyone is allowed to use the internet, aren't they?"
No, it's just too easy...

LOL -- oh, just for fun: nobody can seriously claim that National Review is not the leading conservative 'zine. Period. Hell, it was WFB's proudest boast that he used NR to boost Ronald Reagan himself.

There WAS a shot, maybe around 2002, when the Weekly Standard was a challenge to NR's decades-long dominance. But it was always an upstart, and never took NR's place.

Put it this way, if the leading conservative political 'zine is NOT National Review, what is it? Commentary? The New Republic?

LOL -- forget it. There is literally nobody who knows anything about it who would say anything else: it's NR.

So sheep is left insisting that Derbyshire is not a leading conservative voice AT the National Review.

That's kinda problematic, since NR is Derbyshire's principal media outlet, in the same way that NewsMax is Perry's.

You can argue that printing his stuff on paper and online is insignificant, but that's just silly. Since NR's own stable of writers likes to say what a neat guy Derbyshire is...

He;s not to be taken seriously. But that makes him MORE exemplary for the wingnuts, not less.

LOL -- and for those who wonder if sheep is Derbyshire, I say to him: 忘 八!

I think Sheepherder isn't actually a right-wing troll or a concern troll: he's a time-waster troll. He's managed to make a half-dozen sensible people burn hours of time refuting him, when he patently has no interest in anything but nay-saying Steve's original entry.

There's a history thread on Amazon.com that was originally titled "Why is there Holocaust Denial?" It has now gone to 9000 entries and is basically two or three Holocaust Deniers wasting the time of everyone else who joins the thread, reciting their gotcha points and writers, denouncing and sneering at anyone who disagrees. Since the basis of their belief system is that the entire body of Holocaust testimony and evidence, which can probably be measured in tons, is either fake or a conspiracy, debating them on various details of their statements is pointless. By acting as though there actually was serious debate on the basic point, you concede them credibility.

Julia@ 8:08: yes it is fun. But I wish it would actually have an effect, too. Oh well--my husband is always telling me to think positive & for 23 years my answer has been the same--"it's not in my nature."

And Americanist about people wondering if the sheep is Derbyshire--you say...what? What do those symbols mean?

Also, (and then I'll stop) thanks Midland--acting as though there is a serious debate only lends credibility--kind of like Obama & the Dems continuing to reach out re health care reform--they insist on acting like the Rs are negotiating honestly. "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?"

Talk about taxation without representation, would this then exempt us from taxes? And presumably, all female legislators can take a hike too. Constitution-schmontitution.

Allan Snyder is so right about which gender needs disenfranchisement based on the historical record.

Sadly, Derbyshire isn't the only righty who has been pushing this, and it isn't even new. The Concerned Women for America has pushed for several years a book, "The 1872 Husband," which argues in favor of men reassuming the dominator role in marriage seen in 1872, to the point of "enforcing disciplinary standards" where necessary, i.e., wife-beating, which was common and accepted then.
CWA leaders - women! - have also gone on the record in recent years deploring female suffrage and saying it should be rescinded.

In certain fundamentalist circles, there is a new tradition of the wife giving the man a "broadsword" as was used in that ignorant Mel Gibson movie he won an ill-deserved Oscar for that I dislike so much I cannot remember the name, I have put it out of mind so thoroughly.

Additionally, at the "Value Voters Summit" there was a workshop on "the new masculinity," which advocated all this stuff about "headship" and male dominance as a "pushback" to the (to them) illegitimate feminist movement. There was also talk there - by conservative women! - about women not having the vote.

Just when you think these people are the biggest whackadoodles you ever saw, they go and show that "you ain't seen nothin' yet!"

So, "sheepherder," what do you do to those poor sheep of yours after dark there in the barn, eh?

Given that you southerners descend from transported sheep fornicators, you're likely following the "old family tradition."

I'm not well positioned to comment on the voting patterns of women in the United States, but in the United Kingdom women, far from inclining "hard left", actually trend conservative. In fact, the female vote is probably the single most important demographic factor in the Tory Party's pre-1997 dominance of British electoral politics.

This is true - the male-female gap in terms of voting patterns in the UK is about 8-10%.

And it's not just the UK - Canada, France, Germany, Australia and probably other countries as well. The US is really the exception in that it's the only country where women are consistently slightly more left-wing than men. Probably the *b*rt**n issue.

LOL -- oh, Derbyshire knows what 忘 八 means. It's Chinese.

Yanno, although it is probably mostly a quirk of the blogosphere, there really is a hard kernel of truth to the sheer maiden aunt-itude about progressives' reaction to crap like this: it's as if we're censors re-reading pornography in case we missed any really outrageous stuff the first three times.

Derbyshire, Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Perry -- these folks are all essentially ENTERTAINERS. "I don't believe what I read in the papers/they're just out to capture my dime..."

IF you don't like what's in the news, make some better news. If you don't like hearing THEIR story, get your audience to listen to YOUR story -- cuz it's better and more interesting.

Fercrysakes, use some judo -- I suggested the proper response to Derbyshire isn't to take him seriously, but the Iroquois model: you say women shouldn't vote? Then let's have only men speak at the council -- but only women choose which men: John, let me speak for YOUR wife: STFU.

Liz Cody (E.C. Stanton) had another bright idea: Tell ya what -- if women can't vote, we shouldn't pay taxes, either. (Although I'd bet money that Derbyshire would promptly come back -- sounds good to me: SHE will work, and I will stay home doing algorithms.)

MOCK these folks, already. It is far more effective than self-righteous condemnation.

i guess no one would be suprised that democrats have more than DOUBLE the number of women in congress..

compared to republicans...

Derbyshire. Is that the fellow's name or his family's estate?

One of the things you'll notice about sophisticated conservatives like Buckley and Derbyshire is that they love to convert everything into philosophy -- they love the play of ideas because they are safely insulated from the consequences of them.

Derbyshire obviously is wedded to a predetermined vision of what constitutes the Good Society, and so giving women the sufferage is a bother if they do not happen to share Derbyshire's vision. Derb would do away with that inconvenience by dealing away sufferage. Ends justify means, end of story.

Colmes should have gone past women's sufferage by asking Derbyshire to explain what his vision of the Good Society might be. Why do I have the feeling it involves a world where Derbyshire really is a great estate.

To get some real Republican Love, make some T-Shirts saying:

Obama was only the 2nd worst mistake in American history!

Repeal the 19th Amendment!

Typical distraction tactics. Recommended response? Ignore it and go back to talking about health care reform.