In claiming Iraq war isn't unpopular, Coulter expressed her distrust of current Iraq polling -- after citing 2002 Iraq polling
SUMMARY: On CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Ann Coulter objected to host Lawrence Kudlow's assertion that the Iraq war is widely unpopular, claiming: "All objective evidence is that it isn't." Coulter cited the "[v]ast support for the war" shown in polling from "throughout 2002 and before we went in." However, Coulter then dismissed current polling demonstrating the war's unpopularity.
Appearing on the August 11 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter objected to host Lawrence Kudlow's acknowledgement that the Iraq war is widely unpopular with the American public, claiming: "All objective evidence is that it isn't." Coulter cited the "[v]ast support for the war" shown in polling from "throughout 2002 and before we went in." However, Coulter then dismissed the current polling demonstrating the war's unpopularity, saying: "I think a show of Democratic hands in the House and Senate is more representative than CBS News calling up a thousand alleged voters." The latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 59 percent of Americans do not think the Iraq war was worth fighting, compared with 39 percent who do -- making the war very unpopular.
But even by Coulter's barometer -- "a show of Democratic hands in the House and Senate" -- the war is still extraordinarily unpopular. All but six Democratic senators voted for Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. Jack Reed's (D-RI) nonbinding amendment calling for "the beginning of a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of the year."
Coulter appeared on the program with Democratic strategist David Sirota to discuss the potential impact of Iraq and the "war on terror" on the 2006 elections. Sirota noted that the ABC News/Washington Post poll also indicated that more Americans now trust Democrats over Republicans on matters regarding terrorism.
From the August 11 edition of Kudlow & Company:
KUDLOW: So, Ann, it's your response. That's kind of a head-on discussion. I think he called you an ayatollah. That might not be all bad. What's your response to that?
COULTER: Right. The Democrats' response to worldwide Islamic fascism is to attack Ann Coulter. But if I could take issue with you on something, Larry, I mean everyone just keeps saying now how the war in Iraq is unpopular, unpopular. Well, the Democrats have been telling us that since before we went into the war. All objective evidence is that it isn't. Certainly the polls leading into the war --
SIROTA: Objective evidence like the poll this week?
COULTER: -- when they were being -- told us that the war was unpopular -- vast support for the war throughout 2002 and before we went in. The Democrats, of course, many of them voted -- a majority -- to approve war with Iraq, and continued to support funding for it, and continued to vote against withdrawing troops. I think a show of Democratic hands in the House and Senate is more representative than CBS News calling up a thousand alleged voters. This is just one of these shibboleths that gets repeated so much that people just come to believe it.
..rocks.
I think David may have second thoughts about appearances with Trannie-Annie Coulter as it seemed pretty obvious that she-he was all a swoon for Him!!!!!!!!
David must have showered all night, and could not have slept since the appearance.
Imagine the poor man scared out of his mind with the thought of Trannie-Annie confessing her lust/love on Larry King?? aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!
Poor Man, Hold that package when it counts, you never know what Trannie-Annie will do.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
But Axe deodorant really has women running after you down the street, self assembly furniture ALWAYS fits together perfectly the first time, kitchen appliances ALWAYS do the job they are supposed to without incident, and Oil of Ulay and Just for Men DO make you look younger.
I know all of this is true because l saw it on the teevee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's so obvious, you have to catch yourself occasionally, and wonder aloud why anyone at all would give even the slightest weight to what these "pundits" in this privately-owned "media" have to say.
They are each and every one of them a highly paid hack, no different than any other public relations specialist, or paid spokesperson, or salesman of any kind.
They're no different from lawyers paid to advocate the cause of their clients; which in the case of many lawyers, is to spin the guilt of their clients into such a confused and contradictory mass of speech, as to keep the Jury at the very least so befuddled in their deliberations, as to be hopelessy deadlocked on the matter, and unable to reach a Verdict...
And not only are these "media" hacks highly paid (their book "deals" are often the main white-washed source of their compensation, ala' our crooked legislators), they are more highly paid than any public relations specialist, or paid spokesperson, or salesman, or even most lawyers for that matter!
What could be more obvious?
I had shared earlier the recollection of what I thought to be a funny TV commercial recently; I recall it again:
There's these two guys, they're eating candy bars (that's what the commercial is for, the candy bar)... One of the guys proclaims, from a facefull of pure pleasure "Wow, this candy bar is awesome, it's great!"
And the other guy responds, with even greater pleasure "It is! I've never tasted anything like it. It's awesome!"
And then right in the middle of us looking at their beaming, ecstatic, chewing faces, the frame freezes...
And over the stopped picture of the two guys, comes both the onscreen text words and voice-over of an announcer, asking us...
"The World's Greatest Candy Bar?
...or Paid Actors?"
Which is a funny commercial, to anyone who despises all the phony selling on TV as much as I do.
And so in the case of the "pundits" of the hack "media", I'd like someday to see tape of their enthusiastic support of the administration's schemes and their advocacy for Iraq, to be frozen in frame; and for the question to be asked of the TV audience...
"The U.S.'s Greatest President, and a Just War for National Security?
...or Highly Paid "Media" Hacks?"
And Coca Cola will bring about a great livestyle too...I could go on...
...is only good when it supports your cause. Feels pretty bad, doesn't it Annie?
Cons only believe in polls that support their position. However, I've yet to see one argue for AND against the reliability of polls in the same paragraph. That's some sort of new ground.
to approve war with iraq". no. not true. the answer to this by any democrat should be, without fail, show me where we voted for anything that said we are going to war in iraq. i need your backup, bush said, to go to the u n and get the inspectors in so we can disarm saddam. they backed him up and he betrayed that trust. as sen. bob graham said, "we can't trust this president with a blank check."
When the polls are in their favor they want anyone and everyone to look at the polls to see how well they are doing, but the second the polls go against them they start shouting that polls are unreliable and don't show how "true" Americans believe. Okay I'm set straight I understand now.
As much as I hate Man Coulter, I think she is way off the right. She is an ultra right wing pundit.
I don't think reps agree with her in many issues.
in spite of all her idiot rhetoric, she supports the bush administration one hundred percent.
Was he just listening to someone in the public eye make completely insane statements (contradicting what she said in the first part of the sentence by what she said in the last part of the sentence) and then not challenge them on such a statement?
Why doesn't Kudlow just start his show by saying:
"Here is the microphone. Just start talking and say anything you want on my show and when a commercial starts I will let you know so you can stop talking."
No commentary or analysis, no challenges to his guests, nothing.
You know, CNBC could likely purchase a trained parrot that would make this statement. Save lots of money. Why not? It would likely have more brains than the entire news team at FOX and may end up getting better ratings.
I would watch.
Not that this matters (except perhaps to provide further evidence of this poor woman's descent into madness), but in what possible way could the citation of polling data that indicates public disapproval of the war in Iraq be considered a shibboleth? For a woman who claims to know so much about religion, shouldn't she know what a shibboleth is?
Wikipedia: "The term [shibboleth] originates from the Hebrew word שבולת, which literally means "ear of grain" or "torrent of water"[1]. It derives from a story in the Hebrew Bible, in which pronunciation of this word was used to distinguish members of a group (like the Ephraimites) whose dialect lacked a /ʃ/ sound (as in shoe) from members of a group (like the Gileadites) whose dialect did include such a sound."
Shibboleths are utterances that index the identity of their speakers -- not expressions that are believed when sufficiently repeated. I'm guessing the word she was aiming for was something more like, oh, "propaganda"...?
Merriam-Webster definition:
Shibboleth 2 a : a word or saying characteristically used by the adherents of a party, sect, or belief and usually regarded as empty of real meaning : CATCHWORD, SLOGAN {ex: the criticism of liberal and radical thought wherever it deteriorated to shibboleth and dogma Lionel Trilling}
Like it or not, her usage is technically correct. The thoughts themselves are ludicrous and contradictory. But her grammar is sound.
Thanks for the correction! But while "shibboleth," in that sense, means a catch-phrase used among fellow adherents (and thus retains the Biblical sense of an utterance that indexes the identity of its speaker), there's nothing in the Merriam-Webster definition that suggests that a shibboleth is a falsehood that is repeated until people believe it. The thing that gets under my skin about Coulter's use of "shibboleth" is that it strikes me as an attempt to sound as though she's expressing a smarter, more coherent thought than she actually is. Either way, thanks for setting me straight!
This interview was a major victory for all reasonable people who know what Annie is. Imagine, she used that everyday Hebrew word on us and was correct. Maybe, just maybe, someone told her of this word and SHE actually looked it up and cross-referenced the word to get it right. Annie, stick with us and eventually you will know the meaning of the word TRUTH. And for you REPUBLICANS, she is still speaking for you. If she wasn't you would be speaking out against her. She must be your Spokes???...
The woman is a caustic dimwit whose star is fizzling... 10 to 1 she has no idea what the true meaning of half of her remarks mean...
are about up. She's also appearing on CBN. She's passed her expiration date-in all aspects.
A majority of Democrats voted AGAINST the 2002 resolution giving Bush authority to -- if necessary -- send troops into Iraq. If you add the Senate plus House Democrats who voted NO, you'll find that a majority of Democrats in Congress VOTED NO. The DNC is delinquent for not screaming this FACT to the public. I believe a good HALF of the public incorrectly thinks most Democrats voted for the war, thanks to the lies of the regressive party and Ann Coulter.
She reminds me a picture of a chipmonk with eyes and ears shut but her mouth running with no connection to her brain. And what surprises me is that she does not miss an opportunity to display her stupidity.
... you could turn on CNBC and get business news? You know, people talking about stocks and companies and economic news and the like?
Remember when a "business reporter" like Kudlow pretends to be would have on people who knew what they were talking about? Stock analysts, economists, CEO's, folks like that?
At what point did GE decide that reporting business news would not bring in the ad revenues that putting no-nothing liars like Coulter would?
Coulter is wrong as usual. However, although more Democrats in the House voted against the war than for (and Congress for that matter); in the Senate, not only did more Democrats vote for the war than against, if all Democrats had voted against the resolution, they had enough votes to keep it from passing. The Republicans only had 49 Senate members at that time and one of them even voted against the war. I don't buy the Democratic argument that Bush abused the resolution to go to war. Bush already proved himself untrustworthy and since only Congress has the power to declare war, the resolution must have done it. Congress can't delegate the power to declare war to the president. If it did delegate the authority to the president through this resolution, that was irresponsible too because it is unconstitutional. Meanwhile, the war in Lebanon, almost unanimous Senate and House approval for it, meanwhile, we continue to ship weapons to bomb Lebanon.
I bring this up because now some Democrat history revisionists have started stating that essentially the Democrats were either misled by Bush in supporting the Iraq war resolution or that Bush went to war before peaceful alternatives were exhausted. I showed above that the Democrats had the votes to stop the war in the Senate. The following resolution passed in March 2003 by the House had 167 Democrats agreeing with Bush's decision to go to war. Ten's of thousands of people (perhaps more than 100,000) have been liberated to death and more wounded, and the Iraqi prime minister denounces us. Very nice job! Now we are liberating Lebanon.
H. Cons. Resolution 104
"before peaceful alternatives were exhausted". the u n inspectors were in iraq, going to the places we told them had weapons, and finding nothing. they were only pulled out because bush gave saddam 48 hours to leave the country, which bush knew he wouldn't do. talk about revisionism.
Fair enough, my sentence structure (compound sentence) wasn't clear. The second half of the referenced sentence refers to Democrats excusing responsiblity for the war because they said that Bush jumped the gun on starting the war because all peaceful alternatives (e.g., weapons inspections) were not fully exhausted. Then I mentioned the House Resolution in which 167 Democrats voted that Bush did essentially did exhaust peaceful options.
was passed immediately after the war began. and a large part of it was expressing support for the troops and their families. it was going to pass anyway because every republican was for it. it was a moot point. if any democrat voted against, it would have been ads a year later saying so and so doesn't support the troops. the typical republican trick.
Yes, the resolution was dressed up with Republican "Support the Troop" resolutions, but the meat of it dealt with giving Bush political cover for starting the war. Knowing it is a trick doesn't mean you have to let them win the trick.
The fact that the war started and you don't have enough votes to stop it doesn't mean you vote to give Bush political cover for starting it; nor does it mean you have to support it. No doubt, the Republicans would say the Democrats did not support the troops if they voted against it, however, are the deaths of thousands of people (including troops) less important than being embarrassed by a potentialy inaccurate portrayal (ad) by the Republicans?
If the Democrats couldn't vote against a war when this resolution was passed because the war already started, when can they vote against it? Never?, because the Republicans will always portray them as supporting terrorists and being against the troops? Even Lieberman is portraying Lamont anti-war policy as supporting terrorist, yet Lieberman lost to Lamont.
Millions of people protested to stop the war and protested again on the anniversary of the war. Where are the votes in Congress representing the people against the war?
then at that point bush would have brought all the troops home? and none of those people would have died? is that your contention? the fact is the republicans have much more money to run their lying tv ads. rep. so and so voted not to support the troops. in franken's lying liars he talks about how bill frist came up to paul wellstone's son at wellstone's funeral, and the son asked frist "are you the guy responsible for the seaweed ad?" frist [who's not fit to wipe wellstone's shoes] was the head of the gop senatorial campaign and ran an ad against wellstone about him wasting money on seaweed research in hawaii. but it was one of those catch all appropriations bills and almost everyone, including frist, voted for it.
of the Iraq war's popularity, don't just stop with a "show of Democratic hands in the House and Senate" . . . go with a show of hands from stockholders of Halliburton and KBR . . . I'll bet my monthly pension the war's poularity among that poll group would be an EASY 100 %!
Dear Annie, sorry to tell you, things have changed since 2002. Hell, in 2002, I was in favor of the war, too. Although Hans Blix' statements at the time made me doubt the administration's claims, Nicholas Kristof (of the NY Times) made me believe them -- made me believe that it was better now rather than later -- so, please, let's not blame Democrats, or even reasonable Republicans who voted for that measure -- it was really, really easy to be misled at that time. But since then, Annie, things have changed a little: the sources were bogus, Bush, Cheney and Kristof were scare-mongering us, the administration lied to us all (and continues), and we know it now -- at least those of us who pay some attention to the news (real news, not Faux News). So, Annie, please stop trying to pretend that we're still in 2002 when the world looked very different than it does now. And when, Annie, will =you= come out of the closet?
As long as Ms. Coulter gets her spots, keeps her fame, as long as NBC and others continue to "interview" her, she will be with us. I did sign the petition for no more hate, and I also sent the link on to many others. Since she uses words that are for sure not permitted on TV (I think anyway), why isn't the FCC after the programs that bring her on? At least NBC - can't touch the cables and...I was going to say Fox. But they can go after Fox, too! What is wrong here?
Not until the November elections will some things change. I have to believe that losing Lieberman is more of a shock than the neo-cons are wanting anyone to know. Spinning it as a boon to Republicans. Hah!
I was very excited today to find that there is another Dem. candidate running against Maria Cantwell (D-WA) who is a war supporter and a recent co-author of a bill with Rick Santorum, only to find out the newbie is a non-candidate, just doing it for the fun of it. I'm very angry. What a position to take when so much is riding on this election. How dare Tran Hong!
I will now get off of my soapbox and toddle off to bed. 'Night all.
This loopy gal is never without some sort of weekly forum! Every show knows that she's going to come on and spout some ridiculous nonsense that if an ordinary fella on the street was spouting- he'd be locked up with a thorazine cocktail. The cons love her because she makes all the other right-wingers look sane in comparison. She makes O'Reilly seem like Donny Osmond. Keep this nutjob off the airwaves!
I think ann coulter talks out of both sides of her mouth. just like most politicians...
Shelby Burkett
teacher ( Mrs Thom, I remember her well ) would never allow double negatives to be used in making a point. I now understand why...it reveals ignorance of the subject matter
Unfortunately, it appears to be doing little good to boycott shows that show this useless harlot. She is a dangerous NOTHING...a used condom with blonde hair.
So, somehow, we need to come up with means of ending the media who show IT...the creature.
Anyone have any ideas?
In coulterworld no one may disagree with A Coulter. She is a legend in her own lunchtime and a goddess in her own universe.
Anywhere else she is a just another "Sleazy Reactionary Weasel" who is more vicious and vituperative than most.
In her world the war is still very popular.
...and why she get's the attention she gets...is hard to understand.
GREAT!!!! She not only doesn't know where the cleaners are to drop off the cocktail dress or where to vote she doesn't even know what year it is!!!! TOTAL COULTER CONFUSION!!!!!!!!