Coulter: Without affirmative action, Rep. Waters couldn't get a job "that didn't involve wearing a paper hat"
In her August 9 column, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter wrote of African-American Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA):
Congresswoman Maxine Waters had parachuted into Connecticut earlier in the week to campaign against [Sen. Joseph I.] Lieberman because he once expressed reservations about affirmative action, without which she would not have a job that didn't involve wearing a paper hat. Waters also considers Joe "soft" on the issue of the CIA inventing crack cocaine and AIDS to kill all the black people in America.
Coulter went on to claim that Democrats "hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism":
As some of us have been trying to tell you, Democrats don't oppose the war on terrorism because they hate Bush: They hate Bush because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorists even if he had a "D" after his name. They would hate Bernie Sanders if he were fighting a war on terrorism.
She then described National Organization for Women president Kim Gandy as "bloodthirsty":
Gandy's support for [Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned] Lamont must have been a particularly bitter pill for Lieberman to swallow, inasmuch as he has long belonged to the world's smallest organization solely to satisfy bloodthirsty feminists like Gandy -- Orthodox Jews for Partial-Birth Abortion. (OJFPBA has just slightly more members than GBRFC, "Gay Black Republicans for Choice.")
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
If it weren't for right wing dominance of media and politics, Ann Coulter couldn't get a job that didn't involve delivering papers.
I was thinking more along the lines of street and corner.
I don't think she could make any money on a corner. That big ole adams apple would scare of any potential customers.
There's a market for everything out there. I'm sure Anne could make a good living catering to the way-too-skinny-adam's apple-lesbian wannabes crowd. She has obviously shown the talent to lay on her back and take whatever The Party gives her.
That she has a large Adam's apple may actually attract clients. S/he may be gifted.
...hate him.
If he were in Afghanistan, trudging across the hills and creeping into caves looking for bin Laden, I'd say, "What a man"
But Bush isn't fighting any war. Other people's sons and daughters and husbands and wives and fathers and mothers are fighting this war. And Bush has demonstrated that he's unwilling to fight a war. He had his chance as a young man and he passed. He could have been a warrior and he walked away and hid behind his daddy's jock strap and his mommy's pearls.
If Bush hadn't attacked the wrong country, if millions of people at the time hadn't told him it was the wrong country, if Bush hadn't demonstrated the resolve to be self-righteous and refuse to get it right, I might not hate him, but for the limbs and lives and eyeballs and genitals and hope that have been lost because of him, somedays I do hate him. At least, somedays, Coulter has the verb right. Somedays, it's "hate."
But everyday, Coulter hates. Everyday. Every damn day.
44 years ago, after reading my first short story for about the fourth time, my Junior year English teacher - previously supportive - finally confessed to being "jaundiced" by the frequent re-submissions. I learned a new word and what I generally consider to be a valuable lesson.
Thus I am amazed that Fox and even the less deplorable media outlets have no limit in how many times they wish to hear or republish AC's (antichrist could be a woman, I guess) vituperative nonsense, and wonder why the public has not, like myself, become anesthetized by the venom. I tend to pass by MMFA's AC studies now, but am glad I didn't this time, or I would have missed your typically eloquent post.
You must be a fan of fire, for there was a lotta burning in my post.
tell us what you really think! ;)
Here we are putting billions of dollars into a virtually unilateral war in Iraq while the southern third of Afghanistan is sustaining more intense Taliban attack.
And now, we have the British foiling the largest Al-Qaeda plot since 9/11 -- a plot engineered with support of re-assembled training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Gonna be hard to blame Saddam for this one.
Just because the press announces that the plot involved many who were trained in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan doesn't make it so. We know that The Office of Special Plans is still operable. We know that psy-ops are the propaganda operation of choice, and we know that virtually nothing about terrorism, 9/11, or the War in Iraq, as framed by the Bush Cabal, is close to the truth. So why are we so easily lulled into believing the government frame of a supposed terrorist plot? Since when did they EARN CREDIBILITY?
For now, they are not to be believed. Any piece of information should be suspect. When we get a government we can trust, a government that will clean house by going after the perpetrators of chaos, mass murder, and fear mongering, we should explore parameters of trust. Until then, believe nothing unless it's strongly corroborated by independent sources. These present day Buffoons will deceive you into surrendering your souls.
Was there an overused expression in England--"We're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here!"
Hmmmm?
You make some excellent points. I love reading your posts!
I do have to wonder, though, what ever happened to the glorious days of old, when a country went to war, the king/leader fought next to his troops on the battlefield? You don't see that anymore...at all. The last one I can recall is Napoleon.
There's a man's man. Bushie seems to be the anti-thesis of everything that Theodore Roosevelt represents.
As president Roosevelt may have not spearheaded any charge, but he at least understood war.
I studied authority and leadership and taught it too, so your point about leaders once leading their troops into battle has more appeal to me than 42 pounds of dark chocolate.
An ancient meaning of leader is "to go forth and die." As you said, the ancient leaders once led their troops into battle. Even if they couldn't, like FDR in his wheelchair, they could demonstrate courage, as FDR did one NYC October day when he campaigned and remained in the rain because he believed the American people needed to see a seemingly stalwart and sturdy president, thus hastening his death. Likewise, Jackie O used her hands to hold JFK's brain in his skull. He was dead. She knew it. And what did she do? She composed what she would say to the press, which was:
"Don't let it be forgot that for one brief shining moment there was Camelot."
She felt, in quoting mere movie lyrics, like she'd been insufficient in her role.
Later, she wrote: "I'm so ashamed of myself. Jack...everything he ever quoted was Greek or Roman...."
So, neither FDR nor Jackie carried a gun or led a charge, but both were warriors. Both exemplified the warrior's courage and resolve and compassion.
But Bush and Cheney fled on 9-11. Through the ranks of the necons, you will find few that haven't fled. Coulter could have carried a gun. Cheney could have enlisted and shot someone other than his friend. Bush could have peed into a cup and flown on for the Guard, but they all passed on service.
Instead Coulter et al spend their days distracting us from their monstrous inadequacies with nationalism in the guise of patriotism.
Hey, even MacArthur, who was often an arse, waded through the surf while bullets will still in the air.
A coward avoids peril. A monstrous coward avoids battle and sends others to die. Coulter and Bush are monstrous cowards.
And thanks for the love, CSLiberal.
Holly, I have only been recently posting here but I've been lurking for longer than that. I really like reading your posts and once again you have hit the nail on the head. Thanks.
I'm beginning to feel like this is Let's Love Holly Day!
Gosh, I wish everyday were Let's Love Holly Day!, but alas, it never works that way.
What's weird is when I write professionally, I often have readers call me all sorts of nasty names. It's a different role, I guess, for I feel that my professional prose, my values, and my approach are nearly the same as what I post here.
I suspect that some folks just wanna be sore at anyone that opines: that's their shtick. I just wanna be sore at Coulter and her ilk: those that opine to provoke, but without a point.
you're a lovable gal Holly!
...at ya, Lynn!
The neo-con Freak Show. Why she isn't going to court every day to defend herself against charges of slander and libel is a modern day miracle. She's a one horse show with a tiresome schtick that somehow keeps selling, probably through bulk purchases from which her piece of trash is given away to customers who are always looking for something else.
Coulter calling someone "bloodthirsty" is like Hitler yelling at a Nazi youth, "You're nothing but a Nazi."
...on NBC's Today Show, or on the cover of Time, or in your local paper, or on Hannity and Colmes, or...
Imagine if, say, Molly Ivans came out and said that J.C. Watts was incapble of getting a job that didn't involve a paper hat, and that Republicans hate John Murtha because they know he has a plan to stop Al Qeada and they don't want us to defeat them, and that James Dobson is bloodthirsty.
Would Ivans be invited to chat with Matt Lauer? Would she be on the cover of Time? Would she still have her column syndicated across the country? Would she be a regular on cable TV?
But, of course, the mainstream media is "liberal."
Ha.
Coulter is out of "ideas."
...I've said it before... Coulter's worst enemy is herself... b/c she ain't that bright! Pathetic one-hit-wonder. Let her keep babbling. It's good for the Democrats at this point.
COULTER: "You're ugly!!" OPPOSITION: "Huh?" COULTER: "Screw you!"
That's about as good as it gets with this pea-brain.
who will troll into here and talk about how she doesn't speak for any other conservatives, note the FOX caption underneath her: "Conservative Author." The group she represents could not be made more plain, and by a network that would surely know.
...and you now know I sometimes hate Coulter, but I think it's dangerous to assert that Coulter speaks for all Righties just because a producer hanged the shingle "conservative author" beneath her bloodthirsty head. Whereas "demagogue" is apt and my preference for a descriptor, to reduce and restrict every Righty to Coulter is framing with crude strokes.
For example, Tommy tips to the Right, but yesterday Tommy stood with the progressives in denouncing BOR. Right-leaning folks will surprise progressives. Not all, but some.
And I suspect that some Righties hate Coulter as much as I do just now.
Oh, I agree that Coulter doesn't generally speak for all conservatives. However, some disingenuous conservatives try to paint her as a marginal figure by conflating the notion that she speaks only for herself (which may be true) with the notion that there aren't millions of conservatives out there nodding their heads in unison when she blathers (which is most certainly not true). It's a clever rhetorical trick, but that's all it is - a trick.
She does have millions of fans and for the millions of dollars that she earns, she diverts attention from their hidden hatred to her public hatred. Coulter wouldn't be what she is if millions of people didn't permit it.
It just amazes me that a group of people with so much hate in their hearts have the nerve to call anybody else "facists," "Nazis," and "Godless." What amazes me even more is that anybody actuall pays her serious attention. Nothing is more Godless than this type of hate. It's dangerous and reckless.
As long as they're directing the conversation and using the words — it's okay. Anyone else? Shame, shame on them.
of attention on this website alone. Blogs like this one are ever so popular now. Personally, I would ignore her. But then, what would you all do? Who knows. Her, like good ole O'Reilly, are nothing but pathetic jokes. I would not waist my precious time listening to her. In fact, I never have.
Ann Coulter is the groupie that gets passed around by the entertainers of the so called news media. Anytime a news program host needs a quick "release", she/he asks for Ann Coulter and there she is...like a true fanatic follower; addicted, and star struck, she opens herself up and receives whatever is dished out to her :)
Well, I don't blame her, for trying to get attention. She must not have been loved as a child. Trying to compensate for childhood abuse can be an ugly thing...
keeleed
Dear Modern Conservatives,
Just because you don' t have a childlike, unquestioning, servile, uncritical puppy dog "love" of something, that does not mean you "hate" it. This "something" can be George W. Bush, the United States, Israel, Broccoli, etc.
Robert. This conservative notion of supporting something sans doubt is childish. A patriot questions her government. The most loyal American demands accountability of his authority figures.
Has blunt military force thwarted any terrorist plot? Or has it been intelligence and infiltration?
Were it not for blood thirsty feminists, Ann would not even have the right to vote.
I'm sure Susan B. Anthony is kicking herself in the afterlife. That would be a really interesting meeting: Susan B. Anthony and Ann Coulter. Susan would just spin kick Ann in the ovaries.
Are you the same Rusty Shackleford who used to post on Orioles Hangout?
That poster probably lifted the moniker from the same place I did: King of the Hill. Best TV show of the last decade.
"Or are you my new friend Rusty Shackleford?"
Sorry, for going OT.
"Don't sign your name to it, Hank!"
It is Dale Gribble's nom de guerre.
I guess Ann didn't get the official party meme. Only Democrats are supposed to be biased.
If it wasn't for affirmative action, law schools probably never would've opened to women, and blond air-heads wouldn't be all over the news spouting empty opinions.
Has anyone forwarded Coulter's column to BOR?? If confused see MMFA's story re BOR's comments on the absence of right-wing haters.
This is the perfect example of what I was talking about in a previous thread. Blacks that don't support conservatives are all marginalized and stereotyped as dumb and insignificant. Maxine Waters supported Lamont and not their candidate of choice, so therefore if not for affirmative action Maxine Waters (whether you like her or not is an intelligent woman) would be just another worthless pathetic minimum wage earner. Coulter would have never accused a Black conservative congressperson of this, if there was one. It's no wonder JC Watts has criticized his party for their handling of racial issues. He's chastised them for their "insensitivity". Insensitivity, that's putting it mildly, the paper hat statement was a racist pure and simple.
It's racism, relegating people of color to the service industry, to being mammy that feeds the white children once again, the white children that the rich white parents, the plantation owners, don't take time to feed. I'm not concluding that this is Coulter's calculated subtext. I am suggesting that this might be Coulter's unconscious subtext.
It's the Bell Curve and that bell never peals for people of color, in never calls them in from toil, from the fields. The Bell Curve never reserves a place behind a podium for a person of color, unless that person is willing to be an Uncle Tom. Only such a man belongs in the master's house.
Before lambasting me, follow me here.
I'm no Waters fan. But, as the post above references, that doesn't mean I don't think she's intelligent.
Yet, without affirmative action, African-Americans with her intellect and beyond indeed would not hold the positions they do today.
So, Ann's vile statement only serves to frame herself as an affirmative action supporter!!
Hey, why not proclaim she is! It wouldn't be distorting her an iota more than she distorts everyone else!!!
One of the discussions in the AA community has been about the quality of the current school systems in poor African American neighborhoods. An unintended consequence of desegregation is that it pulled the brightest and the best African Americans from the teaching profession. African American teachers worked in the segregated colored school systems. Pre-integration teaching jobs were the MOST reliable and plenteous jobs available that didn’t involve cleaning something or serving somebody. There were only a limited number of positions availabel for Black lawyers and doctors and nurses in “colored” only law firms and health facilities; although intelligent Black men often became ministers. The likeliness of finding an abundance of white collared jobs in anything else out side of the teaching profession was slim to none, so that became the default profession for really bright people. Even those who majored in fields other than teaching often had to fall back on teaching because no one would hire them in their field of expertise. So you’re correct the increased opportunity and the tools that were used to facilitate opportunity has allowed AAs to work in professions more apposite for their intellectual capacities, talents, and INTERESTS. Even being a federal legislator, diplomat or a supreme court justice is in the realm of possibility now.
That Waters isn't the benefactor of Affirmative Action because she's black, but because she's a full-blown conspiracy-theorist wappolouie?
Hey, I can go along with that. Waters is a "special" case, and I'll put her in the same category as Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens.
So would Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens be working at McDonalds if it wasn't for the affirmitive action program that promotes White males to power and has been in place since our country was formed?
No, I'm saying that like Waters, Stevens is a nutjob, and that Affirmative Action allows nutjobs into occupations that could harm millions of Americans.
Coulter gratuitously introduced race. She would have never said that about a hated White Liberal. You know why? Even though she hates White Liberals at least she gives them the assumption of competency; but a Black Liberal well they must be stupid. Monkey man you can't see that? Or maybe you just don't want to see it. She made this racial when she went into her little stack of race cards and pulled the ace. (affirmative action)
BTW, you never answerd my question. Is Stevens the beneficiary of the affirmitive action that has always existed for White males in America??????
As a white Anglo-Saxon male probably not. As a nutjob, yes.
would say you sir are being intellectually dishonest!
No, I'm saying that like Waters, Stevens is a nutjob, and that Affirmative Action allows nutjobs into occupations that could harm millions of Americans. - monkeyboyiv
-----------------------------
Shut up fool. Name one member of Congress who got there by means of Affirmative Action. That's right, you can't. Maxine Waters was ELECTED. Affirmative Action had nothing to do with how she became a Congresswoman.
By the way, it's the Negative Action of White Racism, not some illusory and diluted affirmative action, that enabled a nutjob like Duhbya into an occupation that has harmed millions of Americans. How else could a total moron become President?
You want Coulter to go away? Ignore her. The reason she thrives is that people pay attention to her. She must have seen the movie Network when she was young, and discovered that being outrageous is attention-getting and sells. Only fools listen to her drivel and read her "books".
We're not the ones propogating her, the media is propogating her.
Fox News is the biggest offender, followed by her publishers, then the newspapers that carry her column.
They are all money-driven organizations that have realized the power of shock and have declared scholarship, credibility, good taste and constructive debate to be "out of fashion".
She's getting shoved down our throats whether we like her or not. There's is no "just ignoring her".
"There's no just ignoring her!"?
I'm pretty darned conservative, and I'd never heard of her until people started screaming about her on various websites and blogs.
It's very easy: cancel your cable subscription, turn the TV off, and put the radio on a music channel of your choice. Get your political commentary from the myriad of magazines or journals devoted to serious contemplation of such issues. Buy a copy of the Wall Street Journal! Read Pravda online.
If you honestly don't want to "take it" anymore, then don't! If you want political discussion, find people who are too busy doing things in life to watch the clown shows on Fox, CNN, et. al. You'll have more enlightening conversations, and your blood pressure will improve!
With Rush Limpballs, Insanity, and all the usual wingnut idiots weighing in on Lamont's win, I KNEW it was just a matter of time before Crazy Annie was going to say something stupid {again} . . . AND she managed to get in a racial comment - a two-for-one special!
Holly: I gotta go with Rusty on this one . . . the wingnuts don't mind painting ALL Muslims {including upstanding US citizens} as "islamofascists" based on the actions of a lunatic few, ObL and al-Zarqawi . . . so I say what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander: I have no problems lumping ALL cons along with Crazy Annie, Boortz, Rush, etc. . . . give 'em a taste of their own, bitter, hate-filled medicine . . .
I'll mount my horse and raise my lance and we'll have at it...and hopefully have a fine, rousing time, but I don't think Rusty, as you framed his perspective, would even agree with Rusty. I don't think Rusty globs all Righties under Coulter's words. I think he herds millions of Righties into the Coulter corral, whose fences are made up of Hatred Pine, a subspecies of pine indigenous to the American Ideological Hinterlands, but not all Righties. Some Righties hate Coulter too. They hate that she misrepresents them.
Some Righties hate Coulter too. They hate that she misrepresents them.
Does she misrepresent them? Usually when one encounters a con decrying Coulter, they are complaining about her public use of inflammatory language. They commonly note that they agree with her "broader points." She may misrepresent them in style, but does she misrepresent them in substance?
she doesn't misrepresent millions of them. But beyond that, I don't believe in "them." Whereas I think Righties are less ideologically diverse (and less diverse in all other ways) than Lefties, due to the Right's general propensity for unfettered, unquestioning obedience, there is still diversity on the Right. I suspect that there are old school Republicans that care about the Constitution, states' rights, fiscal responsiblity, AND civility and discourse. Such Republicans might loathe Coulter. I think Coulter's fan base is the neocons, those alleged conservatives that have co-opted the name, but know not the tenets.
Rusty, if we don't make space for surprise, we'll never be surprised.
It's too bad others here feel it so necessary to take Coulter's words and extrapolate them onto every conservative. Of course she has many supporters, however that does not translate into every conservative supports here. This is not difficult, but very telling for some on the left.
For if you can lump all conservatives in with Coulter's attention grabbing antics, it is a slick diversion away from substative disagreements on important issues....she is irrelevant to me, unlike many here and this website, so decrying her every remark is a waste of time. So, if it is the only weapon many of you have in your arsenal, then go for it. Ann Coulter has a license and a signed agreement from every conservative on the planet to speak for them, always. Does that sound as ridiculous to you as anyone else.
Desperation and weak arguments comes in many forms, but this is way too obvious.
My mother ONCE went bowling. She dropped a ball and it banged her ankle. Ever since then, she has believed that bowling is bad. Now, whereas there might be many valid reasons for believing that bowling is bad (such as goofy clothes and beer bellies), dropping a ball one time and bruising an ankle isn't one of them, but it's that sort of wanton extrapolation that cuts us off from bowling...and each other.
It's easy for me to talk to Solon. Ideologically, he's my twin. In terms of values, we shared a womb. Although it's harder for me to talk to Mr. Neocon, if I can't, I'm party to the invective that has rent America.
Good analogy, but I cannot get past sharing a womb with Solon. Can you possibly choose another thought to compare your shared views? Just a thought.
MUAH!
...trimester, when he had his right elbow in my left eye. But I got my revenge in the third trimester: for 3 months, I had my left foot in his groin...and everyday, my foot grew bigger and my leg grew longer.
I would never accuse all conservatives of believing her nonsense, but I do believe that a lot of conservatives will hide behind what she says. At this point, we are such a politically divided country, that each side will try to benefit anyway they can.
Ms. Coulter's words are used by a lot of progressives to tar the entire conservative movement. On the other hand, the progressive movement, being the side that bears the brunt of the most vicious attacks, are lumped together by a lot of conservatives to be the bastard children of Karl Marx and Barbara Steisand.
I think one thing we can do is to differentiate between true conservatives and neo-conservatives. They should be two distinct philosophies, with some overlap in the center.
Thanks, but for the umpteenth time I never said she speaks for all conservatives. I'm simply noting how absurd the argument is that just because she DOESN'T speak for EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE that she is somehow so marginal as to be unworthy of notice. Hell, the Pope doesn't speak for every Catholic either. Maybe he's marginal too, and we should just ignore him when he says something.
Didn't mean to yell. Just got frustrated.
I need to be yelled at most of the time. I wish you'd speak to my sister-in-law. She's always telling me that the pope does speak for all Catholics and that I'm probably going to hell. The way I see it, I'll be in good company down there. Hopefully, we can hook up once we're all there. I'll probably be there before you and Holly, I'll pick us out a good table.
...Heaven is truly Heavenly, we'll be there, forgived and forgiving. Leatherhelmet will look across at me and see a hip chick and I'll look across at Ann and she'll smile sweetly, for with divine insight, she'll finally know enough to shut up.
years ago, showing a woman walking through Hell, and she was saying, "My goodness! I've never seen so many celebrities!"
...I believe exactly what you wrote:
"I would never accuse all conservatives of believing her nonsense, but I do believe that a lot of conservatives will hide behind what she says. At this point, we are such a politically divided country, that each side will try to benefit anyway they can. "
Lots of necons cower behind her words, glad that's carrying the current and bearing the heat.
It's like George Wallace barring entry to black students. George only seemed to stand alone, but there were millions of racists who ideologically stood behind him.
There are millions of hatemongering neocons that stand behind Ann.
I only quibbled with "all" and "everyone" and "they." You know, those all-inclusive descriptors.
if I'm making it seem like you're not a nuanced thinker. You are. You're one of my faves here and I'm not thinking that you believe in the fiction of absolutes. But somewhere in this thread, someone said "all." And that's what makes my neck hairs prickle.
I was starting to think I'm typing-disabled or something!
Coulter-wise and neocon, I think that King, you, and I actually occupy the same ideological womb. Now just keep your elbow out of my eye...orrrrrr...else!
I am feeling sympathy pain, you know, when you witness the type of accident that makes all men lean over and groan. Please stop, it hurts... ;)
See my above reply to Rusty.
Be sore at Solon. He started the trouble (which is an ironic assertion, given that he's not even in this thread yet) and what's his excuse?
Probably that there wasn't enough room in the womb.
My ever being sore at you, Holly. You're one of the nicest people around.
Ditto.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to advance the notion that Coulter speaks for all cons. I only meant that contrary to what some cons say, Coutler does in fact speak what many of them believe. More of them than will publicly admit it, I wager.
Love your posts, BTW.
FOX news and the like, her publisher and Walmart the buyer, label and market Ann Coulter as a CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR. We with brains see that she does not speak for all who would describe themselves as "conservative", but the pushers and dealers of mass media manipulation promote her and her trashy books thusly and it is they who sweep the "conservative" ideology under her skirt.
It is incumbant upon those who feel that she is a disservice to "conservatism" to take her media enablers to task for this umbrella definition.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to advance the notion that Coulter speaks for all cons. I only meant that contrary to what some cons say, Coutler does in fact speak what many of them believe. More of them than will publicly admit it, I wager.- rusty shackleford
------------------------------------------
My, my, my...all this handwringing over whether Coulter speaks for just 99% or every single Bush-backing SOB in the nation. Don't let these "independents" browbeat you into compromising your position.
The "Left" must learn how to use POLITICAL STRATEGY. The question is not whether one can legitimately say that Coulter speak for ALL conservatives because one or two in Omaha may disagree with her opinions. The question is whether it makes POLITICAL SENSE to accept the conservative media's anointment of her as a conservative spokesperson. Of course it makes POLITICAL SENSE to accept her anointment as CONSERVATIVE SPOKESPERSON and associate the GOP with her every chance liberals get (even after they realize it was a stupid mistake). If a few sane conservatives realize that their fellow conservatives are MORONS for annointing Ann as a CONSERVATIVE SPOKESPERSON, that's THEIR POLITICAL PROBLEM, it is not the POLITICAL PROBLEM of their OPPOSITION. For the OPPOSITION it is a POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY.
Fox News knows it. Apologists that say that she should be left alone know it.
What does that say about the kind of constituancy conservatives want to attract? The ends justify the means to them.
Some disingenuous conservatives would have you believe that because every single conservative doesn't agree with every single thing Coulter says, then she is not worthy of mention, despite the fact that she remains an influential opinion-shaper among a great many conservatives (who I regularly hear parroting her "ideas"). They say ignore her, because it suits their purposes for us to do so. Don't listen.
Some frustrated and desperate liberals, who have no confidence in their opinions, apparently, find it much easier and less taxing to argue with Miss Coulter and her remarks than elevate the discourse and converse with those with less inflammatory opinions.
It's easier to spar with a nut, for you come out looking sensible, than it is to engage in thoughtful debate where you may look foolish.
"Some frustrated and desperate liberals, who have no confidence in their opinions, apparently, find it much easier and less taxing to argue with Miss Coulter and her remarks than elevate the discourse and converse with those with less inflammatory opinions."
Really? What liberals have been allowed to taker her on directly? I know Franken has "debated" her a few times but now refuses to do so. Where are these desperate liberals you speak so boldly of?
What about that white sheet you're sporting Ann?
"Humans" like Ann will keep people of color in the Democratic Party for another generation, and if you look at the demographics on race, that bodes well for our side! Yo go girl!
I am new to the site so be gentle with me. Whether by design or by accident Ms.Coulter serves her purpose. By being extreme she pulls the center further to the right. Conservative can disassociate themselves with her vitriol but can also say she is right about the issues. Hopefully it will backfire at some point and will whip that center back to the left where it belongs
We're generally friendly here. The threads here are monitored and extreme invective isn't tolerated. The Internet is typically a violent place, but due to the vigilance of the MM staff (and Mr. Soros's generous funding), there's true discourse here. So, stay and don't be afraid!
These hateful mongers have demonstrated that they incompetent, scam artisit, liars and criminals. They have nothing to offer. Now these hate mongers and criminals are desperately trying to race bait to create an issue for their base.
If it weren't for the history of progressive liberalism in this country Coulter would be barefoot and pregnant. Oh, and she wouldn't be allowed to vote.
How ironic.
Now maybe it's early but Maxine Walters and the Dems should be all OVER this-they should be holding press conferences, demanding apologies, pointing out Coulter's other ramblings, her lies, distortions and mis-truths on every network show there is. They need to make a huge stink about this. Walters herself should be sending letters to the chaiman of NBC, MSNBC, etc..they need to be all over BOR and Limbaugh and their anti-semite ramblings. They need to be attacking these people directly and constantly, and calling them out on the carpet. Do they? NO!!! Where art thy spines??????
everytime she utters her filth they should make a big deal of it. They should publicly shame her and those who keep bringing trotting her out for her expert political commentary.
The Democrats are smarter than to legitimize every word she says, that would be ridiculous and play right into her hands. She would love that, more publicity which is her lifeblood.
They ignore her, just as Hillary ignores Dick Morris and so on. Let the cable talking heads slug it out amongst themselves. They are thankfully doing more important things.
I mean isnt' this getting ridiculous? I don't know, maybe it's better to let them self-destruct but as a liberal and a compassionate human being, I can only take so much hatred directed at me day after day after day. My feeling is that unless they complain, the Dems are once again allowing the hatred to control the discussion. They failed on the Swift Boat thing and it seems to me sometimes they have learned no lessons. "Mainstream" America who doesn't read this sight has to be told-isn't it time these hatemongers were challenged somewhere other than this site? That's all-I'm frustrated. Enjoy your posts by the way.
It is getting ridiculous. The only way many of these stooges get any media attention is by being as outrageous as possible, out do the other guy. One of these days they will implode when their mouth gets the best of them, and then maybe it will calm down, who knows?
I still maintain that ignoring is best, as I said look at Hillary Clinton - if she spent her time answering and refuting all the crazy accusations leveled at her over the years, she would be up all night. Look at Dick Morris and his obsession with her? She rightfully says nothing because they are beneath her.
Ignoring Coulter is her worst fear, I have said it many times, but it is just my opinion. Thanks for the compliment as well. Enjoy your posts too.
Ignoring her won't work. Becoming outraged is what plays into her hands as well. What will work is dismissal. The only way that Coulter's invective can be important is if people indicate that her opinion means something. What the liberals that are asked about her or face should do is simply dismiss her opinions as uninformed and baseless. Additionally, her credibility should be questioned at every turn. Not in a rabid dog way, but in a cool confident way. That would kill the witch faster than the water brought about the demise of a similar, though less evil, character in The Wizard of Oz.
In a stunning development, I would tend to agree with much of you write, except questioning her credibility. Only among her most die hard fans and wildly partisan right wingers, is there even a shred of that left. She is a cartoon for most. But I like your cool and confident tactic, she loves to get her critics foaming at the mouth. Perhaps if they treat her with a wave of a hand and total indifference, she may realize it's not having the intended effect.
Think about Cheney in the debate with Edwards. Cheney never raised his voice, but subtley and effectively through his dismissal of poor Edwards made it seem that John didn't even belong on the same stage as him. That's what reasonable people should do to the Coulter's and O'Reilly's of the world.
In that debate, Cheney reminded me of an old devil. When you are the head of a criminal conspiracy that has taken over the government with impunity, you can afford to be cool and dismissive. It wasn't the dismissive attitude that decided the outcome, it was tyrannical power that made the debate itself relevant.
No matter what attitude Democrats decide to adopt from time to time (ignore. grin/bend over/get mad as hell....), it is only an understanding of the power structure and its achilles heel that will matter in the end.
How many more decades are we to wait for conservative "commentators" and "pundits" to grow and act like adults? It's been about twenty years and the whole right-wing invective factory has done nothing but grow and become more economically efficient. Nope! Time for real accountability. Hold people like Coulter accountable for the content of what they say and for the intergrity of their purported "research." MMFA is on the right track.
I love your handle. That was a really good book, you know a little Soma would probably help deal with these Bush years. I agree with you about these hatemongers, we ignored them and they have multiplied like roaches. I say see a roach call an exterminator.
How many more decades are we to wait for conservative "commentators" and "pundits" to grow up and act like adults? It's been about twenty years and the whole right-wing invective factory has done nothing but grow and become more economically efficient. Nope! Time for real accountability. Hold people like Coulter accountable for the content of what they say and for the intergrity of their purported "research." MMFA is on the right track.
Technical goof-up. Sorry for the double-post.
The AA community should make a fuss over Ms Coulter's racist comment. There are times to ignore and times to protest, all this national media attention being devoted to Coulter is completely undeserved.
Sign the petition:
[link to mediamatters.org]
I did and it felt goooood.
Nowhere does she denigrate Waters because she is black. Oh wait, that's exactly what she does. I meant, at least she isn't an anti-semite.
Fawlty! Ya make me laugh!
Sammy Davis Jr. is deceased.
what a quick and clever lad you are!
Coulter is the sort of person that needs her own spew to survive. Given the company she keeps, Limbaugh, Savage, et al (you can toss Tucker into the mix, once in a while), are we surprised that she generates so much mileage. The chain mail amongst these sad people is what fans their flames, to the extent they come to believe in their own drivel. Perhaps, we should begin a no-acknowkedgement of Coulrt and her merry band of bigots. Without our constant needs to set her straight, she has no platform, and then where will she be, waiting for handouts on some corner in Times Square!
I dont think Coulter is ANY kind of person. I think she is an altogether different species the exact classifiication of which my stomach is far to weak to speculate on
Someone needs to tell Ann we all can't sleep with our bosses to get far in life like she did.
Sounds like you're talking about Sally Quinn.
Le ridicule ne tue plus, nulle part, mais aux U.S.A. il enrichit drôlement. Boris Vian
I find it funny that Holly is so lacking in awareness to say: "We're generally friendly here. The threads here are monitored and extreme invective isn't tolerated. "
Stuff like that makes me laugh. The only ones you guys are friendly to are the ones who agree with you. Yes, obscenities have to be hidden to be published but beyond that you can't find much more extreme invective if one, like me, happens to disagree, than you can here at this site. Take another look Holly, just read the replies to my posts to see what I'm talking about.
Not that it bothers me, because it doesn't. But lets be honest, some here do offer very good arguments, but the vast majority of posts are warmed over insults and atta-boys to those insults.
There is a suprising lack of introspection by so many of you here as you try to 'one up' Coulter with the all the invective you heap on her and Bush and anyone conservative. In case you hadn't noticed, that puts you on the same level as them. No better. No worse.
Hey, it's a free country. So if you want to insult conservatives and Ann and George, go ahead. I say let Coulter be Coulter and Franken be Franken and anyone else who wants to join in, to do so. If you agree fine, if not, that is also fine. That's what makes it interesting. Its just after a while, the insults get a bit boring.
Oh well... Have at it.
ps. I'm not a bigot. I'm not a racist. I'm not a moron. I'm not a blind obediant. I'm not hateful. I'm not the enemy. I'm just a normal person, like any other American, who happens to be socially and fiscally conservative.
Here are some of the stock answers you're going to get, but I'm sure you know that already;
When you say > "There is a suprising lack of introspection by so many of you here as you try to 'one up' Coulter with the all the invective you heap on her and Bush and anyone conservative. In case you hadn't noticed, that puts you on the same level as them. No better. No worse.".................You'll get "No, She has a national voice and we are just lowly bloggers, and she started it", meaning > they live by different rules, get over it.
When you say > "ps. I'm not a bigot. I'm not a racist. I'm not a moron. I'm not a blind obediant. I'm not hateful. I'm not the enemy. I'm just a normal person, like any other American, who happens to be socially and fiscally conservative."..................You'll get "Sorry, you are a bigot, a racist, a moron, not normal and all just because you are a conservative", meaning > they live by different rules, get over it.
In almost every other forum except a few liberal sites, liberals are labelled as unamerican, not normal, out of the mainstream etc. Paybacks are a bitch ain't they? I say if the right wants to use crass generalizations against us, then we should use them back. The cons have proven in recent elections that they can use the public's lack of nuance for their advantage, let's do the same.
By the way, no liberal on here has advocated the type of hatred that Ms. Coulter routinely spews. False equivelency won't work around here.
"Paybacks are a bitch ain't they? I say if the right wants to use crass generalizations against us, then we should use them back. The cons have proven in recent elections that they can use the public's lack of nuance for their advantage, let's do the same." --Scott Johnson
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So your solution is too become more like conservatives? No thanks.
BTW, the strength of liberalism is independent thought and a careful appreciation for nuances. Any victory using the tactics you advocate would be a hollow one. I view the conservative victories over the last decade as hollow as well.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time. Eventually you have to use real arguments instead of invective and ad hominem attacks.
As liberals we are condemned to being right too soon. The people usually catch up in time. Have faith.
"invective and ad hominem attacks."
Ah. But that's not what I'm advocating. What I'm promoting is a swagger, a confidence and the strength to call out the other side. Tommy here likes to say that he's against Coulter. But in reality, he's against Affirmative Action. He actually agrees with Coulter on this issue. She may say it in a more vile and less intellectually honest way, but they are on the same team. We shouldn't hesitate to point this out.
You thrive on mischaracterization of my positions, normally I would wave my hand in indifference, but to be clear with the reasonable posters here, I will respond.
I am against affirmative action based solely on race, as I have said - for that is in itself discriminatory. It should be economically based, for example, college and higher education should not be for only those that can afford it. Excellence and hard work should be rewarded, not passed over and dismissed because of one's skin color - for any race.
As for Coulter, you and her are actually two peas in a pod, just different stripes. You both use invective and insulting bombs to lob at those you disagree with just to insult and antagonize. No real substance, just alot of blowhard generalizations and bigotry against opposing ideologies. Perhaps you two were joined at the mouth at birth, when separated she got all the funny lines, while you were left with just hate and anger.
Call your Mother and check, would ya?
"I am against affirmative action based solely on race"
Not a mischaracterization of your position at all.
Well, since you think I'm the same as Coulter, may you have rat poison in your creme broulet while Timothy McVeigh's ghost parks his U-Haul next to your house. If you're going to be accused unfairly, you might as well have the fun.
I am against affirmative action based solely on race, as I have said - for that is in itself discriminatory. It should be economically based, for example, college and higher education should not be for only those that can afford it. Excellence and hard work should be rewarded, not passed over and dismissed because of one's skin color - for any race. -tommy ----------------------------------------
Your ideas:
1. "I am against affirmative action based solely on race": There is no historical reason to base affirmative action on any other classification (except gender). If you are against affirmative action based on race, you are against affirmative action whether you admit it or not.
2. "Excellence and hard work should be rewarded": Hey, why not call it a SCHOLARSHIP? Maybe the idea'll catch on and colleges will start offering awards to students with good grades and SAT scores!!!
there is validity to your comments, but she makes herself SUCH an easy target....
You’re exaggerating lad. Most of the regulars here are very friendly and civil, on the left and the right. The debate gets heated, but generally it's pleasant here. I don't even post on right wing sites anymore. In the past I’ve tried to post , but talk about insults which included a fair share of racial attacks. Why would I spend time subjecting myself to such treatment. I wonder why you post here if you find it so horrible.
...civility, you might not want to begin with: I find it funny that Holly is so lacking in awareness...."
There is kindness here. Some posters do listen and bridge the rift. Did you miss that Tommy and Scott just agreed?
There is also coarseness here, but since everything is relative, it's relatively civil. I was at Salon yesterday and in one of their threads, the posters weren't just cruel. They were scary. They were verbally violent and suggesting physical violence.
AA, I know I've written civil things about you. I've stated in other threads that I've disagreed in the course of our discourse...and our discourse didn't implode. I know you've taken some hits, but you're striking back at the wrong gal, pal.
You also have a voice here. I registered and posted at freerepublic. I wrote a typical Holly post. I was banned. AA, I was banned for one post. One........post.
So, whereas heat can rise in these threads, MM protects your voice and I do too, which makes it all the odder that you'd consider me to be "...so lacking...."
I was also trying to be kind to a new poster, to welcome a new voice into this cyber-community.
"We Love Holly Day" didn't even last a full day. C'est La Vie!
Did you miss that Tommy and Scott just agreed?
***********************
Shhh, don't let this get out. I am screwed!
Did I blow your cover?
How's this?:
"Hey, Scott and Tommy, BREAK IT UP!
Someone call security (but not Fox security)!"
I never go to those websites. They sound worse than this one. How ridiculous to be banned by one post.
Doesn't say much for them.
However, no matter what others do, this site is rife with people who are full of invective. To say otherwise is imho, not credible.
But so we disagree here. No biggie. Onward.
ps. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. :-)
I get your point. You have taken some beatings. MM must seem like an endless gauntlet to you.
And I was in a Pollyanna frame of mind yesterday, where I would have sprinkled glitter on a rotting corpse and said, "Ain't she purty now?"
But I'm big on voice, on protecting all voices...or nearly all voices. There are true trolls, whose purpose is to crumble discourse, but if someone has honorable intent, even if I perceive it to be misguided, I'll watch their back.
First of all saying we are just as bad as Ann for RESPONDING is the same as saying a guy that defends himself in a fistfight is just as bad as the guy who punched him first. Second when you see liberals advocating killing large numbers of people at random and televising torture as a sport THEN you would have a point since that has NOT happened you have NO point
solon wrote: when you see liberals advocating killing large numbers of people at random and televising torture as a sport THEN you would have a point since that has NOT happened you have NO point.
Okay.. regarding liberals killing people, lets talk abortion shall we? How many millions killed here that you so 'liberally' support?
TV torture? Does Terri Schaivo ring a bell?
I think you just lost another one.
Schiavo was brain dead, and thus technically dead.
Fetus' aren't humans.
Looks like YOU lost this one.
"What will work is dismissal. The only way that Coulter's invective can be important is if people indicate that her opinion means something. What the liberals that are asked about her or face should do is simply dismiss her opinions as uninformed and baseless. "
You are absolutely correct Scott. I've thought this for a long time. Someone to say "whatever you say broad" when she starts spewing. And then going right back to their adult debate. If this approach was taken with AC, she could actually become a novelty footnote a'la Jimmy Baker, pet rocks, or Mr. T. She'd be marginalized. I sort of feel it happened with Joe McCarthy when he was finally called out and made to look like the dorkish, potbellied, impotent middle aged man he was . It was one of those times in history where the head of the snake was killed and the minions were truly in one instant, made foolish and shamed.
But real dismissive, a wave of the hand, a "what is she rambling about" attitude.
seems to have come closest to actually doing what you suggest, but that's not saying much. Coulter seems to only slither into friendly venues.
I disagree with you regarding McCarthy. You should read Coulter's book, "Treason".
Many of the people McCarthy identified as Communists were indeed, as verified by the Verona papers. Coulter points that out.
As an aside: Did you know McCarthy was a godfather to one of RFKs children and that JFK defended McCarthy?
See: [link to www.freerepublic.com]
Shortly after your post criticizing us posters here at MMFA for how we treat conservatives you link to an article on Free Republic, which is not exactly a bastion of reasoned argument or tolerance for opposing viewpoints. I also note that the piece to which you linked (which I read in its entirety) is just as much a slam against liberals - not "some liberals" or even "many liberals," just "liberals" - as it is a defense of McCarthy.
Nonetheless, it was an interesting article and makes me want to learn more about the subject from nonpartisan sources (not, alas, Ann Coulter).
It is much more balanced than what AA provided about it and brings up the inconvenient fact that McCarthy was making blind accusations and never once provided any proof of his claims.
McCarthy accused nearly everyone at every level of government at one time or another of being communists. The fact that some have been suspected through the Venona Project does not mean McCarthy was right by any stretch of the imagination.
This is what wiki says about that: "When Cold War-era decodings of Soviet intelligence messages were declassified (see Venona Project), and Soviet archives were opened, detailed information was revealed about Soviet espionage in the United States. Venona specifically references at least 349 people in the U.S., including citizens, immigrants, permanent residents and government employees. The NSA asserts that these individuals were either engaged in clandestine activities or were approached by Soviet intelligence agencies with unknown results.
However, there has never been any indication that McCarthy possessed Venona intelligence at the time of his accusations, nor have Venona and the Soviet files produced evidence to support the claims against the majority of the people that McCarthy targeted."
Even if you actually believe McCarthy knew about the Venona Project, how does being approached by a communist necessarily make you a communist spy? I have been approached by Jehova's Witnesses, does that make me a Jehova's Witness?
McCarthy was a reckless politician who indeed deserves his filthy reputation.
I did indeed look first to Wikipedia. Their article on McCarthy was very informative and, unlike the Freeper article, chock-full of independently-verifiable citiations. I think the reasons that McCarthy has been vilified over the years are the very reasons that a few on the right, like Coulter, are celebrating him.
She sure name's her books well..."Slander", "Treason"...at least you know what you're buying.
The problem with McArthy is that communist thought is allowed, communist association allowed, under the US Constitution. He was just trying to get his face in the news by trampling on the free political thought of the people. A lot of people had links to the old worker's parties of the 1920's and 30's back then, McArthy was just out to purge our society by his drunken self. It was very Stalinist.
Neocon: "Mommy, mommy, this big bad liberal called me a childish fool waa-waaah"
Mommy: "Why did you go to a liberal site?"
Neocon: (sniff sniff) "I wanted to persuade those libs that Joseph McCarthy was a good man!"
Mommy: "Don't you know that this man led a witch hunt against such people? Many of them suffered loss of employment, destruction of their careers, and even imprisonment. Most of these punishments came about through trial verdicts that would later be overturned and laws that would later be declared unconstitutional."
Neocon: "I know that Mommy, but why did they have to call me an idiot?" (boo hoo hoo waa waa)
Mommy: "Shut up moron."
Some of those identified as communists WERE communists. So what. It is legal to be a communist in the US as it was THEN. Many lives were destroyed of people who not only were NOT spies but were NOT communists. We lost talented left artists like Mike Wilson Oscar winner for a Place in the Sun and writer of Bridge over the River Kwai and Dalton Trumbo Oscar winner for Roman Holliday and writer of Sparticus. And those are just a couple of FAMOUS WRITERS, NOT for being spies, they were never once even ACCUSED of doing any such thing or of thinking of doing any such thing just for being lefty. Unless you lust after putting people like me in jail or deporting us or making us lose our livlihoods. STOP DEFENDING McCARTHY. He was vile and what he did to this country was destructive
I simply wrote: "Many of the people McCarthy identified as Communists were indeed, as verified by the Verona papers. Coulter points that out."
Oh and the fact that RFK and JFK counted him as their friend.
We might get further if you and some of the others would simply respond to what I write rather than go off on some wild tangent.
They did respond. A stopped watch is right twice a day. Just because a small fraction of the people McCarthy went after might have been communist, doesn't mean he was right to persecute the rest. You're point was completely destroyed. Why don't you just walk off with your prehensile tail between your legs to another thread? I'm sure you'll find some way to bring up fetal abortion. It's your sole purpose in life.
As you note in your post, McCarthy was actually called out. He was confronted and asked "Have you no decency sir?" Calling out and dismissal are two very different things. I would love to see Maxine Waters echo that very same question to AC on all the major shows. Then, and only then, would it seem okay to be more dismissive of AC.
...why people don't ask Ann: "Have you no decency, ma'am?"
And she'll rebut, but you ask the question again and again.
I disagree with this nice guy liberal approach. I'm not a pacifist or a cheek turner when it comes down to it. I like his "dismissive" behavior but when that doesn't work go toe to toe. I hate to rehash things I and others have posted dozens of times but hard workers and vets are humiliated, oppressed, and duped as long as there are neocons calling the shots. That's not discourse or debate, that's real.
"Any victory using the tactics you advocate would be a hollow one. I view the conservative victories over the last decade as hollow as well. "
But they did win. They've run things since '94 and how many people have hurt because of it. Cancer sufferers, people in Iraq, uninsured workers, min. wage workers, people with problems stem cell research might fix, Katrina victims, the list could go on. I don't believe in cycles or karma. These people are running our country in a manner that rewards only the select few and Ann Coulter sticks up for that. She deserves far worse than some mean words about her adam's apple.
^5 100%
First, sorry its taken me so long to respond . . . when I typed my post this morning I was in class - I was attempting to post and simultaneously complete a Photoshop project {and we aren't even supposed to use the computers in class for internet browsing - bad boy! [spanks self on wrist.]} . . . couldn't help it, though - MMfA is just too addicting!
Anyhow . . . let me clarify myself: maybe I took Rusty's statement wrong, and if did, my apologies . . . what I was trying to get as was this . . . it may be true that perhaps not ALL conservatives agree with Crazy Annie . . . yet for all the hatred and invective she constantly spews, you find REMARKABLY FEW on the right side who OPENLY CONDEMN her, be they in the corporate media, politics, or even on these boards . . . and even when they DO, its usually with a qualifier attached, such as "I may not agree with her choice of word, but understand the underlying point."
I can only guess this is because Crazy Annie, when being her most outrageous {like today}, is saying OUT LOUD what many of them would LIKE to, but can't because they are constrained by their position: the corporate media, though bought and paid for by the Murdochs and Scaifes, still must abide by FCC rules; Senators and Congressmen must follow time-honored rules of civilized debate.
Yet, there are some - like Tommy - who insist that the only way to deal with the likes of a Coulter is to a} ignore them, or b} not get sucked into the same name-calling and bomb-throwing tactics she employs regularly, lest you become "like her" . . .
I find the first alternative unrealistic, as it is difficult, at best, to ignore someone who appears on network TV nearly every other day for "expert commentary" . . .
As to the second alternative, I feel the same as Lynn and Jeremy: I can only take a certain amount of being told by Crazy Annie that she wants to talk to me with a baseball bat; being told by Savage and Insanity that I have a mental disorder because I disagree with them/Bush; or being told by Boortz that I'm lazy, stupid, and pathetic because I make minimum wage, before I'm ready to throw down - verbally, philosophically, and physically . . .
So I propose that, rather than just ignore Crazy Annie, its time her invective started getting some "blowback": precisely because Crazy Annie isn't a news anchor who has to answer to a corporation or the FCC, and isn't a public officeholder who must answer to her constituents, for far too long she's been able to bombthrow without her words having any consequenses - other than increasing her book sales, that is . . . so the next time a far-right leaning political or popular figure goes on the air to trumpet some rightwing nonsense, whoever is giving the interview should link it to something outrageous Crazy Annie said . . . for example: a congressman up for reelection will talk about how we need to "stay the course" in Iraq . . . the proper response should be "congressman, does this mean you agree with Ann Coulter's contention that we should be dropping daisy cutters indiscriminately thoughout the Mideast and televising torture?" . . . I would LOVE to see him wriggle his way out of that . . .
BTW, love your posts, too, Rusty and Holly . . . your's too, Tommy.
Brilliant. That's exactly should whats happened. Force those on her side to condemn her invective. It will be a win-win for us. If Coulter's following is strong, the comments will turn them away from the conservative politician. If they are weak, then Anne will have to run for cover as the majority of conservatives go out of their way to condemn her.
"for example: a congressman up for reelection will talk about how we need to "stay the course" in Iraq . . . the proper response should be "congressman, does this mean you agree with Ann Coulter's contention that we should be dropping daisy cutters indiscriminately thoughout the Mideast and televising torture?" . . . I would LOVE to see him wriggle his way out of that . . . " --MJH
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hannity does this all of the time. He may have some liberal on the line and he asks the liberal if he agrees with some seemingly outrageous statement made by a liberal. It is a real gotcha moment, but it doesn't really advance the debate at all.
Now if some Senator is asked who he likes to read or who his favorite people are and he responds with "Ann Coulter" then the gloves should absolutely come off because it was brought up by the Senator first. He should explain what he thinks of her idiotic comments at that point.
It is important to be fair. Hannity isn't. Let's not be like him.
What's unfair about the tactic? The politician can say, "No, I don't agree with Ms. Coulter". That's not too hard is it?
It is unfair if it comes out of left field. Hannity does this tactic in my opinion when he finds himself on the defensive.
It is a cheap tactic, but it is a fair question when the person being interviewed brings it up themself.
It would only be fair to ask me about Cindy Sheehan if I brought her up or she was obviously the subject of the current debate.
It is not fair to bring up her comments and ask me if I agree/disagree when it has nothing to do with the subject or I didn't bring her up.
It is just a stupid gotcha out of context.
I don't agree. If the quote is out of context or misquoted outright, then I say that's unfair. However, if you are advocating anti-war protests, then Sheehen would naturally come up. The idea that the question subject matter can only be dictated by the interviewee doesn't hold water.
Now I know what they're doing with all of Coulter's books !
by the way , where did sam seder's book top out on the NY Times best seller list?
A better question is, where was Franken's? Or Moore's?
I hope Ann keeps speakin the truth. We have enough liberal shills in the media. Way to tell it like it is Miss Coulter!!!
In order to do satire, you need to punch it up a bit. But nice effort.
A conservative who appreciates Ann's genius. You do realize that the people of old America who had mind-sets like Ann used to hang out Irish need not apply signs?
Will be the very FIRST time
That Ann Coulter, he sure is something else. He just says the craziest things. Gotta love him.