Democrats & Liberals Archives

Coulter: The Siren of Conservatism

For a long time I have disregarded the rantings of Ann Coulter as someone on the lunatic fringe of conservatism. Now I see that she and her ghastly and hateful venom are not on the edge but are the heart of current day conservatism. Ann Coulter is the siren of conservatism.

Ann Coulter was the featured speaker at the most important conservative event of the year, the Conservative Political Action Conference, where several Republican candidates for president made speeches. One of them, Mitt Romney, introduced Ann Coulter, who then spoke about the new conservatism, which included the calling of John Edwards a "faggot."

Democrats are up in arms about Coulter calling Edwards a faggot. However, hateful speech has always been the MO of Coulter. But at the convention, conservatives and other Republicans loved her bigoted and hateful rants so much, they applauded her enthusiastically.

Coulter's conservatism consists of 4 parts: religion, sex, patriotism and just plain hatred of Democrats.

To show how religious she is she wears a cross. To buttress her religious credentials she calls Democrats atheists and calls Islam a "car burning cult."

Coulter has long blond hair and a "come-hither-if-you-can" appearance. Here is her version of "abstinence-before marriage" and of "family values":

Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married.

This is a spokesperson for the religious right? Amazing.

Her patriotism is expressed by criticizing everyone that does not agree with her definition of patriotism: Always follow the leader, the commander-in-chief and if you criticize him you are a traitor. Since about 70% of the people have said that Iraq war was a mistake and that we should get out as soon as possible, evidently 70% of Americans, according to her, are traitors.

But the true essence of Coulter, and thus the true essence of modern day conservatism, is just plain hatred. Like a snake, Coulter spits poisonous venom wherever she goes. Liberals and Democrats are her main targets. Here is just a sample of her venom:

There are no good Democrats.

Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.

Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies, and discriminate on the basis of race.

I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo.

Ann Coulter uses phony religion and patriotism and real sexual and hateful ruses to keep conservatives happy. What a shame. There was a time when liberals had political opponents they could argue with. No longer. Today the conservatives have been corrupted by a siren in the form of a snake called Ann Coulter.

Posted by Paul Siegel at March 6, 2007 7:25 PM
Comments
Comment #210782

I don’t know how many people here read Andrew Sullivan. He’s a gay Republican, and this is the post from his blog today:

I watched Ann Coulter last night in the gayest way I could. I was on a stairmaster at a gym, slack-jawed at her proud defense of calling someone a “faggot” on the same stage as presidential candidates and as an icon of today’s conservative movement. The way in which Fox News and Sean Hannity and, even more repulsively, Pat Cadell, shilled for her was a new low for Fox, I think - and for what remains of decent conservatism. “We’re all friends here,” Hannity chuckled at the end. Yes, they were. And no faggots were on the show to defend themselves. That’s fair and balanced.

I’m not going to breathe more oxygen into this story except to say a couple of things that need saying. Coulter has an actual argument in self-defense and it’s worth addressing. Her argument is that it was a joke and that since it was directed at a straight man, it wasn’t homophobic. It was, in her words, a “school-yard taunt,” directed at a straight man, meaning a “wuss” and a “sissy”. Why would gays care? She is “pro-gay,” after all. Apart from backing a party that wants to strip gay couples of all legal rights by amending the federal constitution, kick them out of the military where they are putting their lives on the line, put them into “reparative therapy” to “cure” them, keep it legal to fire them in many states, and refusing to include them in hate crime laws, Coulter is very pro-gay. As evidence of how pro-gay she is, check out all the gay men and women in America now defending her.

Her defense, however, is that she was making a joke, not speaking a slur. Her logic suggests that the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not. And when you unpack Coulter’s joke, you see she does both. Her joke was that the world is so absurd that someone like Isaiah Washington is forced to go into rehab for calling someone a “faggot.” She’s absolutely right that this is absurd and funny and an example of p.c. insanity. She could have made a joke about that - a better one, to be sure - but a joke. But she didn’t just do that. She added to the joke a slur: “John Edwards is a faggot.” That’s why people gasped and then laughed and clapped so heartily. I was in the room, so I felt the atmosphere personally. It was an ugly atmosphere, designed to make any gay man or woman in the room feel marginalized and despised. To put it simply, either conservatism is happy to be associated with that atmosphere, or it isn’t. I think the response so far suggests that the conservative elites don’t want to go there, but the base has already been there for a very long time. (That’s why this affair is so revealing, because it is showing which elites want to pander to bigots, and which do not.)

Coulter’s defense of the slur is that it was directed at an obviously straight man and so could not be a real slur. The premise of this argument is that the word faggot is only used to describe gay men and is only effective and derogatory when used against a gay man. But it isn’t. In fact, in the schoolyard she cites, the primary targets of the f-word are straight boys or teens or men. The word “faggot” is used for two reasons: to identify and demonize a gay man; and to threaten a straight man with being reduced to the social pariah status of a gay man. Coulter chose the latter use of the slur, its most potent and common form. She knew why Edwards qualified. He’s pretty, he has flowing locks, he’s young-looking. He is exactly the kind of straight guy who is targeted as a “faggot” by his straight peers. This, Ms Coulter, is real social policing by speech. And that’s what she was doing: trying to delegitimize and feminize a man by calling him a faggot. It happens every day. It’s how insecure or bigoted straight men police their world to keep the homos out.

And for the slur to work, it must logically accept the premise that gay men are weak, effeminate, wusses, sissies, and the rest. A sane gay man has two responses to this, I think. The first is that there is nothing wrong with effeminacy or effeminate gay men - and certainly nothing weak about many of them. In the plague years, I saw countless nelly sissies face HIV and AIDS with as much courage and steel as any warrior on earth. You want to meet someone with balls? Find a drag queen. The courage of many gay men every day in facing down hatred and scorn and derision to live lives of dignity and integrity is not a sign of being a wuss or somehow weak. We have as much and maybe more courage than many - because we have had to acquire it to survive. And that is especially true of gay men whose effeminacy may not make them able to pass as straight - the very people Coulter seeks to demonize. The conflation of effeminacy with weakness, and of gayness with weakness, is what Coulter calculatedly asserted. This was not a joke. It was an attack.

Secondly, gay men are not all effeminate. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen a leading NBA player and a Marine come out to tell their stories. I’d like to hear Coulter tell Amaechi and Alva that they are sissies and wusses. A man in uniform who just lost a leg for his country is a sissy? The first American serviceman to be wounded in Iraq is a wuss? What Coulter did, in her callow, empty way, was to accuse John Edwards of not being a real man. To do so, she asserted that gay men are not real men either. The emasculation of men in minority groups is an ancient trope of the vilest bigotry. Why was it wrong, after all, for white men to call African-American men “boys”? Because it robbed them of the dignity of their masculinity. And that’s what Coulter did last Friday to gays. She said - and conservatives applauded - that I and so many others are not men. We are men, Ann.

Posted by: Max at March 6, 2007 8:40 PM
Comment #210783

Paul,

Have you read CPAC’s “apology”? Or should I say “what apology”:

“RESPONSE TO COULTER COMMENTS

“ALEXANDRIA, VA – The American Conservative Union and the Conservative Political Action Conference today issued the following statement:

“The just completed 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference on March 1 – 3, 2007, was the largest in the 34 year history of the event, featuring 33 panels on a variety of public policy issues, 24 stand alone speakers including public officials, writers, student activists, media personalities and comedians.

“ACU, the event’s primary sponsor and CPAC strive to provide a platform and forum for a variety of differing views and personalities. ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse every speaker or their comments at the conference. As such, ACU and CPAC leave it to our audience to determine whether comments are appropriate or not.

““ Ann Coulter is known for comments that can be both provocative and outrageous. That was certainly the case in her 2007 CPAC appearance and previous ones as well. But as a point of clarification, let me make it clear that ACU and CPAC do not condone or endorse the use of hate speech,” said David A. Keene, ACU Chairman.”

http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/2007/070305pr.htm

Quite an apology, huh?

Look at the skewering Edwards got over “employing” two liberal bloggers who were known for expressing pretty “far-out-there” views. (BTW, I’d heard of neither one previously)

But, back to Ann. CPAC acknowledges her history of being “provocative and outrageous” and yet they still chose her as a key-note speaker. That speaks chapters about what the Republican Party has become.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 6, 2007 8:41 PM
Comment #210790

Ann Coulter is a joke - I think she has a serious mental problem, she certainly has anger issues. The sad thing is people keep giving her a platform to rant from. She says outrageous things to keep her name in the press and to sell books (I think she has one coming out soon). If she ever did have anything valid to add to the political debate in this country, that train left long ago. She has “jumped the shark.”

Posted by: Tom Snediker at March 6, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #210791

Paul
Max’s post disproves your asertion about conservatives. There are some thoughtful conservatives that ,to be honest, we need in the national discourse. I just wish they had a bigger voice in the Rep party.I had hoped,aparently to no avail, that the Reps might return to the compasionate rationalism of Ike after their eloctoral defeat.Oh,well. We have little choice but to put that dog out its misery.

Posted by: BillS at March 6, 2007 9:14 PM
Comment #210800

I actually found the disparaging comment funny.

I mean, if Democrats cannot handle this woman when she is handing them chances to cut her down left and right, what can I do but laugh?

Someone should have just come out and used her argument against her and asked if it would be ok to call her a nigger on the basis that she is not black (and therefore making it ok by Coulter’s own logic).

I do not think that Coulter speaks for most conservatives, but I do think that the more she is allowed to speak the more influence she will have on the American public. But the problem is that Democrats at large are wholly unable to rebut propagandists and extremists (like Coulter) effectively.


Posted by: Zeek at March 6, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #210805

I agree with Tom, I believe Ann Coulter is a raving psycho — and that those who like her must have quite a few issues too.

FYI, this wasn’t the first instance of Ann opening her gaping maw, to expose fangs driping with this type of venom against Democrats. For instance:
Re: Bill Clinton, shows “some level of latent homosexuality.”
Then answering questions about that comment she followed it up with this: “I don’t know if he’s gay. But Al Gore — total fag.”
Again on Al Gore: “this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.”

BillS:
“Paul
Max’s post disproves your asertion about conservatives.”

Bill, I disagree. Conservatives only seem motivated to speak against their party when events or comments negatively affect them personally. Like, if they get shot in the head by a madman, suddenly they’re all for the Brady Bill. Or if they’ve got a spouse with Alzheimers, suddenly they sound like Nancy Reagan on the topic of stem cell research. And, if they’re gay, suddenly they’ll lash out at Ann like Andrew Sullivan did in his blogpost.

Anyway, isn’t it interesting how Ann is so quick to strike with this venom? It is not entirely possible that a “woman” who sports an enormous Adam’s Apple the size of Ann’s might not just be indulging in a little Ted Haggard-style self loathing which she’s constantly projecting onto others? For those who don’t know this, women don’t have an Adam’s Apple unless they weren’t born female. That’s a fact. Also, women who are as skin ‘n’ bones as Ms. Coulter don’t tend to have a pair of breasts that stick out from their malnourished torsos like a couple of upside down tupperware bowls. Strictly an opinion, there.
So maybe we should all just feel a whole lot of pity for crazy, angry, bulimic, and quite possibly tranny, Annie Coulter?
Besides, I have a strong hunch that the fact that the GOP is giving her hate such prominent speaking engagements for the past few years has been steadily driving the Log Cabin Crowd over to the rightwing libertarians. So, disgusting as we find her comments, there may be silver lining in that scary Coultergeist.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 6, 2007 10:27 PM
Comment #210811
“To buttress her religious credentials she calls Democrats atheists and calls Islam a “car burning cult.””


So, where is she wrong?! :-)


“This is a spokesperson for the religious right? Amazing.”


Uh, no she’s not; she’s an author and satirist. She can make jokes, she’s not a politician.

By the way, the entire point of her comment was to attack the “PC” crowd and that’s exactly what she did. She made that point last year when Biden’s “7/11 Indians” kerfufle went down; she thought it was ridiculous how “sensitive” liberals are with this PC stuff.


The liberals are going to continue to attack Coulter b/c she’s conservative; yet, all this is going to do is make her more popular than she ever was. Ha! Ha! It’d be nice if Liberals would attack the real hateful villians— The Islamofacist pigs!!! (Remember them?!)

Posted by: rahdigly at March 6, 2007 10:46 PM
Comment #210813

rahdigly, do you mean Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 6, 2007 10:54 PM
Comment #210818

“yet, all this is going to do is make her more popular than she ever was.”

One can only wonder with who?

Posted by: Rocky at March 6, 2007 11:16 PM
Comment #210835

Wasn’t Mary Matalin the official spokesperson of conservatives? She’s a real woman. What happened?

Posted by: bigkenzombie at March 7, 2007 12:47 AM
Comment #210837

“Wasn’t Mary Matalin the official spokesperson of conservatives?”

Scary Mary?

“She’s a real woman.”

In my view, real women don’t hang around with members of the White House Iraq Group trying to find ways to sell their country an illegal and unnecessary war, and scaring up BS rhetoric such as “mushroom cloud.”

“What happened?”

Couldn’t say, but it sure looks as though she’s been skipping more than a few meals too. That bag o’ bones look may be wildly popular with rightwingers, but it’s well known that bulimia and anorexia can play real havoc with brain function.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 1:13 AM
Comment #210842

Ann Coulter is an act. In fact (s)he is my favorite female impersonator. (S)he is actually satirizing conservatism carried to an absurd degree, sort of like a Stephen Colbert in drag. (Only not nearly as funny.) But sadly, many Limbaugh/Hannity fans from the right don’t get the joke and actually defend (her) him out of either ignorance or hate.

Posted by: RMD at March 7, 2007 1:56 AM
Comment #210843

So that’s where Mary has been. Under the same rock as Dick Cheney. Helping perpetuate the lies that have killed many people. But Coulter is only a self loathing tranny who spews mean things about 9/11 wives and a democratic presidential candidate. She (?) can be ignored. The rogues’ gallery in your link is more dangerous than Annie.

Posted by: bigkenzombie at March 7, 2007 2:01 AM
Comment #210845

Paul writes a story about how Ann is spewing “hateful venom”, and that it is a bad thing, something I agree with.

BUT

To support him others make comments such as:

Coulter is only a self loathing tranny who spews mean things about 9/11 wives and a democratic presidential candidate
In fact (s)he is my favorite female impersonator
but it sure looks as though she’s been skipping more than a few meals too. That bag o’ bones look may be wildly popular with rightwingers, but it’s well known that bulimia and anorexia can play real havoc with brain function. (about Mary Matalin)
It is not entirely possible that a “woman” who sports an enormous Adam’s Apple the size of Ann’s might not just be indulging in a little Ted Haggard-style self loathing which she’s constantly projecting onto others? For those who don’t know this, women don’t have an Adam’s Apple unless they weren’t born female. That’s a fact. Also, women who are as skin ‘n’ bones as Ms. Coulter don’t tend to have a pair of breasts that stick out from their malnourished torsos like a couple of upside down tupperware bowls. Strictly an opinion, there. So maybe we should all just feel a whole lot of pity for crazy, angry, bulimic, and quite possibly tranny, Annie Coulter?
I think she has a serious mental problem

All I can say is “CLASSY”. And, perhaps, a bit duplicitous. Oh well, so much for the high road, eh?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 7, 2007 2:15 AM
Comment #210847

Hey Rhinehold, it’s okay that many here have posted their own “jokes” about Ann. (S)he can take it. (S)he’s twice the man as most of the chickenhawk Republicans populating the current administration. If (s)he can’t stand the heat (s)he has no business being in the kitchen. ;-)

Posted by: RMD at March 7, 2007 2:43 AM
Comment #210848

bigkenzombie:
“Helping perpetuate the lies that have killed many people. But Coulter is only a self loathing tranny who spews mean things about 9/11 wives and a democratic presidential candidate. She (?) can be ignored.”

Sorry, can’t agree there. Because of people like Matthew Shepard have paid with their lives because of hatespeech.

Rhinehold:
“All I can say is “CLASSY”. And, perhaps, a bit duplicitous.”

Yeah well, when one is exorcising the words of a Coultergeist, one has got to stoop to make an impact.

“Oh well, so much for the high road, eh?”

Ha! You must be kidding, right? Taking on the likes of Faux News, Rove, Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Coulter, Malkin, Druge etc. etc., ad nauseum, has taught us well — and they are ALWAYS on the low road. Us “liberal elites” save the high road only for those who deserve it.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 2:47 AM
Comment #210857

Adrienne,

It is not entirely possible that a “woman” who sports an enormous Adam’s Apple the size of Ann’s might not just be indulging in a little Ted Haggard-style self loathing which she’s constantly projecting onto others? For those who don’t know this, women don’t have an Adam’s Apple unless they weren’t born female. That’s a fact. Also, women who are as skin ‘n’ bones as Ms. Coulter don’t tend to have a pair of breasts that stick out from their malnourished torsos like a couple of upside down tupperware bowls. Strictly an opinion, there.

Ah, the pot is calling the kettle black…
Don’t get me wrong, what you wrote is funny but… How are you better than her again?

Us “liberal elites” save the high road only for those who deserve it.

Funny… That’s the same attitude Coulter has!

It seems to me the only people who care about Ann Coulter are those who have the opposite point of view but share her personality.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 7, 2007 7:42 AM
Comment #210862

Sorry Adrienne,

I can’t afford the dope it takes to travel your “high” road.

wkw

Posted by: keith at March 7, 2007 8:57 AM
Comment #210867

TheTraveller,

“It seems to me the only people who care about Ann Coulter are those who have the opposite point of view but share her personality.”

The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America.
They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.
Their polarizing words, repeated ad nauseum, rot the fabric of this country from within.
To call what Coulter does humour, gives her far too much credit, and while it may play well in the trailer parks, her screed does far more damage than good.

Posted by: Rocky at March 7, 2007 9:13 AM
Comment #210880

Rocky,

Their polarizing words, repeated ad nauseum, rot the fabric of this country from within.
To call what Coulter does humour, gives her far too much credit, and while it may play well in the trailer parks, her screed does far more damage than good.

I agree, but her biggest opponents seem to be just as vindictive and condescending, if not more so. Take a look at just about any discussion of her on the web, including this one.

Look back through the archives. Much of what is written here on Watchblog is polarizing and insulting, and it’s meant to be that way. Coulter isn’t much worse than us. The only difference is that she’s well-known.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 7, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #210883

The fact is that Coulter runs circle around the liberals; sometimes she’s serious and uses her intelligence with sound facts to debate, other times she uses “sophmoric” taunts to make jokes. Either way, she zigs and zags around the libs and it gets their “panties” in a bunch. It’s funny as hell that the “haters” can’t do anything about this (as some on this blog called her) “raving psycho”, “an act”, and “the true enemy of America”; if she’s all those names, it should be easy as hell to break her down. Yet, it’s not. She’s still around, she’s still more “credible” and “popular” as ever. Keep trying though, it’s entertaining watching some of you freak out about her…


Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 10:42 AM
Comment #210884

The Traveller,

“The only difference is that she’s well-known.”

The difference is that she is constantly on TV venting her bile, and shilling her books, and her opinion is fawned over by the likes of Hannity.
That’s not entertainment.
Discussion on these shows has become a shouting match, and only those that shout the loudest get their point across.
For all their openness, the Internet weblogs are a closed market. I would submit that most folks in America don’t frequent the “blogs”.
For example, mention “Rocky” or “TheTraveller” to anyone and you will most likely get a blank stare.
Mention “Ann Coulter”, and people know not only who she is, but what she stands for, and where they have heard her opinion.

Posted by: Rocky at March 7, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #210886

The Traveller:
“Don’t get me wrong, what you wrote is funny but… How are you better than her again?”

Well just off the top of my head, because I don’t tell people that the only way to talk to conservatives is with a baseball bat.

Us “liberal elites” save the high road only for those who deserve it.

“Funny… That’s the same attitude Coulter has!”

I’ve never once seen Coulter take the high road.

“It seems to me the only people who care about Ann Coulter are those who have the opposite point of view but share her personality.”

That’s a violation of the rules of participation. Not that anything will happen as a result, but I just thought I’d point it out. And no, I don’t share her personality. I don’t hate blindly. I definitely need a good reason.

keith:
“I can’t afford the dope it takes to travel your “high” road.”

You need dope to act fairly and decently? Interesting. And you can’t afford it? Well, maybe when the Dems get in we’ll see universal healthcare and a price break on much needed meds.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 10:51 AM
Comment #210893

Rocky-

And you watch Fox News and Hannity???? Do you buy Coulter’s books too(somebody does)???? Read her columns?

If Ann Coulter is the “true enemy of America” then free speech must be the true enemy. Maybe we should just repeal the 1st Amendment.

Posted by: George in SC at March 7, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #210898

Coulter is not going to be elected to any office, all she does is sell books, and thus she needs all the attention she can get. Once people realized that this is a publicity stunt, intended to ramp up for her next book, they will chill out and ignore her. My only question is why are poeple going to rehab for things that they say? I think it is giving alcohalics and drug abusers a bad name.

Posted by: MikeD at March 7, 2007 11:52 AM
Comment #210909

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly…they get paid for what they do. They’ve found their niches, they have a consistent audience, and they receive ample paychecks. Do they fill the stereotypical GOP blustering, I’m always right attitude? They do, but it’s a stereotype.

Not all conservatives are deliverers of hate speech (which, while free, is not generally acceptable) like Ann Coulter, or as blowhard as Rush Limbaugh. What you hear most, from both sides of the aisle, are politicians who have taken sides. They fight to stay in office, say what needs to be said. The Republicans generally form a united front: if you’re not with us, you’re against us. Democrats are individuals, which is their greatest strength and main reason they are not a strong political party. Each person seems to want to do things slightly differently.

But back to Ms. Coulter: She’s entertainment the way Fox News, CNN, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Show are. The question is, who takes her more seriously? Herself or her audience?

Posted by: Thomas R at March 7, 2007 12:20 PM
Comment #210910

My only question is why are poeple going to rehab for things that they say? I think it is giving alcohalics and drug abusers a bad name.

And had Coulter left it at that she would have been funny too!

Posted by: George in SC at March 7, 2007 12:20 PM
Comment #210914

I think it’s sort of childish to talk about Coulter as if she was a transexual. She’s a woman, she’s just an obnoxious one who will say anything to dominate an argument and overpower people’s ability to reason. She is so hateful because it gives her the power to say whatever she wants to, and many conservatives tune in to her and read her stuff because being able to unleash hatreds and prejudices like that is empowering. When you can put others in their places, when you can be unashamedly crass when others would be hardly able to speak, that’s power.

Why do Republicans tolerate people like Coulter, Rush, and Savage? Because hatred is power, and Republicans have a culture that encourages them to take power from others, especially liberals, whenever they can.

That power, though, Depends on them remaining on the top of the heap, not humbled, not discredited. Their politics are self destructive, as are those of their adherents, because antipathy towards the ones you hate can define you right out of the proper approach to a problem, or out of agreeing with well proven facts. It’s an intellectual liability that can metastasize into a political one.

The power of hatred is largely power over oneself, the ability to feel in control. That, however, does not translate into being able to control others, and as it sometimes happens, those you step on on the way up are those you meet on the way down.

The real control, the best control, is self-control. It doesn’t offer absolute freedom of action, but the reality is we don’t have freedom to do anything we want, we have it for our own self interests, and the best interests of those around us. That we can do a thing, doesn’t mean we should, and like it or not, we are never free from the consequences of our actions, no matter how inconvenient they may be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 12:41 PM
Comment #210922
“The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America. They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious. Their polarizing words, repeated ad nauseum, rot the fabric of this country from within.”

Now, this is the problem, to which I’ve pointed out many times on these blogs, with the anti-Bush/Conservatives. Instead of hating the “real” enemy, like the Islamofascists pigs that actually blow up (innocent) people and cut people’s throat with a dirty knife in the name of their “god”, they go after fellow Americans who have a different viewpoint!! That’s the true “enemy” to the haters; one with a conservative ideology. Nice…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 1:34 PM
Comment #210929

Was it only a few weeks ago that the Democrats invited an Inman to speak at their winter meeting and applauded outrageous remarks aimed at America and Christians? Never did see any apology. As for Ann, I enjoy reading her column and agree that she is outrageous and funny. Her remarks about Edwards don’t begin to compare with serious politicians calling the President a murderer, thief, liar and much worse and repeated on this very blog. Frankly I am surprised that the blog censor doesn’t intervene with some of the name-calling going on. Oh…I see, it’s OK if directed against a Republican. JIm

Posted by: Jim at March 7, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #210932

rahdigly,

“they go after fellow Americans who have a different viewpoint!! That’s the true “enemy” to the haters; one with a conservative ideology. Nice…”

That Coulter thinks that the best way to talk to a liberal is with a baseball bat, or that the Sept. 11th hijackers missed their true target, and should have hit the New York Times instead simply cannot be explained away as a “different viewpoint”, and I don’t have to be a liberal to understand that


Jim,

I’m not a big fan of Michael Moore either.


Thomas R,

The Daily Show is satire, it is meant to be thought provoking.
Coulter is a bully and her shtick is mindless insults that go beyond the pale of any taste. This is grade school playground bullshit, meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It adds nothing to the discussion.


All,

That some folks find Coulter even remotely humorous says more about her audience than it says about her act.

Posted by: Rocky at March 7, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #210934

Ann Coulter is not the problem.
The fact that her comments are greated with applause and are defended by people who are in our government is what frightens me.

i think Stephen hit it right on the head. It’s power. Most of the people who support the (current) GOP are not really part of the party. The (current) GOP cater to the wealthy and hurt the poor and middle class. If you are super wealthy I can see you supporting the (current) GOP because they support you. If you’re a regular guy the only way to feel you’re in is to embrace far-right prejudices that you share with the party to empower yourself.
It’s like the poor white guy sitting in his trailer who calls his poor neighbor a nigger. They’re in the same boat.How can the guy feel better than his neighbor? Belittle the neighbor to elevate himself. It’s silly and pathetic but I see it all the time.
I watched a documentary about a soldier who came back from Iraq without legs, getting the run around for his benefits and dealing with the strain on his parents to support him and take care of him and uses racial slurs and insults towards the people who are protesing the war. What did I see hanging in the background? A portrait of G.W.Bush, placed so all could see the great GOP leader. Go figure

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 7, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #210935

Rocky, you’re on record (Comment #210867) saying Coulter is an enemy to the US b/c of the “comments” she’s made. You (actually) said that she’s a bigger enemy to the US than Terrorists who murder and maim in the name of a religion. Hello!!! Anybody home?!!!

I mean, don’t get me wrong, all I ever ask from bloggers (myself included) is to say what you mean; that way everyone will know how to react and, most importantly, know what side one is on. So, thanks for the comment, I (definitely) know what side you’re on.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 3:12 PM
Comment #210943

rahdigly

You (actually) said that she’s a bigger enemy to the US than Terrorists who murder and maim in the name of a religion. Hello!!! Anybody home?!!!

It’s weird how worked up some people can get. To be sure, Coulter’s not doing any good; however, to the best of my knowledge she’s never actually hurt anyone.
A bigger enemy than the terrorists? That doesn’t even make sense. Words can’t hurt people. They can piss you off, but that’s not really the same thing.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 7, 2007 4:15 PM
Comment #210947

Rahdigly-
You know, I think most people have known from the start what side we were on. It’s taken people like Coulter to confuse the matter.

I read all these things that Coulter and her compatriots write. Most of the time, their means of distinguishing who’s with the enemy and who’s not is who agrees with their politics and their agenda. If you disagree, no matter what the character of the agenda is, you’re a friend of the enemy, they say.

Folks like this lose wars. They divide the populace needlessly, give politicians cover for inane policies, and use all this trumpeting jingoism to deflect people’s attention from the real concern: are our plans working? Are we closer to victory now than we were earlier own?

The Republican approach to this war is just aimless. You folks have no real idea of how to finish this war, short of the other side spontaneously giving up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 4:27 PM
Comment #210951

Traveler,

“It’s weird how worked up some people can get.”

I hear ya, people certainly can get worked up over “comments”. And, what’s interesting (to me) about this is that Ann Coulter is on record as saying (paraphrasing): “If you’re not pi$$ing a liberal off by having them spinning their heads and foaming out the mouth, then you’re not doing it right”. She makes the “F word” comment and one blogger actually got mad enough to say that she (not the terrorists) is the enemy. Looks like she succeeded again, huh?!


“A bigger enemy than the terrorists? That doesn’t even make sense.”


Again, I hear ya. However, you’re going to have to tell that to Rocky; those were his comments.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #210955
If you disagree, no matter what the character of the agenda is, you’re a friend of the enemy, they say.


It depends to whom you are referring to as the enemy?! According to one individual, the enemy is “Ann Coulter and those of her Ilk”. Is that the enemy you are referring to?!

Folks like this lose wars.


So Ann Coulter speaking her mind is what could cause us to lose in the War on Terror?!! The first Admendent of the US Constituition is what can lose a war?!!! I thought you were a “give me liberty or give me death guy”? Didn’t you argue for terrorist “having rights” and not “being like the terrorists” before, Stephen? Wasn’t that you? All of a sudden people are not allowed to dissent? B/c Ann Coulter is (certainly) dissenting from your (and Rocky’s) opinions; does that mean she the enemy or that is the cause of losing a War?!!!!


Man, this is to(ooo) easy…

Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #210958

Rahdigly-
Her speaking her mind? No, by no means. There are many who have calmly supported the war with reasoned arguments. It’s not her opinion, nor she by herself, it’s the culture she represents.

The quandary here is that this culture has the right to speak its mind as well, so what’s the problem? Well, in authority, her culture has been part of what’s mangled this war so badly.

There’s a contempt for other people’s opinion in this culture, a contempt for facts that don’t add up to substantive support for their cause. People like her inflexibly pursue agendas, with little regard for what others think.

You can’t get away with disregarding the opinions of most of the nation if you want to maintain support for a military operation. That, however, is precisely what she would advocate, and what this President has done.

She’s allowed to dissent, surely, and I’m allowed to dislike it, but at least I have the decency to explain in a calm collected manner what I think and why I think it, while she apparently has to verbally abuse anybody who disagrees with her.

Attitudes like hers lose wars. People like her, partisans who pursue power and political victory before working policies, lose wars. All wars have dissenters, and weather dissent. The good wars face that dissent, persuade people its wrong, or invalidate concerns by being successful. The Republicans, especially Coulter’s camp, always thought they were too good to do that.

By the way, while you’re at it, do tell me what Ann Coulter thinks of dissent. I’m sure she’s been positive from the get-go. I at least would let her speak. I just wouldn’t advise having partisans like her in power. They fight the wrong wars in the wrong places- like the political war you guys have fought here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 6:11 PM
Comment #210969

The only issue I have with this post is that Paul takes the stupid statements of one of its extreme members and applies them to conservatism as a whole. It would be similar if I decided that since Osama bin Laden has declared war on the US, all muslims have.

I’m no fan of Ann Coulter and am astounded when people I know try to defend her. It was a stupid statement and she should just be quiet in general.

Paul, however, does little better in claiming that since the most extreme of conservatives called John Edwards a dirty name that therefore conservatism is all about ridiculing people who aren’t conservatives. Its actually rather ironic in that complaining about one nasty comment he makes one of his own.

Posted by: Silima at March 7, 2007 7:29 PM
Comment #210974

Stephen,

“There’s a contempt for other people’s opinion in this culture, a contempt for facts that don’t add up to substantive support for their cause. People like her inflexibly pursue agendas, with little regard for what others think.”


So what?! People have a right to speak and say what they want in the US. Remember the saying “I may not agree with everything you say, but I will fight to the Death for your right to say it”?! There’s no need to disregard the 1rst admendment b/c somebody has a different viewpoint and expresses it differently (than yours). Just tune them out if you don’t like it. I tune out the hollywood crowd and the anti-war nuts; I don’t let them bother me or get me to the point where I think they are the “true enemy”. I just disagree with them and think they are wrong. I keep my eye on the true enemy the “Islamofascist pigs”!


Bottom line, if you think people’s comments are truly “idiotic” and “dumb”, then don’t let them get to you. If you do (let them get to you), then what does that say about you?! Think about it…


Posted by: rahdigly at March 7, 2007 8:34 PM
Comment #210975

Stephen:
“I think it’s sort of childish to talk about Coulter as if she was a transexual. She’s a woman,”

While I tried to be funny in the way I was saying it, I am being dead serious when I say that Ann Coulter has an obvious Adam’s Apple — and that women who are born female don’t have them. Take a good look at that big bump in her neck sometime, and then compare it with any woman you’ve ever known. I mean it.

Now, you may disagree here, but I think that meeting the clear hatred and sneering of people like Ann Coulter (Or Rush, or the others who are using hate to “entertain” people) with quick, humorous and cutting sarcasm is a very good way to diffuse their power-trip.
I have to admit, I’m speaking from experience here. I grew up around a lot of upper-class Biff’s and Muffy’s who were very much like Ann Coulter. That type love to look down on people, but they simply can’t take being mocked or cut down to size themselves. Once I learned this, I honed my skills to a sharp point, and by the time I graduated from highschool, they whispered amongst themselves rather than dared try to publically humilate me, because they were scared to death of what retort they might get in response to their sneering remarks and “jokes.” In my opinion, this is what the Democrats have got to learn to do in response to this horde of hatefilled, intolerant rightwing “pundits.” Playing nice or acting offended just doesn’t cut it. In fact, I think it encourages this sophomoric crap even more. Just my opinion.

“It’s weird how worked up some people can get. To be sure, Coulter’s not doing any good;”

Then you must ask yourself why is your party making her the key note speaker at so many of their events for the past several years? And why is she being constantly invited to appear on television to spout her hate-filled garbage? This woman is preaching hatred, intolerance, and even violence, but with a smirk, and is then being gushed over or thanked profusely for being a guest. If you don’t see how screwed up that is, I honestly don’t know what to say.

“however, to the best of my knowledge she’s never actually hurt anyone.”

Yeah, and Hitler never personally pulled the switch on the gas chamber either…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 7, 2007 8:38 PM
Comment #210978

Ann Coulter is a self-aggrandizing hack (hackette?) who needs publicity like a tapeworm needs a large intestine. The fact that she uses hate speech and has fooled a lot of simpletons into believing her is sad.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 7, 2007 8:58 PM
Comment #210979

rahdigly,

“Rocky, you’re on record (Comment #210867) saying Coulter is an enemy to the US b/c of the “comments” she’s made. You (actually) said that she’s a bigger enemy to the US than Terrorists who murder and maim in the name of a religion. Hello!!! Anybody home?!!!”

If you’re going to denigrate me for my opinion, and “put me on the record” at least do me the courtesy of getting the quote right.

“The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America.
They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.
Their polarizing words, repeated ad nauseum, rot the fabric of this country from within.”

That is the exact quote, and I will stand by that opinion till hell freezes over.

Calling Edwards a fa**ot isn’t her opinion, it’s a stink bomb she threw out to get a response.

Posted by: Rocky at March 7, 2007 9:03 PM
Comment #210982

Rahdigly-
I think I went over her rights, and affirmed them, much as I dislike what she says. Once again, you’re ignoring what I actually said.

What I actually said is that I believe attitudes like hers, blindly pushed, lose wars, not win them.

Many figures on the right felt it necessary to divide our country into those who truly loved their country, and those who were Democrats and Liberals. They tried to conflate agreement with the president with the will and the wish to protect this country, the Iraq war with the struggle to contain and destroy the threat that al-Qaeda poses to us.

However much people like myself see things differently, there’s one thing we can agree on with those bashing us: we want to protect this country. We just have different ideas about how to do it. The Republican party, though, has failed to come through with the maturity to reconcile these different points of views.

Instead, they exclusively push their own agenda, not recognizing the value of putting together strategies that America can unify in front of, instead of trying to forcefully unify people behind a strategy that large chunks of the population don’t agree with. Hell, now they’re trying to push a continuation of the war and a surge that most people categorically oppose.

You can’t leave the rest of the country behind, trying to win any war, much less one like Iraq, where the accumulation of problems from all the unresolved issues of this war have basically made it unwinnable short of a huge, sustained sacrifice on the part of the American people.

You guys learned the wrong lesson from Vietnam. You thought the problem was that we didn’t hold on long enough until victory, that the troops didn’t have enough support, that there wasn’t enough message control and positive portrayal of the war by the media.

The real lesson is you can’t win a counter-insurgency, much less nation-build without the support of the people. South Vietnam lost because Vietnam was real to both sides and South Vietnam an abstraction to people, with a government few respected.

The real lesson is that the failure to be honest with yourself about what is going on is a surefire way to send your war into a death spiral.

The real lesson is that time does not improve ill-conceived wars. As Sun Tzu said, nobody has ever brilliantly protracted a war. America has no desire to let Iraq run as long as they let Vietnam go.

It’s time for Republicans to read the writing on the wall, and this time learn the right lessons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 7, 2007 9:20 PM
Comment #211024

Rocky,

““The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America.
They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.
Their polarizing words, repeated ad nauseum, rot the fabric of this country from within.””

That is the exact quote, and I will stand by that opinion till hell freezes over.”


I put the comment # (210867) there for anyone to go back and look at the actual quote. I would think that my paraphasing cleaned it up a little bit. However, if you want to stand by the exact quote (verbatim), until hell freezes over, so be it. Don’t forget sunblock. :-)


Bottom line, is that we know who you think the true enemy is (a conservative). Most of us can (now) sleep better at night knowing that some of you have our backs when it comes to Ann Coulter, rather than the muslim fanatics. In fact, I was worried about how many troops we were going to need in order to take out a (conservative) woman with a strong viewpoint.

Some of you are just “Brave” Americans. Nice going, the country is “proud” of some of you. :-{

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 8:11 AM
Comment #211026

rahdigly,

If Ann Coulter is as you say, ” a strongly opinionated conservative”, what do you think of the use of the word faggot against John Edwards?
Was it right?

Are you O.K. with the applause she received from Republicans?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 8, 2007 8:32 AM
Comment #211030

rahdigly,

It doesn’t matter whether she is a conservative, or a liberal.
It doesn’t matter that she is a woman with a strong viewpoint.
Ann Coulter doesn’t speak the truth.

Coulter, and folks like her, go out of their way to keep the pot stirred. They make sure that rhetoric is more important than fact.

Coulter is a bully. Her method is to publicly humiliate people that don’t think the way she does.

I find that abhorrent.

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2007 9:19 AM
Comment #211031

Adrienne,

Then you must ask yourself why is your party making her the key note speaker at so many of their events for the past several years?

What party? I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve certainly never invited her to anything.

And why is she being constantly invited to appear on television to spout her hate-filled garbage?

Ratings, I assume. She certainly gets the liberals tuning in.

This woman is preaching hatred, intolerance, and even violence, but with a smirk, and is then being gushed over or thanked profusely for being a guest. If you don’t see how screwed up that is, I honestly don’t know what to say.

I agree it is screwed up. However, when you call her gender into question etc, all you do is lower yourself to her level. Isn’t one Ann Coulter enough?
I think she says what she does not for the money or to make a point, but because she gets off on getting people like you all riled up. You are an enabler. I guarantee that if liberals simply decided to ignore Ann Coulter, she would shut up. In fact, she’d probably kill herself.

“however, to the best of my knowledge she’s never actually hurt anyone.”
Yeah, and Hitler never personally pulled the switch on the gas chamber either…

Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense… Perhaps you can tell me who she has killed? By the way, your head exploding when you hear her doesn’t count.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 8, 2007 9:28 AM
Comment #211034

Andre,

“If Ann Coulter is as you say, “a strongly opinionated conservative”, what do you think of the use of the word faggot against John Edwards?
Was it right? Are you O.K. with the applause she received from Republicans?”


Her comment was “sophmoric” and “juvenile”; yet, it’s (somewhat) funny when directed at Edwards, b/c he’s a “prettyboy” type. She was able to make fun of the “PC” crowd and get Edwards at the same time. I have no problem with the people laughing and applauding it; considering there were bigger crowds that laughed (louder and harder) at that “fat slob” w/ the baseball cap’s movie (Farenheit 9/11). That entire movie was nothing but sophmoric, juvenile rips at the President. Yet, I don’t view Moore as a “true enemy”, or even more of an enemy than the Islamofascist pigs! That’s a Fact!! I (certainly) don’t let the anti-war nuts and the idiots from Hollywood take me off my game. They don’t get me “unhinged” b/c of their absurd statements.


It shows how pathetic and weak some are at debating. Remember, Coulter says this stuff on purpose just to pi$$ off the weaklings; and it certainly worked. So, the ones that couldn’t take it and view her as the “true enemy”, consider yourselves “Coulterized”. Ha! Ha!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 9:56 AM
Comment #211041

So, we can put you down on record as supporting those that would, through their rhetoric, and half truths, bring down America from within?

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #211043

rahdigly,

Michael Moore called Bush names?

Who are the pathetic weaklings?

Oh, I get it. Anyone who disagrees with the far-right risks being called names. If I were five I think that would frighten me.

“It shows how pathetic and weak some are at debating.”

I have yet to see you debate. I’ve seen you troll, flamebait, call names, label and try to out-shout people’s opinions. I’ve seen you twist facts, mock and try to bully, but unfortunately I’ve never actually seen you attempt to debate facts in a respectful and logical manner.
It’s always you’re weak and liberal and I’m the right-wing tough guy. It’s sad because once and awhile you say something that’s debatable but nobody has the energy to convince you to come off the ledge and talk about the issues because you’re too busy attacking everybody.

Any celebrity who uses derogatory language against a group of people on front of crowds is irresponsible and should be ignored. The slack-jawed crowd who find bigotry amusing should be pittied. I’m not upset, I’m not hurt by her words. In fact I don’t really care what she says.
I have an opinion on her choice of words.An opinion.
Having them is not a weakness.


Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 8, 2007 11:33 AM
Comment #211046

“What party? I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve certainly never invited her to anything.”

The party that so many of you act like you don’t belong to. The party that enjoys giggling at hatespeech so much they’ve been inviting Coulter to speak at all their most important gatherings.

“I agree it is screwed up.”

But you still keep arguing. Why is that?

“However, when you call her gender into question etc, all you do is lower yourself to her level.”

Oh really? Ann Coulter is six feet tall, with a huge Adams Apple, giant hands, obvious fake breasts, bleached blond hair and is always wearing a cocktail dress wherever she goes. She’s made it a habit to call Democrats she doesn’t like “faggot” and “fag” and “gay” and “homosexual.” I’ve read that she also uses these words on any male who shows up at her speaking engagements who asks her a question she doesn’t like. Is it lowering myself to look at “her” and wonder why those angry hate-filled words keep flying out of that snarling mouth so often?

“Isn’t one Ann Coulter enough?”

Definitely. In fact one is too many.

“I think she says what she does not for the money or to make a point, but because she gets off on getting people like you all riled up.”

No doubt she’s also getting off on the idea that she’s inspiring legions of others to treat Democrats and liberals like dirt. Indeed, that is the whole point of her entire “career.” Same goes for Rush and all the others.

“You are an enabler.”

No, we’re all innocent bystanders who have watched while she and others like her have saturated and poisoned the political climate with intolerance and hate.

“I guarantee that if liberals simply decided to ignore Ann Coulter, she would shut up. In fact, she’d probably kill herself.”

If only she could be ignored. But how can that happen when the media and the Republican Party keeps giving her so many opportunities to spout her garbage and make headlines for doing so?

Me:
“Yeah, and Hitler never personally pulled the switch on the gas chamber either…”
Traveler:
“Oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense…”

It does if you look at how Hitler began his career. The propaganda starts out mild, then increases over time. I see little difference between then, how the right is doing the same thing now.

“Perhaps you can tell me who she has killed?”

Who knows what violence she has incited? But when a popular public figure tells people that the only way to talk to those who don’t agree with them is with a baseball bat, it seems inevitable that violence will one day be the result.

“By the way, your head exploding when you hear her doesn’t count.”

Oh what a charming thing to say. Taking lessons from Ann, aren’t you?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 8, 2007 12:02 PM
Comment #211048

Stephen,

“However much people like myself see things differently, there’s one thing we can agree on with those bashing us: we want to protect this country. We just have different ideas about how to do it. The Republican party, though, has failed to come through with the maturity to reconcile these different points of views.”


The first few sentences I agreed with, then you had to make this a partisan issue. The same can be said for the libs, they’ve been so hateful on a routine basis about their disapproval of Bush and his Administration. Here are a few:
Harry Reid calling the President a “loser” in front of High Schoolers; Dennis Kuccinch saying the President is “targeting civilians in Iraq”; Howard Dean calling the Republicans “brain dead”, “I hate them” and “the only way Republicans can get this many black people in a room is if they count the wait staff”; Ted Kennedy saying “The President and VP concocted the War for Political gain”; Murtha accussing our troops of killing innocent Iraqis in cold blood before they’ve even had a trial; John Kerry accusing our troops of “terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dark of night”; Dick Durbin comparing our troop’s treatment of enemy combatants to Stalin’s gulags, concentration camps and Pol Pot’s “killing fields”. And, these are the Politicians!

So, if you take the partisan blinders off, you may actually see that Ann Coulter is using the 1rst Admendment; just as a certain blogger used their first admendment saying “she’s a true enemy of America, even more than the terrorist”! By the way Stephen, people like Coulter don’t lose wars; it’s the people she’s been pi$$ing off that don’t know how to win wars and won’t go to war if they had their druthers.


Andre,

“Who are the pathetic weaklings? “

The “weaklings” are the ones that get rattled and lose their composer over someone like Coulter’s remarks. As she has said before “If you’re not pi$$ing off liberals, getting them to spit venom and spin their heads b/c of facts you’ve laid before them, then you’re not doing it right”. She does it purposely and the “weaklings” fall for it. Again, if she’s an idiot, and you let the (so called) idiot get to you, then what does that make you? Answer: A weakling!!!


“Michael Moore called Bush names?


Look at what I said again; I said “his (entire) movie was sophmoric, juvenile rips at the President”.


“I’m not upset, I’m not hurt by her words. In fact I don’t really care what she says.
I have an opinion on her choice of words.An opinion.”


Bravo, Andre. That proves you’re not a “weakling”. Others on this blog would (certainly) fall into that category. It’s a case of the shoe fits to figure out (exactly) who they are.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #211051

“just as a certain blogger used their first admendment saying “she’s a true enemy of America, even more than the terrorist”!”

It’s truly amazing how some folks take “Ms” Coulter’s lead, bending and twisting the facts to suit their propagandist needs.

If the truth isn’t good enough, make up something that sounds good enough to fill in the blanks, and add just enough insults to keep everybody stirred up.

“Ms” Coulter is entitled to her opinion, no matter how abhorrent that opinion is, and she will continue the hate filled rhetoric as long as she can shill her books to those that can’t think for themselves, and find her act amusing.

Pity.

Posted by: Rocky at March 8, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #211055
Michael Moore called Bush names?

He does on a constant basis, do you not agree?

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 8, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment #211057
“”Ms” Coulter is entitled to her opinion, no matter how abhorrent that opinion is, and she will continue the hate filled rhetoric as long as she can shill her books to those that can’t think for themselves, and find her act amusing. “


The “shoe (certainly) fits” with that statement. Yes, Rock, she will sell her books as will Moore sell his movies as will Maher will make his comments on his show. That’s America! Welcome to it if you’re not already here.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 1:06 PM
Comment #211078

Adrienne,

The party that so many of you act like you don’t belong to. The party that enjoys giggling at hatespeech so much they’ve been inviting Coulter to speak at all their most important gatherings.

Hmm… Sounds like you’re describing Republicans. No, I don’t go to their parties. Hell, they’re almost as annoying as Democrats!

But you still keep arguing. Why is that?

Let me put it this way. I’m not for what she says; I’m against what you say.

Is it lowering myself to look at “her” and wonder why those angry hate-filled words keep flying out of that snarling mouth so often?

Not at all. But it is lowering yourself when you take it a step further and question her sexuality/gender, etc.
Coulter wants to take the debate into the realm of pettiness and childishness and like a sheep you follow her. Why do exactly what she wants?

No doubt she’s also getting off on the idea that she’s inspiring legions of others to treat Democrats and liberals like dirt.

True. Perhaps we’re both right on this. Though I don’t think her legions are as great as you think. At least I hope not.

If only she could be ignored. But how can that happen when the media and the Republican Party keeps giving her so many opportunities to spout her garbage and make headlines for doing so?

All she has are words. I have no trouble ignoring yours much of the time. If I can do that, you shouldn’t have much trouble with hers.

Who knows what violence she has incited?

Well, I hear people like to throw pies at her. I don’t think those are her “conservative legions” though.

But when a popular public figure tells people that the only way to talk to those who don’t agree with them is with a baseball bat, it seems inevitable that violence will one day be the result.

Yeah, I’m sure sales of baseball bats skyrocketed the day she said that. Give me a break.

It does if you look at how Hitler began his career. The propaganda starts out mild, then increases over time. I see little difference between then, how the right is doing the same thing now.

The day Chancellor Coulter attacks Canada with a surprise blitz, I’ll admit my mistake.
Seriously, there is no comparison. It’s just that there is a small amount of people who take things a bit too far. Most of them, Coulter included, do not have and never will hold much power over the country. I doubt she even holds much sway over political opinion. As RMD above put it, she’s a bit like Stephen Colbert in drag, except that she takes herself seriously. Most people just use her for entertainment.

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 8, 2007 3:51 PM
Comment #211083

“Let me put it this way. I’m not for what she says; I’m against what you say.”

Well then, that makes no bloody sense now does it? Because everything that I’ve said here has been to show my contempt for her hatred, intolerance and bigotry. Oh but wait, maybe you’re just sensitive because you always thought she was hot while myself and others here think Coulter looks, dresses and acts exactly like a transexual?

“it is lowering yourself when you take it a step further and question her sexuality/gender, etc.”

Hilarious! That’s it isn’t it? You’ve been going on and on about this because the fact that she might not be a woman really pulls your chain.

“Coulter wants to take the debate into the realm of pettiness and childishness and like a sheep you follow her. Why do exactly what she wants?”

Because that nutcase whore is a best-selling author and television personality who pedals hatred and incites violence right along with all her pettiness and childish remarks.

“Though I don’t think her legions are as great as you think.”

I think there are quite a lot of bigoted haters in America.

“All she has are words. I have no trouble ignoring yours much of the time.”

He said snidely. With an amused chuckle, she replied, “But not when it comes to Ann Coulter’s gender, eh?”

“If I can do that, you shouldn’t have much trouble with hers.”

Yeah, except for the fact that her calling Edwards a faggot ended up on the front page of my newspaper.

“It’s just that there is a small amount of people who take things a bit too far. Most of them, Coulter included, do not have and never will hold much power over the country.”

Right. People with no power are always invited to be the key note speakers at political events.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 8, 2007 4:57 PM
Comment #211101

Hilarious! That’s it isn’t it? You’ve been going on and on about this because the fact that she might not be a woman really pulls your chain.

Again, how is venom such as this any different than calling Edwards a faggot? You are basically doing the same thing to me, only more eloquent.
BTW… That’s a violation of the rules of participation. Not that anything will happen as a result, but I just thought I’d point it out.

Because that nutcase whore is a best-selling author and television personality who pedals hatred and incites violence right along with all her pettiness and childish remarks…
Yeah, except for the fact that her calling Edwards a faggot ended up on the front page of my newspaper.

Oh I see… You’re just jealous because she can get on TV to spew her venomous hate-filled vitriol and you have to use the internet to spew yours.

“All she has are words. I have no trouble ignoring yours much of the time.”
He said snidely. With an amused chuckle, she replied, “But not when it comes to Ann Coulter’s gender, eh?”

“Ah,” TheTraveler retorted. “But how would Adrienne react if someone called her gender and sexuality into question? What would she say if someone accused her of having a…”

TheTraveler wisely decided to delete the rest of what he wrote, as not to violate the rules of WB.
However, in doing so, he realized that this action put him om a moral high ground above Adrienne, a person who will never realize that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Adrienne, if you want to sink with Ann Coulter into the pit of hatred and vileness, that’s your prerogative. I refuse to follow you.

Good day sir.

Damn, slipped a little with that last line…

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 8, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #211103

The trick with Coulter and the Right is that you really can’t tell how much of a joke she is to them. You’ve got other people like Malkin and Ingraham lining up to outdo her theatrics, and you have plenty of others like Rush, Hannity and Savage prepared to hurl some lib-baiting barb at the drop of a hat. They Publish books that picture Democrats and Liberals as enemies, and generally blame their foreordained fall of civilization on us on a regular basis. The joke sounds so much like them when they’re serious its hard to tell Coulter apart from the rest.

I think comparing an Coulter to Colbert does Colbert discredit. Colbert’s biting satire relies often on people’s awareness of the context, and on his often too close to home imitation of them Colbert’s routines stick a pin in what Coulter and other’s routines overinflate.

The right needs to be brought back down to Earth, for our sake and their sake, too.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 8, 2007 6:28 PM
Comment #211104

Stephen,

The trick with Coulter and the Right is that you really can’t tell how much of a joke she is to them… The joke sounds so much like them when they’re serious its hard to tell Coulter apart from the rest.

I’m not sure she’s trying to be funny, but I do think she says what she says not to inform or lead the right, but to piss off and inflame the left. And it works. I think Sean Hannity is the only person I’ve ever heard of who takes Coulter completely seriously.

I think comparing an Coulter to Colbert does Colbert discredit.

Perhaps, though I’m sure she is an inspiration for some of his satire. do you know it Coulter ever been a guest on The Colbert Report?

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 8, 2007 6:41 PM
Comment #211109

Ha! I really did pull your chain in this thread, and here you are, still defending Ann Coulter, a woman who is so full of hate that she’s constantly calling people she doesn’t like faggots.

“Oh I see… You’re just jealous because she can get on TV to spew her venomous hate-filled vitriol”

No, not jealous. Angry and disgusted that no matter how low this freakish creature sinks with her deranged invective she still receives so many invitations and opportunities to spew her bile.

“Good day sir.”

[Laugh] Watchblog is such a boy’s club, I believe I’ll just take that as a compliment.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 8, 2007 7:27 PM
Comment #211115

Coulter played most of you like a fiddle. Some of you are so bent out of shape over her b/c she can (seriously) out-debate you and, at the same time, out wit you with “juvenile”, “school yard” taunts. It’s hilarious watching her do this to you. Many of you (and you know exactly who you are) have defended Maher, Moore, Midler, and all the Democrat politicians with their “nasty” rhetoric about Bush and the War; saying it’s their right as Americans. Well, Coulter is an American and she can’t be stopped; no matter how aggravated you get. This is a laugh riot. Thanks Ann Coulter, you given me entertainment this entire week.


Remember anti-Coulter bloggers, the way you really can get back at her and show her how “ridiculous” her comments are is by throwing temper tantrums, holding your breath, tell her that her comments are what “lose wars”, and (of course) say that her comments are more “insidious” than the terrorists (pigs) who cut throats and bomb innocent people. Yeah, that will show her! Ha! Ha! This is (way) too funny!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 8, 2007 8:09 PM
Comment #211135

Adrienne,

Ha! I really did pull your chain in this thread, and here you are, still defending Ann Coulter

Nonsense. I am not defending her in any way. I certainly haven’t supported anything she’s said; I’ve only given my guesses as to her motives. I’m perfectly capable of disliking both of you at the same time. ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at March 8, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #211150
the way you really can get back at her and show her how “ridiculous” her comments are is by throwing temper tantrums, holding your breath, tell her that her comments are what “lose wars”, and (of course) say that her comments are more “insidious” than the terrorists (pigs) who cut throats and bomb innocent people.
In other words, we should behave just like rahdigly.

Never wrestle with a pig, You just get dirty while the pig enjoys it.

Posted by: ElliottBay at March 9, 2007 12:56 AM
Comment #211153
But the problem is that Democrats at large are wholly unable to rebut propagandists and extremists (like Coulter) effectively.

Ok, I’ll give it a try.

It is offensive to use the word “faggot” as an insult, whether or not the target is homosexual.

One should not call for the assassination of Supreme Court justices and senators. That’s terrorism, and an invitation to anarchy.

One should not say that someone should blow up the New York Times. That’s terrorism, and a blow at the idea of a free society.

Any questions?

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 9, 2007 7:50 AM
Comment #211155
Let’s say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I’m not married.

She left out the part about drinking his blood. :>

Posted by: Woody Mena at March 9, 2007 8:18 AM
Comment #211156

To All,

We need to remember that all of the 9/11 widows are harpes who celebrate their husbands deaths at the hands of the terrorists(“Pigs”) as Rahdigly calls them and most importantly we must remember that bombing the New York Times is not terrorism because Ann Coulter called for this particular jihad against an American business and not a brown skinned imam of the Islamofascist persuasion.
Traveller and Rahdigly, you two crack me up. You’re not as funny as calling someone a faggot but damn close.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at March 9, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment #211196

TheTraveler:
“I certainly haven’t supported anything she’s said; I’ve only given my guesses as to her motives.”

I’ve detected tacit approval of Ku Klux Koulter in your responses. I get the sense that you like the fact that she attacks and “riles up” liberals — for whatever reason — simply because you are also hostile to liberals.

“I’m perfectly capable of disliking both of you at the same time. ;-)”

Hmm. Guess that advice to “just ignore” isn’t working so well for you then, is it? ;^D

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 1:11 PM
Comment #211198


“most importantly we must remember that bombing the New York Times is not terrorism because Ann Coulter called for this particular jihad against an American business and not a brown skinned imam of the Islamofascist persuasion.”

So much for the “lesser of two evils” eh?


Posted by: Rocky at March 9, 2007 1:41 PM
Comment #211207

You want some hilarious irony? And do you remember how the Reichwing loved “reporter” Jeff Gannon until they realized he was only a gay prostitute? Well, now a very similar revelation has just come to light.
At the exact same event where Koulter was calling Edwards a “faggot” and got a bigotted standing ovation for it from the GOP, they also were giving their latest darling, Cpl. Matt Sanchez the Jeanne Kirpatrick Academic Freedom Award — and now it turns out he’s a gay porn star and former male prostitute.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 2:36 PM
Comment #211211

Great expose(e) Adrienne !!!
Response will no doubt be entertaining… ;)

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 9, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #211217

Thanks, Sandra. Couldn’t resist passing that along! Grown kind of quiet, hasn’t it?

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 4:16 PM
Comment #211222

Re-grouping, perhaps…?!

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 9, 2007 4:25 PM
Comment #211240

Sandra, perhaps indeed. Oh but it makes me laugh every time I think about it! After what KKKoulter said, and when you consider the fact that this award was named in honor of the woman who first coined the term “Blame America First” and who hated “San Francisco Democrats” with every fiber of her being, was just given to a gay prostitute and porn star!!!
A truly priceless addition to the party of Family Values.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 5:50 PM
Comment #211255

More breaking news from the Party of Family Values:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was having an extramarital affair even as he led the charge against President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, he acknowledged in an interview with a conservative Christian group.
Posted by: Adrienne at March 9, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #211257

This has been all over TV today. He was in the middle of this affair during the time he (Newt) was involved in Clinton’s impeachment process. Funny, but the right spin is that since he stepped up and “outed” it on his own, it’s cool!!! It seems he is cleansing his conscience in preparation for a Presidential run….. oh good !

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 9, 2007 7:01 PM
Comment #211270

The interesting part was the divorce discussion while his wife was recovering from cancer.
While it was brought up at the time, it really didn’t get much press.

Yeah you’ve got to hand it to that MSM, it sure has a liberal bias.

Posted by: Rocky at March 9, 2007 8:46 PM
Comment #211284

Sandra, Rocky,

[cue quiet harp music…]
Yes, the Goodly and Pious Newt has asked God, Reverend Dobson (or should we just say Godobson?) and the evangelical/dominionist’s forgiveness — uh, for the infidelity, not the blatant and shameless hypocrisy.
And now all will be forgiven because he agrees that America really should be a Christian Theocracy. Indeed it seems that the Godly Reverend Falwell already knew about this, and has already forgiven.
So much holy and exclusive forgiveness for those who are true-believers — or at least those who give lip service in true-believer fashion (such as KKKoulter).
[abrupt halt to harp music…]
But NO forgiveness for Bill Clinton. Not then, not now, not EVER.

btw, you should also check this out:
Giuliani slammed by NYC firefighters for ‘lack of respect’

Honestly, today has just been chock full of GOP “family values”.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #211326

So, (re: Giuliani) with such an early start on campaigning, I’m sure we can rely on the frailty of memory to be a factor at polling time. Wonder what kind of spin can be put on this? What really surprised me is that Fox was the news agency that released the letter…..what’s with that????

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 10, 2007 12:06 PM
Comment #211329

Sandra:
“So, (re: Giuliani) with such an early start on campaigning, I’m sure we can rely on the frailty of memory to be a factor at polling time.”

I don’t know, I get the sense that this is just the opening salvo against Giuliani. There are a lot of New Yorkers, and plenty of people, including the families of first responders, who lost loved ones on 9/11, who absolutely despise the man. I don’t think the myths about him are going to be allowed to remain unchallenged without these folks having a great deal to say about it.

“Wonder what kind of spin can be put on this? What really surprised me is that Fox was the news agency that released the letter…..what’s with that????”

It does seem strange, but here’s my hunch: Fox is going to be promoting Newt all the way. He’s a staunch neocon who has the plutocrats and the radical christians completely covered. Right now Giuliani is the front runner, so…

Posted by: Adrienne at March 10, 2007 12:39 PM
Comment #211455

Silima,

No, it’s much more than that. Ann Coulter along with others like Rush Limbaush, Hannity, and O’Reilly are more or less the mouthpieces of the Republican movement. If she really was just some lunatic on the fringe you would have a point, however here she is at one of the most “prestigious” conservative groups, and the whole audience is cheering and supporting her. Except for Sullivan, I don’t think I’ve heard or read one Republican seriously speak out against her. Instead of course they’ll keep inviting her back. Like it or not, hatred and propaganda are the basic tools of the conservative movement these days.

“All I can say is “CLASSY”. And, perhaps, a bit duplicitous. Oh well, so much for the high road, eh?”

Rahdigly,

Well, no one here is nearly as bad as Coulter. Speculating on things like her adam’s apple and other masculine traits may not be that classy, but at least they’re based on fact. The problem is liberals have tried taking the “high road,” if by that you mean showing you’re better by just ignoring it. They’ve found out that it just doesn’t work. The only way to make a difference is to take a stand and discredit these people.

Posted by: thom at March 11, 2007 4:32 AM
Comment #211471

thom:
“Speculating on things like her adam’s apple and other masculine traits may not be that classy, but at least they’re based on fact. The problem is liberals have tried taking the “high road,” if by that you mean showing you’re better by just ignoring it. They’ve found out that it just doesn’t work. The only way to make a difference is to take a stand and discredit these people.”

I agree, thom. The truth is, it’s completely stupid act to try to maintain a classy attitude when time and again they keep pushing us into the gutter. And what has our acting dignified at all times gotten us anyway? Things like being crushed by Willy Horton ads, The Starr Report, and Swiftboat Veterans For “Truth”, that’s what.
The Republican party giving such a huge voice to people like KKKoulter and Kompany has turned the concept of class completely on it’s head anyway. I mean, Koulter actually graduated from Cornell for pity’s sake! But while she may speak in the wired-jaw manner of an uppercrust Muffy, the words she speaks (lies, racial slurs, intolerant diatribes), and the way she acts (immature, full of anger and hate), and looks (like a floozy in a too-tight cocktail dress) are exactly as though she was spawned in a run-down trailer park.
So as I said earlier, when we receive fair and courteous treatment from the GOP we should naturally take the “high road”, but when they spit and throw beer cans at us, we should be fully aware we’re on the “low road” — and act accordingly.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 11, 2007 12:50 PM
Comment #211526

Wow, this was certainly heated debate. Enthusiasts of spiral dynamics would have loved watching the blues and greens turn red here (no reference to political colors at all). Maybe I’ll email a link of this to Ken Wilber (but not really).

Honestly, Ann Coulter amuses me, and I’m gay, atheist, and very liberal. I take her for what she actually is: entertainment. She isn’t a politician, journalist, or ideologue. She is an entertainer who relies on shock value. I would think calling her Colbert in drag is inaccurate. I’m thinking more Andrew “Dice” Clay with a little Shirley Q. Liquor thrown in. She pushes buttons, and evidently she pushes them well. I read the text of the comment and her later explanations, and I feel she’s being held to a standard she’s never claimed she meets. I think saying she actually incites violence or invoking Matthew Shepard is absurd, ad hominem pleading; she was insulting John Edwards, and making a joke (however inappropriate), not suggesting everyone meet up at the racetrack for an old-fashioned “fag drag”. I don’t think picking over her rants is productive for anyone but her and her publicist: it seems her “work” fails on its own merits, since I understand her books are peppered with inaccuracies. She doesn’t even attempt to maintain an image.

I do, however, loath every ounce of Michael Moore’s being. I’ve watched his movies and cringed at the ridiculously sappy and unprofessional way he operates. He too is an entertainer, but the difference is that he takes himself seriously. When Michael Moore harassed Charlton Heston on camera with a picture of a dead girl I took him at best a whimpering idiot and partisan hack and at worst an agent provocateur (much like the internet trolls and shills who frequent these blogs). I really wondered how Michael Moore would react if I showed him pictures of all the children who starved to death who could have been saved by all the food required to keep him that obese.

For some reason, this quotation kept running through my mind as I read these blog comments: “Why am I so good at playing bitches? I think it’s because I’m not a bitch. Maybe that’s why Miss Crawford always plays ladies.” —Bette Davis

Posted by: Jacob in SC at March 12, 2007 5:47 AM
Comment #211534

Jacob,

“Honestly, Ann Coulter amuses me, and I’m gay, atheist, and very liberal. I take her for what she actually is: entertainment. She isn’t a politician, journalist, or ideologue. She is an entertainer who relies on shock value.”

The problem is that the stiffs that she plays to don’t truly get that.
When Hannity brings Coulter into a “serious” political debate, her meat axe approach to politics cheapens the debate. Coulter clearly has issues, and I don’t believe they are about making America a better place to live.

Coulter, Moore, etc. all have agendas, and they are all entitled to their opinions.
That said, however, distinctions need to be made between their polarizing view of the truth, and reality.

Posted by: Rocky at March 12, 2007 9:53 AM
Comment #211547

Rocky:
“The problem is that the stiffs that she plays to don’t truly get that.
When Hannity brings Coulter into a “serious” political debate, her meat axe approach to politics cheapens the debate.”

Well said. Exactly so, but even worse than the fact that KKKoulter and Kompany cheapen the political debate, is the fact that when they continuously appear on television as “political pundits” being taken seriously, it LEGITIMIZES hate and hatespeech to the very stiffs they are playing to.

Jacob,
So, in your view, Andrew Sullivan made no real points in the column that Max put up at the beginning of this thread that you agree with? Do you consider the word “faggot” an acceptable word for common usage? How about “darkie”? Is that also acceptable as long as it’s being used in an amusing way? One last question: Have you ever known anyone who was put in the hospital because they were beaten senseless simply for being gay?

“For some reason, this quotation kept running through my mind as I read these blog comments: “Why am I so good at playing bitches? I think it’s because I’m not a bitch. Maybe that’s why Miss Crawford always plays ladies.” —Bette Davis”

Yeah well, most women aren’t Hollywood caricatures of “bitches” or “ladies” the way Joan Crawford and Bette Davis were — both on the screen, and in their “real” personal lives. The reality is, most women are fully capable of being either or both at the same time. It all depends upon the need and the circumstances. ;^)

Btw, Ms. Davis couldn’t have been more wrong. Have ever seen Joan Crawford in ‘Johnny Guitar’? If not, you need to, because it’s a real Western-style hoot. She raised bitchiness to whole new level in that film!!! It’s stunning visually, too.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 12, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #211569
“Well, no one here is nearly as bad as Coulter. ”


That’s debatable! And, the liberal mouthpieces out there (Franken, Moore, Maher, etc.) are certainly as “bad as” to “worse” than Coulter. At least she backs her slurs with facts; the same cannot be said about the others.


When she made the “Withces of East Brunswick” comment about the Jersey girls, she was arguing the point that liberals don’t debate; they throw out these emotional “victims” to argue the point and silence the critics. There are thousands of 9/11 widows that are not out there condemning the President and supporting Kerry; yet, these (4) women were victims so they can’t be debated. Similar situation with Cindy Sheehan, she’s one of thousands of mothers that lost her son. To the libs, because she’s “grieving”, it’s ok to make her political statements without be confronted b/c, if she is confronted, she just uses the (lame) agrument that she “lost her son” in Iraq. The same with the Edwards “fag” situation; she used that slur to prove her point about how ridiculous “Political Correctness” is with the libs. Coulter was correct with her point; she just used a “juvenile” crack to get people’s attention. And she certainly has.


The fact is, most have a problem with Coulter b/c she can whip their a$$es when it comes to debate; many are just whiny, crybabies that can’t hold their mud. Instead of (actually) debating, they attack and dodge the issues b/c their points are weak or they don’t have solutions to them. So, stop being afraid of this woman and debate the issues.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 12, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #211573

“The fact is, most have a problem with Coulter b/c she can whip their a$$es when it comes to debate; many are just whiny, crybabies that can’t hold their mud. Instead of (actually) debating, they attack and dodge the issues b/c their points are weak or they don’t have solutions to them. So, stop being afraid of this woman and debate the issues.”

Are you actually serious? I don’t even know where to begin.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at March 12, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #211587

Wow…when presented with the tragically absurd, I have to pause before I continue. Also, it’s getting shilly in here…I needed my shawl.


Rocky:

I wholly accept the validity of that argument. Rahdigly’s post seems to be anecdotal evidence in support. I see the problem now. (Isn’t it refreshing when you discover during discourse someone is actually willing to temper his opinion rather than “keep on keeping on”?)

Adrienne:

Do I know victims of biogoted violence? Yes, but I also know that many of the claims I hear about being harassed because of perceived sexuality are paranoid delusions or exaggerations meant to bolster arguments. While I may be gay and liberal, I’m still waiting for a single factual argument that says hate crime laws are effective or necessary. I feel that those are about as meaningful as the “death penalty deterrant”. I think that it has become a liberal lightning rod, and anytime Matthew Shepard is brought up, everyone is just supposed to clam up and accept one segment of society’s ideas to solve the problem. Things aren’t that simple, and tacking on a few years doesn’t deter anything. In fact, I’m sure that will give the inmate far more time to embrace a Neo Nazi prison gang or a Wahhabbi imam. Worry about those groups, not an entertainer.

In one sense, I am tempted to agree with rahdigly: I do think that we play down the significance of rising populations of Muslims, not because I’m a racist or “Islamophobe”, but because I judge them objectively based on their policy, beliefs, and statements. Trust that I hold all religions to this standard because they are all usually horrible. Keith Ellison is not representative of Muslim ideas. As a gay man, though, I will say that while Christians may want to send us to therapy, at least they aren’t toppling walls or throwing us from the highest cliff, which is the punishment meted out by sharia law for homosexuality, one that the Taliban delighted in publicly demonstrating.

I honestly and objectively view this as a threat. The fact that the religion is wholly unwilling to tolerate anyone who thinks differently is reason enough to pause.

As far as the use of hate speech…of course it bothers me and of course it isn’t acceptable in polite discourse, but I fall into several minority groups, and I promise I haven’t lost my sense of humor. I think my point is, this surprises you? I mean when you invite a clown with an air horn to an opera, are you expecting him to behave? That’s exactly what happened the other day: blame the organizers, but Ann Coulter exhaults in this sort of talk. The problem is that they are just words. I hear them all the time, and I don’t get angry, I just think “wow, what a jackass” and move on with my life. I liken this reaction to Muslims bitching about that stupid cartoon. Yes, it was insensitive, but you don’t need a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach.

Sorry if that was all over the place. I’m typing through a migraine headache. :(

Posted by: Jacob in SC at March 12, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #211619

Jacob:
“Worry about those groups, not an entertainer.”

First of all, I never mentioned my views on hate-crimes legislation at all. I mentioned Matthew Sheppard as an extreme example of where hate-speech can lead, and it is a wholly valid one when the GOP invites KKKoulter to be the keynote speaker at their most prestigious political events after she has said things like “Ragheads” and “Al Gore — total fag”, and “Democrats are Traitors”, and “Liberals are Godless.” The GOP giving legitimacy to someone like Koulter has the effect of legitimizing and encouraging hate and hatespeech among their voters, and her followers, all over this country.
Secondly, Koulter should be considered, but is NOT in fact, merely an entertainer. She has appeared on Fox, CNN and various other news shows as though she is a legitimate political pundit.
She is not.
If she was an actual “entertainer” as you claim, she’d be more likely to be invited to appear on the KKK Komedy Hour on local cable access out in Bumf&*%, USA somewhere, rather than getting paid the big bucks to appear all over the MSM.

“In one sense, I am tempted to agree with rahdigly: I do think that we play down the significance of rising populations of Muslims, not because I’m a racist or “Islamophobe”, but because I judge them objectively based on their policy, beliefs, and statements.”

Do you throw around the blanket term: “ragheads” for people who are Muslim? KKKoulter does — and no doubt, so does the majority of her braindead, bigoted, and angry followers. Btw, I choose to personally ignore “rahdigly” completely, because I believe he is only here in this column to continually troll and flamebait.

“I mean when you invite a clown with an air horn to an opera, are you expecting him to behave?”

Indeed. The GOP hired a horn-honking KKKlown to perform onstage at their “Opera”, which just so happens to represent their entire party. As a result, it is no longer an Opera, it instead becomes a Circus to be jeered at, and ridiculed. If Democrats and Liberals fail to loudly jeer and ridicule them and her for this we only end up making ourselves look very foolish, IMO.

“Yes, it was insensitive, but you don’t need a sledgehammer to kill a cockroach.”

I think it all depends upon the size of the roach. Ann KKKockroach has become the sneering, well-paid mascot of the GOP. One who is constantly speaking to, and for, all of them.

Posted by: Adrienne at March 12, 2007 6:01 PM
Comment #211621

Jacob,

My opinion of Coulter and her ilk is exactly as it was when I joined this discussion.

I feel that, while she is entitled to her opinion, she isn’t exercising her First Amendment rights as much as she is for subverting those rights for others.
My dislike of Coulter didn’t just magically appear after this incident. My opinion of her and those like her has been formed by long observation of the tactics used to trash anyone that doesn’t think like her.
I disagree totally with folks like rahdigly who believe that he who shouts the loudest (and longest), wins the debate. That’s not debate, that’s yelling.
Coulter is incapable of having a proper debate, because the debate is always about her. I cannot accept that her reasoning for these recent comments was to make a point about the inequities of the PC crowd, because once she opens her mouth, the point is lost, and the discussion becomes about her, not her point, and that is because she always makes it about herself.

Ann Coulter would rather fling invectives than heal the rift that she and her comrades have helped to create in this country. That is why I think that she and her ilk are at least as dangerous as those that would blow up buses.

And that is what’s truly sad.

Posted by: Rocky at March 12, 2007 6:09 PM
Comment #211652

Adrienne:

I apologize if I was unclear. I was addressing your question, and including a response related to other comments more in the spirit of conversation. I made no assumptions about your beliefs, merely stated how I feel about the issue in general, and the related issues. In my short response to Rocky, I was acknowledging that you both have a point, since I (against all evidence) routinely give John or Jane Q. Public far more credit for intelligence than they deserve. From the perspective of fans actually taking her seriously, yeah, that is scary. I’m not talking about trolls on here, but the guy sitting at home watching her on fox news (which is one of my favorite sitcoms). Furthermore, I’ll accept your assertion that making her a keynote speaker does grant her status in the eyes of viewers. I suppose I’ve naively downplayed her impact on people.

Frankly, I enjoy your posts on here tremendously, and I’m tempted to design a graphic of the KKKoulter KKKlown for my own blog, so please don’t think I was trying to rib you, nor was I suggesting you shouldn’t be indignant about the use of hate speech. My point is that she IS a clown, and revels in the attention she gets, and I feel she enjoys seeing the liberal establishment quiver. My concern is that in acknowledging her, we lend her legitimacy.

Incidentally, to a small extent I am trying to play the devil’s advocate. You would never hear me defend Ann Coulter in person. I do worry that things like this distract from real issues; I don’t care what she has to say about anything, but I do care about getting us the hell out of Iraq, ending the Darfur genocide, seeing the death penalty abolished, seeing universal health care, curbing our current protracted environmental suicide, etc. etc.


Rocky:

Again, I need to apologize for my lack of clarity, as I’m not sure I conveyed what I meant. I was saying I agree with your argument, and accept that reasoning, and that rahdigly is anecdotal evidence of why you are right.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at March 12, 2007 10:26 PM
Comment #211664

Jacob,

No offence meant or taken.

Thanks.

Posted by: Rocky at March 12, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #211672

Jacob:
“My concern is that in acknowledging her, we lend her legitimacy.”

I used to feel that way, but not any longer. Now I believe we should USE the fact that they’ve become The Party of KKKoulter (and Kompany) against them. These “pundits” have gained far too much prestige, profile and profit for spewing their intolerance and hate for the mean-spirited enjoyment of the GOP and the bigoted louts who love them.

“Frankly, I enjoy your posts on here tremendously, and I’m tempted to design a graphic of the KKKoulter KKKlown for my own blog”

Thanks very much, Jacob. I’m glad — and please do!

Posted by: Adrienne at March 13, 2007 1:21 AM
Comment #211700

Jacob,

“Are you actually serious? I don’t even know where to begin.”


Uh, yeah! I gave you 3 names of libs that foam at the mouth on a routine basis and they don’t even back their stuff up with facts; they just spew venom and hide behind the 1rst admendment. You (also) didn’t comment on the “liberals hiding behind emotional figures rather than debating the issue”.


Instead, you made “anecdotal evidence in support” comments during “discourse”. And, to top that off, you sided with a blogger whose comment’s were: “The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America. They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.”


Coulter is (clearly) playing many of you like a fiddle. She presents facts and (occasionally) throws bombs; whereas, many libs throw bombs without facts. Yet, we know (precisely) who they are; that’s why they lose credence every time.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 13, 2007 10:30 AM
Comment #211992

Coulter is like crack for the feeble-minded.

Posted by: h1 at March 14, 2007 5:40 PM
Comment #212285

Rosie O’donnell just made (more) accusations about our gov’t sponsoring torture on the “poor” guy that admitted he’s the mastermind of 9/11 and who claim to behead Daniel Pearl.

Are Rosie’s comments “more insidious than the enemy” or is she “like crack for the feeble-minded.”?!!!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 16, 2007 12:41 PM
Post a comment