Ann Coulter-gate and the Fall of the Democrat Party

The reviews are in for Ann Coulter’s new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” and apparently officials from the democrat party are not too impressed …

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless’. . . . [It’s] unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country." US Senator Hillary Clinton (D- NY).

"Ms. Coulter's shameless attack on the victims of the worst act of terrorism in American history can only engender disgust. . . . Her bookselling antics and accompanying vulgarity deserve our deepest contempt. . . . Her foul remarks trivialize the deaths of every single person who died that terrible day, including .. .those brave police officers and firefighters who ran into those burning buildings." US Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).

"[Coulter’s] hate-filled attack on the patriotic heroes of 9/12 — the widows of 9/11 — [is] reprehensible and undignified. . . . Americans shouldn't contribute to her profiting from these vicious remarks." Former US Representative Tim Roehmer (D-Ind), 9/11 Commissioner.

So the democrats hate the book. At least they’re not claiming that Coulter speaks for the republican party.

"I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning ... Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 ... widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman." Representative Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill).

Come again, Mr. Emmanuel. Are you contending that Ann Coulter — whose first four books sold under 2 million copies cumulatively — represents the republican party?

At this point, it’s safe to say that the democrat party is a joke. After all, Representative Emmanuel’s ridiculous bombast was delivered on the same day that the notorious terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, swallowed 1000 pounds of American justice — the explosive kind, that is. Meanwhile, Emmanuel’s democrat compatriots were calling Zarqawi’s death a stunt:

"‘This (news of Zarqawi’s death) is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer’ for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. ‘Iraq is still a mess — get out.’"Washington Times

Unfortunately, the representative’s glib remarks have become all to typical of the democrat party, whose collective voice has been reduced to an incessant whining in recent years. Presumably, a great number of their constituents now find themselves in a desperate search for representation.

Nevertheless, the Coulter controversy — or Coulter-gate — is a new low for the democrat party. Even on her best day, Coulter’s opinions are heard by far less than 1% of the American public; of course, with democrats bemoaning this (non) issue, Coulter’s reach has been drastically extended.

Still, the ignorance demonstrated by the left is the most disturbing aspect of this story. After all, only a distorted line of reasoning could have led them to conclude that republicans at large are responsible for apologizing on Coulter’s behalf.

There's a parallel to this story:

Months ago, cartoons of the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, were published in a Danish newspaper. Muslims around the globe began demanding apologies from the Danish government. Those demands, however, went unheeded and for good reason: first, the Danish press is free to publish whatever they want; and, second, the Danish government took no part in the publishing process. Unfortunately, numerous Muslims disagreed with that reasoning and proceeded to torch a Danish embassy. The riots that followed left in their wake mass destruction and death.

I’m guessing that Coulter-gate will conclude differently. In this case, any destruction that results will be limited to the democrat party and what remains of its influence.

Posted by Dr Politico at June 10, 2006 6:04 PM
Comments
Comment #156335

Ann Coulter can go no farther… she has parodied herself. I saw a great video spoofing her at Huffingtonpost yesterday. The “pundit”, Carol Lynn Price really beat Coulter to the punch. Perfect timing Carol Lynn! Check it out,
http://carollynnprice.cf.huffingtonpost.com

Posted by: Blott at June 10, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #156337

Ann Coulter does represent the Republican Party. So does Pat Robertson and Dobson and Cheney and Fox News.

People who have the White House on speed dial and are the go to attack dogs represent their Masters.

And before you whine “Roger Moore”, when did he become the guest speaker for DNC functions?

Posted by: Aldous at June 10, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #156338

Why is this the first time many Republicans are outraged at the notion of using 9/11 victims for a political platform?

Posted by: caslab at June 10, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #156344

Aldous
If Ann Coulter speaks for the Republican Party then your remarks must be taken that you speak for the far left groups all together.

Tim Roemer and Pete Stark have spoken. Their remarks are a far more serious tone than Ann Coulter’s remarks. Tim and Pete are aiding and abetting the enemy with their spit and vomit.

Posted by: tomh at June 10, 2006 7:31 PM
Comment #156346

Well, while Hannity, Joe Scarborough and O’Reilly have imaginary virtual sex with her, and the Republican(faux) channel and Drudge promote her book, That wing of the Republican party( perhaps its not a wing, but a sphincter) seems to accept her, even though they are beginning to distance themselves before her head explodes.

Posted by: gergle at June 10, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #156353

“At this point, it’s safe to say that the democrat party is a joke”.

Very amusing from one who supports GWB and a political party whose base believes speaking in tongues while rolling around in the floor like idiots is an intended result of intelligent design.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at June 10, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #156361

Aldous

Dobson does not represent the Republican Party, he represents the Christian conservative movement.

FOX News does not represent the Republican Party, Fox represents a balanced (meaning they give more than lip service to giving a conservative side as well as a liberal side to the news) approach to the news. The networks (ABC,CBS,NBC and public TV), however, represent the liberal viewpoint almost exclusively.

Further, you know this to be true.

Posted by: Don at June 10, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #156364

Aldous

When has “Roger Moore” spoken anywhere? I’ve never heard of him…

… or do you mean Michael Moore (that fat slob)?

Posted by: Don at June 10, 2006 8:56 PM
Comment #156369

“Those who truly grieve do not spend time pushing a political agenda.”

So great and almighty source of truth, now we all know for sure the the Republican party and Terry Shiavo’s parents had no concern for Terry’s life and were using her only to push a political agenda. Thank you for clearing that up. I had a feeling that was a rouge.

You are absolutely right if those women truly greived, or at least loved America, they would just shut up and waive flags until we find Osama Bin Laden in Iraq.

Posted by: darren159 at June 10, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #156374

What is the point here, anyone?

If liberals are trying to claim that Ann Coulter is mean than ok, she’s mean. So What!

The Jersey Girls entered the realm of politics when they made claims against the President and Secretary of State. Now the left is crying fowl. That’s a joke! Coulter speaks of these four women only. Not the entire population of 9/11 widows.

These ladies have effectively exploited the deaths of their loved one’s in an attempt to push their political agenda. Now, a conservative has something to say and here we go. No, no you can’t say that. Give me a break!

In an attempt to avoid being politically correct, someone should have told the Jersey Girls to stay in the kitchen if they couldn’t take the heat.

Maybe we should all read the book before dropping another tear.

Posted by: Jim at June 10, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #156375

What is the difference between the shrill harpy Anne Coulter and the shrill harpy Hilary Clinton? …what you had for lunch,I suppose.

Posted by: Reddogs at June 10, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #156376

A prominent Republican pundit says something disgusting and it’s a low point for the Democratic party?

Impressive spin. Senseless, but impressive.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 10, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #156377

Don et al:

Sorry, but this is what you guys get when you ally your platform with religious extremists like Falwell and Robertson and quasi-fascists like Coulter. Maybe you don’t defend them and their actions, but face it, they defend you! All of these groups are apologists for Bush, and the political expedience of bringing up “The Defense of Marriage” while we’re getting our boys killed in Iraq just exemplifies that unholy alliance. So suck it up, guys, because Coulter is all over your base and policy.

FOX is proven time and time again to be deeply allied with this administration and the Republican agenda. It’s *not* “balanced” one whit! You’re blind as a bat. And you’re wrong if you think you have *anything* to say to someone who’s lost a loved one in war. You have nothing to say, and if you think you do without having experienced it yourself, your arrogance is extraordinary.

And can anyone spell here? I guess college is for the liberals…

Posted by: DavidL at June 10, 2006 9:54 PM
Comment #156378

Lawnboy,

“A prominent Republican pundit says something disgusting and it’s a low point for the Democratic party?”

Let’s break this down piece by piece.

“A prominent republican pundit says something disgusting”

Prominent republican? She’s a talking head with less fans than my local baseball team (admittedly, I live in a large city). She speaks for herself and that tiny sliver of the American public that listens to her.

“it’s a low point for the Democratic party?”

Absolutely.

BTW, you may want to read this. Turns out the democrats have drafted a letter to Coulter, demanding an immediate apology. It’s quite sad that this is how they spend their time and our dime. Before the dems opened their big mouths, Coulter would have sold less than 1/2 million copies. Now, 2-3 million easy. Ironic, eh?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 10, 2006 10:06 PM
Comment #156381

Yes, Dr. Politico, I stand by my claim.

Repetition of senseless defensive spin doesn’t make it any stronger.

Posted by: LawnBoy at June 10, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #156382

No what I think is Ironic is that the GOP spends all it’s time on issues like gay marriage to rally the religious conservatives instead of putting their efforts in bettering the US, you know the people. I really want to know is there anything that the dems are not responcible for in your eyes? Liberals are god hating, baby bashing, money wasting morons… this is what you are saying right? Have you ever really tried to get to know a liberal? Or is it just easier to pin the blame on other people? I thought the majority leader, and the monority leaders spoke for the reps and dems… people are allowed to have opinions, and they are allowed to do things about their opinions… So the question is does Coulter speak for the rep party if not… then neither does Rahm Emmanuel speak for the dem party.

-Einghf

Posted by: einghf at June 10, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #156383

Dr Politico,

Thanks for the post about Coulter being an idiot. If this isn’t something the right disagrees with, then everyone is in agreement! Hallelujah! Now let’s all work together to get that crackhead Rush off the air. What an American embarassment. Good to be working together on something.

Posted by: Max at June 10, 2006 10:33 PM
Comment #156384

The repubs can run but that cant hide, Coulter is their baby as much as Micheal Moore is the Dems baby. All the spin in the world aint agonna change that.

The difference between Coulter and Hilary Clinton is that Coulter has more class its just that its a low third class but she has alot of it. Oh and Hilary Clinton has a brain.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 10, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #156385

Well, this blog has finally dealt up a topic that pushed my hot button.

Many of the families of the victims of the 9-11 attack have been bitching about the money from day one.

They were offered up to $2 million from the federal treasury. That wasn’t enough. They received hundreds of thousands more from the Red Cross and other charities to which the American people donated over a billion dollars. That wasn’t enough.

They even hired lawyers to sue the government for more money.

Meanwhile, the families of our young men and women in uniform killed in action hunting down the animals who carried out the attack receive a maximum of $50,000 and a folded American flag.

I’m tired of hearing the whining and complaining from people who are using the deaths of their family members to milk the government and public for every penny they can get.

Liberals think these “grieving” family members should get a pass for their greed and stupidity, the same way they think the Sheehan woman is some kind of sainte because she has let herself be used by the anti-war crowd.

Sheehan’s son and the victims of the 9-11 attacks must be hanging their heads in shame as they watch what is being done in their name.

Now I know how Jesus must feel!



Posted by: ulysses at June 10, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #156387

“Roger Moore” at the DNC…. I didn’t know 007 was a Democrat…lol

Posted by: Bubba at June 10, 2006 10:59 PM
Comment #156390

Really, kids, this is a pretty pointless argument. You have Ann Coulter, we have Micahel Moore. Your Bill O’Reilly is our Arianna Huffington. Your George W Bush is our…well, I guess we don’t have anyone who’s that big an idiot.

Posted by: David S at June 10, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #156392

There is nothing of value to add to a Coulter thread. She is a lying piece of shit attention whore. Saying “oh yeah, what about (fill in your pet liberal here)” doesn’t mean anything to what a waste of time and bytes she is. Read her book, become more stupid. I don’t even care why.

Posted by: Dave at June 10, 2006 11:19 PM
Comment #156394

The whining liberals keep denying the undeniable, George W Bush has kept America safe for 5 yrs. No one thought that would be possible after 9/11. Thank God for GWB, our military and strong republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: scott haney at June 10, 2006 11:30 PM
Comment #156395

I seem to recall earlier this year when Senator Obama was on the Right-Wing Circle-Jerk Hour…oops I mean Meet The Press, he was asked by Russert to comment on the Anti-Bush lunatic rantings of Harry Belafonte. My first thought was of course, Obama is to the left and so is Belafonte, Obama is Black and so is Belafonte, so it just makes sense that a Republican shill like Russert would be asking this. If you guys are going to ask our leaders to respond to every nut on the left then it is only fitting that your representatives respond to every looney on the right.

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 10, 2006 11:36 PM
Comment #156396

“Why is this the first time many Republicans are outraged at the notion of using 9/11 victims for a political platform?”

So you admit to using it to better a democratic agenda… As for this being the first time us GOP have raised a stink…(feels childish) you started it.

“Very amusing from one who supports GWB and a political party whose base believes speaking in tongues while rolling around in the floor like idiots is an intended result of intelligent design.”

You make comments like that and you still wonder why the americans voted for us.

“And can anyone spell here? I guess college is for the liberals”

You shouldn’t start a sentance with “and”, its not proper english. :P

” I really want to know is there anything that the dems are not responcible for in your eyes?”

Yes, saving the inocent kurds in Iraq.

“The difference between Coulter and Hilary Clinton is that Coulter has more class its just that its a low third class but she has alot of it. Oh and Hilary Clinton has a brain.”

If she is so smart why is she still married to a guy who cheated on her multiple times?


And for my last topic… why do all of you always assume that all dems are left and all repubs are right. Oh, and for all you dems out there raising a stink… im going to buy her book now that I heard about it from you guys, thanks!

Posted by: Shawn H at June 10, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #156398

Ann does exactly what she has to do. No one else will.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Pay attention libs, Ann is REACTING.
Even you college boys aughta see that.

Posted by: coonyjay at June 10, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #156400

DavidL

You claim that FOX is not balanced one whit. Then you must confess that ABC, SeeBS, NBC and CNN are truly out of round or off center by a very large degree and tilting to the left and going sinking.

Posted by: tomh at June 11, 2006 12:08 AM
Comment #156403

When ya run out of anything to debate with it always turns into vile and name calling. So Ann, you win big on this one. Keep up the charge!

Posted by: tomh at June 11, 2006 12:11 AM
Comment #156406

Scott, using your logic I do realize that President Clinton kept this Counrty safe the 5 years prior to W taking over the office.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 12:17 AM
Comment #156407

In response to the comment about the Republican agenda on gay marriage, please remember that several comprehensive studies have shown that two parents (a mom and a dad) married to each other help raise children less likely to be criminals, in poverty, or uneducated. The fact that liberals cannot accept that as “helping people” is why there are more and more conservatives every day, and why the educational system sucks.

BethH.

Posted by: Beth Hays at June 11, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #156408

Shawn, do you realize your on the republican blog? better buy 4 copies, sounds like you will need them.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 12:25 AM
Comment #156409

bushflipflops

I couldn’t let that one get by.

If you think “meet the depressed” is a right wing show, you have to be to the left of Che in your ideology. Russert is a died in the wool lefty, who has never met a conservative he liked.

Posted by: Keith at June 11, 2006 12:48 AM
Comment #156411

BethH:

There are also studies by the American Pediatric Association and a number of others that show it is two parents, even same sex parents. There was no discernable difference in the children of same sex couples than male female couples. It is two parents as opposed to one parent. You need to be clear.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 11, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #156413

The responsible research will show that one woman and one man as parents will have the best results overall.

When two males or two females are the parents, the research will show that the child does not prosper as well as he would if he had a father and a mother for parents. The results are overwhelming. Two males or two females have shown that a long term committment is generally out of the question. Oh, yeah, Divorce does occur in a conventional marriage, but there still will be a father and a mother.

Posted by: tomh at June 11, 2006 1:12 AM
Comment #156414

tomh:

The media is owned by an oligarchy of corporations and the corporations are conservative by nature (owing *any* accountability solely to its shareholders). Ergo, the news media is conservative. Yes, there is *some* majority of reporters that are more left, but they are not the ones who determine content, ultimately.

There is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny, either. I’m sorry to counter what they’ve been telling you all these years…

As for BethH, please know that even though studies like to see children growing up in homes with two heterosexual parents, they also like to see children growing up in homes with good education, healthy food, health care, access to money, musical instruments, gentle parenting, and a happily married couple. Frankly, I’d much rather a child be brought up by two same-sex spouses with love and care than by two heterosexual parents who lack any of the above other requirements. And again, there is no Easter Bunny. Not all children get to have all advantages. I was raised by a single mother and I contribute to society (well.) But if I didn’t, should you outlaw divorce so that we only have children with heterosexual married parents? Your “logic” is typical of the ignorant intolerance that got this guy in office.

And what of my comment about anyone with something to say about the lives of the survivors of the Iraq dead? Didn’t think so…

Posted by: DavidL at June 11, 2006 1:18 AM
Comment #156416

Dr Politico,

Zarqawi’s last words have just been translated. They were “Allah bless George Bush for helping advance our cause, and my personal thanks to Ann Coulter for taking it up the ass from me for the last several years.”

Seriously, now that Zarqawi is dead, the title of world’s most foul-mouthed zealot falls to the perennial runner-up, Ann Coulter.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 11, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #156417

tomh:

“Responsible research.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


“Wo be unto the naive and talking-out-of-their-rears.” I think that’s in Ephesians…

Posted by: DavidL at June 11, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #156418

Yeah, all those leftist pediatricians! For shame!!

Posted by: womanmarine at June 11, 2006 1:33 AM
Comment #156419

Dr Politico,

If someone accused 9-11 widows who support the war in Iraq of being “witches” and of “enjoying their husbands’ deaths”, you and your fellow wrong-wingers would be all over them like a cheap suit. Your defense of Ann Coulter shows just how hypocritical you are. And it proves what I’ve said before: there is no limit to how low you will stoop.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 11, 2006 1:54 AM
Comment #156421

ElliottBay,

Supporters of the Iraq War are called hatemongers everyday. I always assumed that meant all supporters of the war, including the victims.

“Your defense of Ann Coulter shows just how hypocritical you are.”

What defense? Read my last post on Coulter. Here’s the conclusion:

“Instead, Coulter also chose to prostitute the attacks of 9/11, and that is shameful.”

Is that a defense? You need to pay attention. I’m not defending Coulter. But it’s not my responsibility to apologize for her either, simply because I voted for a Republican in the last election. If your party could recognize that they wouldn’t be so laughable. Of course, your comment about me is equally laughable, considering you have no idea where I stand. Please tell me what part of my post was a defense for Coulter’s opinions on the 9/11 victims—the four widows to be precise.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 11, 2006 2:23 AM
Comment #156425

Keith,

Do you watch Meet The Press? Well I have been watching that show every sunday for over a decade and I can assure you that Russert has moved to the right a considerable amount during that time. Sure he may ask a Republican a difficult question from time to time, but then he sits there and allows them to spew the latest Karl Rove talking point without following it up. But when a Democrat is on he just badgers them the entire time. Last week was the first time I didn’t watch his show, I watched This Week on ABC because Al Gore was going to be on. I think from now on I’ll be watching This Week, and then reading the MTP transcript later in the day when I have time.

Posted by: bushflipflops at June 11, 2006 3:00 AM
Comment #156436

I believe Ann Coulter is representative of the extreme right wing which is leading this democracy into the morass of bitter hatred of common folk who make up our democracy. She’s representative of the nationalist movement going to the extreme right hand in hand with corporate interests in the United States. She’s a great example of National Socialism and is a perfect picture of the New World order of Republicanism.

Posted by: telwidit at June 11, 2006 6:14 AM
Comment #156444

Posted by Dave:

“There is nothing of value to add to a Coulter thread. She is a lying piece of shit attention whore. Saying “oh yeah, what about (fill in your pet liberal here)” doesn’t mean anything to what a waste of time and bytes she is. Read her book, become more stupid. I don’t even care why.”

Hey Editors: Hello! What is this trash?

Everyone, this is the way liberals talk. Full of class. Are you going to write a book anytime soon Dave? Wow, maybe you should write one about your life and times in anger management.

You were right about one thing. There was nothing of value in this thread. HAHAHA!


Posted by: Jim at June 11, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #156451

Ann Coulter, Michael Moore, and all other un-elected spokespeople or pundits represent ONLY the people who want to be represented by them, and you let it affect you any way you want. I wish more people on these blogs would use more common sense.

Posted by: tomd at June 11, 2006 9:10 AM
Comment #156455

If Representative Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill) claims that if the Republican party doesn’t condem the words of Ann Coulter then she speaks for the party! I suppose that means Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore speak for the Democratic party. It’s perfectly valid to disagree with Ms. Coulter but try challenging her on the facts. I’d rather have a spokesperson who tells the truth and wants The United States to succeed in the War on Terror, rather than someone who lies to destroy this country! I’ve heard Ann Coulter on several occasions state “Liberals only get outraged when you’re exposing them” once again Ann is speaking the truth and exposing what the Democratic party stands for: The destruction of America simply so they can regain power! With a platform like that the days of a two-party government are over, as is the Democratic party!

Posted by: Andy at June 11, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #156458

tomd,

Thank you for stating the obvious. Un-elected spokes-people on either side are only commentators. If you believe what they say, or agree with them, they they can speak for you. If not, then they don’t. Equating Coulter with the right, and Moore with the left, only goes to prove how devisive their views are. But, is the implication real? No. I am a conservative Christian who voted Republican in the last election. I’m still a conservative Christian (please don’t read “fanatic”) but I’m not happy with either the Republicans or the Democrats. The talking heads on the news do not speak for me. They are there to give me information only. The talk shows are all biased and do not claim otherwise (OK, O’Reilly), and most people only watch the ones that they agree with.

The likes of Coulter and Moore are a product of a country of free-thinkers, free press and free speech — THANK GOD! You can disagree with thier comments, but actions like the dems asking for an apology from Coulter is stupid and only serves to advance her book sales. She has the RIGHT to say anything she wishes. As does that idiot, Moore. As does anyone on these blogs. Therefore, this is really a non-issue (again) and less deserving of our attention than let’s say, the unemployment rate in Michigan - nearly 8%. That’s a real issue. Try fixing that.

Posted by: Ilsa at June 11, 2006 9:41 AM
Comment #156466

DavidL
That is not a quote from Ephesians. Maybe from the psychobabble leftist thesaurus.

Posted by: tomh at June 11, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #156474

“The responsible research will show that one woman and one man as parents will have the best results overall.”

This is *not* research done by “those left wing pediatricians.”


And secondly, the Ephesians thing was a joke.

And thirdly, Jim, it may not be classy or polite, but you should also chastise your Vice President, too. Just ask Pat Leahy or the reporter who’s a “World Class A-hole.”


Woe be unto the Conservatives who can’t spell, compel me to take time out of my day to argue about Ann Coulter, and who make comments about losing loved ones in Iraq without having lost anyone there, themselves.

I think that’s from “Leviticus…”

Posted by: DavidL at June 11, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #156475

Anne Coulter is the Micheal Moore of the Republican Party, but worse. Micheal Moore does not call for the killing of people he does not agree with.

She is free to express herself, but she offers nothing of value to any discussion of an issue. Her purpose is just to attack liberals. Just read the titles of her book. Even Michael Moore dosen’t stoop this low.

Posted by: Jerseyguy at June 11, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #156508

Dr Politico,

Supporters of the Iraq War are called hatemongers everyday
Oh really. The “all the other kids are doing it” excuse. How old are you - eight? I stopped letting my kid get away with a lame excuse like that when he reached that age. Grow up.

Supporters of the war are not hatemongers. I’ve never said any such thing, and I don’t recall ever having seen such a thing said in Watchblog.

Supporters of the war who call 9-11 widows “witches and harpies” are hatemongers. Supporters of the war who call opponents traitors are hatemongers. Supporters of the war who accuse opponents right here in Watchblog of “aiding and abetting the enemy with their spit and vomit” are hatemongers. Supporters of the war who accuse the widows of 9-11 of “using the deaths of their family members to milk the government and public for every penny they can get” and of “greed and stupidity” are hatemongers. Supporters of the war who say “I am proud of [Coulter] on these women who hide behind their victimhood to bash our country. Shame is due on them and Cindy Sheehan” are hatemongers.

What Coulter and other hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, and Sean Hannity have done is to turn American politics into a toilet. Coulter just dropped another giant turd into the fray. And you think it’s wrong to criticize her for that - how very Rovian of you.

Speaking of laughable, maybe you’ve seen the polls. Talking about the death of the Democratic party is what’s laughable when support for the Republicans is draining like water out of a flushed toilet. We can only hope that all the turds like Coulter go back to the sewer, where they belong.

Oh, and just so you know, don’t talk about “your party” to me because I am not a Democrat. I’m an independent voter and former Republican. By all the standards I’ve found, I’m right smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. And when the middle of the political spectrum is as aghast and angry as I am at the ineptitude of the Republicans, you guys are in deep shit. And if your only response is Rovian attacks on everyone who disagrees with you, you’re sinking deeper by the minute.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 11, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #156511

JerseyGuy - “Anne Coulter is the Micheal Moore of the Republican Party, but worse.”

I couldn’t disagree with you more. Michael Moore pretends to present facts by manipulating clips, blurbs and misrepresentation. Ann Coulter is a pure pundit that makes no bones about how SHE feels about a subject. She is honest (but clearly doesn’t care about making it personal), while he is the lowest of the low.

Posted by: Bruce at June 11, 2006 12:42 PM
Comment #156522

ElliottBay,

Slow down, tiger. You have yet to show me where I defended Coulter. You remember:

“Your defense of Ann Coulter shows just how hypocritical you are.”

Are you unwilling to back that statement up or have you realized the err in your ways. As for the hatemonger line, I never said that it came out of your mouth. But if you deny that it gets said, often in clerverly masked verbiage, your fooling yourself.

Still, I’m waiting for you to show me where I defended Coulter’s statements about the four widows that led to your conclusion regarding my hypocrisy. Or did you actually read the post this time?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 11, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #156530

DavidL,

Yes I have something to say about the lives of the survivors of Iraq dead. I would say the same thing about them as I would about any other person. Why do they get special treatment in any way? They lost a loved one yes. So have I and so has almost anyone else since everyone dies sometime. Why does their loss give them any special treatment? Because their relative died fighting as a volunteer member of our armed forces? How is that worse than any other tragic death or any death at all? It isn’t. Everyone deserves a private time to mourn and some latitude for depression or even erratic behavior after a tragedy but you don’t get a total pass and you don’t get one forever. The survivors of the Iraq dead get no special pass. If they enter the public arena they should expect the same treatment as anyone else.

I greatly respect those who gave their lives and those who are still serving and I have sympathy for the survivors and wish them well but I don’t see how they should get any special treatment in the public arena.

Posted by: BlueDevil at June 11, 2006 1:37 PM
Comment #156534

Aldous,

As usualy, your partisanship is making you out to be unreasonable (and typically incorrect). You say that Coulter is reprsentative of the Republican party. This is of course utter nonsense. You COULD get away with your statement that Cheney represents the republican party, but even that is incorrect. As it stands right now, there are several MAJOR issues where Cheney represents the present administration, but is counter the the majority of the republican party. As for Ann Coulter, she attacks the President just as viciously as she attacks the left (the main difference is how the President responds to such criticisms).

She IS a conservative. She typically takes a VERY right-wing response (okay, “typically” might be an understatement). But - She does NOT represent the Republican party. WHY? Because the Republican party has to worry about getting votes. She does not. In fact, the more vociferous and controversial she is, the better for her. Thus, she thanks every one of you for attacking her (correct) statements about the Jersey Girls (who are scum for using their husbands deaths to promote their political beliefs. I wonder if their husbands were left wing nutbags. Probably not. Only sissies are left wing nutbags. Right, Aldous? :-)

Posted by: Bruce at June 11, 2006 1:43 PM
Comment #156535

Dr. Politico here uses the Republican campaign strategy, using undertone to align with crackpots on the right, and plausible deniability to align with centerist moderates. This IS the Republican echo chamber.

Posted by: gergle at June 11, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #156537

If you’re boyfriend’s a Republican, I want you. Now.

I don’t care how old you are, how much you weigh or what you look like. I don’t care if you like cuddling by the fire or being slathered in mayonnaise with a clown mask on. So long as you have a significant other who cares for you deeply and voted for Bush, I can promise you without hesitation the very best sex you have ever, or will ever have: brain-scrambling, soul-shattering, scream-to-the-heavens sex that will leave you not only walking funny, but mumbling incoherently for days. And believe me, it’ll be nowhere near as good for you as it will be for me.


This offer not valid to married or underage women or those with boyfriends currently serving in Iraq. They’ve been screwed enough.

Posted by: debra from texas at June 11, 2006 1:57 PM
Comment #156540

gergle,

“Dr. Politico here uses the Republican campaign strategy, using undertone to align with crackpots on the right, and plausible deniability to align with centerist moderates.”

So, can I count on your vote?

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 11, 2006 2:12 PM
Comment #156545

Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh et al are baiters, they string out the line with the bait and then they wait to catch the fish. It has been successful in that they each have a dedicated group of followers that beleive they are correct, and they are the source of news for their followers. They are indeed Masters at what the do. Unfortunatly they also cause serious discord among the population at large.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2006 2:31 PM
Comment #156574

Let’s just be clear. For Republicans to distance themselves from Coulter is disingenuous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t she named in Time magazine’s list of 100 influential people — precisely because of her conservative ideas and following amongst conservatives?

Second, as far as the so-called “…Fall of the Democrat Party,” show me the proverbial money. The only thing I see falling is Bush’s approval ratings. Unnamed Dems are now favored over Reps in most polls and on the vast majority of issues.

The tacit approval (by a failure to condemn outright) of Coulter’s comments is, IMHO, part of the reason for the Reps difficulties right now.

Posted by: steve westby at June 11, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #156591

Ulysses said,

“Liberals think these “grieving” family members should get a pass for their greed and stupidity, the same way they think the Sheehan woman is some kind of sainte because she has let herself be used by the anti-war crowd.

Sheehan’s son and the victims of the 9-11 attacks must be hanging their heads in shame as they watch what is being done in their name.

Now I know how Jesus must feel!”

Wow! Where to start. First of all I am a liberal and I thought the government went overboard compensating the victims of ‘911’. Some families may have been guilty of greed or anger but stupidity? It was an all Republican administration and congress that authorized compensation! Not to mention O’Reilly using his indignation at the Red Cross’ good sense to take the overload of monies donated during the ‘911’ fervor and try and put it to better use. Of course it was a raw emotional time ripe for political exploitation. We should be using our money and taxes to support those who are choosing to serve our country instead.

I believe there is no shame in what the Jersey girls or Sheehan are doing. They are speaking from real loss and making some salient points. However, feel free to attack their position, what they are advocating. If you feel you must tear them down, aka Ann Coulter, in order to make your point heard, I believe you must feel you don’t have much to stand on.

Lastly, let’s not fall into matyrdom over the political football of ‘911’ and compare our feelings of disgust to what is unfortunately done in Jesus Christ’s name.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 11, 2006 5:25 PM
Comment #156606

Dr Politico,

I’m sure Karl Rove’s favorite motto is, “the best defense is a good offense”. You defended Coulter by attacking the Dems for daring to criticize Coulter, whose behavior was inexcusable.


Bruce,

Ann Coulter … attacks the President just as viciously as she attacks the left
Really? You mean she called Laura Bush a “witch”? Show me ONE SINGLE TIME where she attacked Bush using such vicious terminology. Just one.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 11, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #156611

ElliottBay,

“You defended Coulter by attacking the Dems for daring to criticize Coulter, whose behavior was inexcusable.”

Nice try. I wrote that she prostituted 9/11 and that it was shameful. That’s not a defense. I always appreciate when people attack others without being able to back it up. Nice job, ElliottBay.

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 11, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #156612

Chris2x said “I believe there is no shame in what the Jersey girls or Sheehan are doing. They are speaking from real loss and making some salient points. However, feel free to attack their position, what they are advocating.”

Thank you Chris, I will.

Just what are they advocating?

I haven’t heard one word of anger or condemnation from them directed at the Islamic butchers who murdered their loved ones.

What I have heard is anger and condenmnation of George W. Bush and his administration. Listening to these women speak, one would get the impression that Bush organized the 9-11 attacks.

“I watched my husband murdered live on TV. At any point in time, the casualties could have been lessened and it seems to me there wasn’t even an attempt made.” That quote was from Monica Gabrielle.

And according to one of her Jersey girl pals, Kirstin Breitweiser, “Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush’s watch.”

At what point could the loss of life been lessened? Maybe those heroic fire fighters and police officers should have run the other way instead of up the stairs.

Exactly what could Bush have done any differently that would have saved any of those people? Once the planes struck the buildings, their fate was sealed.

Yes, 3,000 people were murdered - by a group of murdering Islamic terrorists led by Osama bin Laden.

But these women are hell-bent on laying these deaths at the door of the White House.

Not politically motivated? Please!

I know exactly where I stand, Chris. And I don’t have to try and tear them down. They are doing a good job of that themselves.

And, just for the record, I don’t even like Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity, or Chris Matthews. Thay are all cut from the same cloth.

Rags.



Posted by: ulysses at June 11, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #156617

I just googled Ann Coulter and there are 17 million items out there. If any Republican dares to say “she doesn’t speak for us,” or “nobody reads her,” please explain that number. She’s hugely popular because she makes up vicious lies about people, and is just outrageous enough to get people listening. Unfortunately, as I said recently in another post, she has no sense at all of common decency and has no empathy for anybody, especially those who have suffered. She will say horrible things about truthful and decent people, and spreads her huge distortions all around the country to an openmouthed right-wing press just waiting to lap it up. This is not a good woman, and why anybody wants to listen to a truly morally bad person is beyond me.

Posted by: intelligentlife at June 11, 2006 6:59 PM
Comment #156622

ulysses said,

“And, just for the record, I don’t even like Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity, or Chris Matthews. Thay are all cut from the same cloth.”

I’m glad to hear it. For the record, I don’t like them either, or Limbaugh, or Michael Moore, or Hillary Clinton. I also don’t agree with Gabrielle’s (not a Jersey girl) irrational, oft-stated quote either. It is easy but wrong to go overboard in laying this attack at this administration’s feet (or Clinton’s).

However, if I was her and had lost my spouse I would be angry too if my President thought projecting calm and confidence meant reading “My Pet Goat” and flying around on Air Force One after learning of the attacks. Then deciding soon after that spending hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of lives on a war in Iraq was the best course in combating the scourge of terrorism, all-the-while stonewalling, enshrining themselves in secrecy, and using ‘911’ as a political excuse for nearly all their policies and maintaining a complete lack of accountability. Attacking this administration for it’s incompetence and not chest-beating about an obvious enemy does not mean we are not concerned or passionate about ending islamo-fascism and the real threats to our country.

Not giving Iran billions of dollars in extra oil revenue so we can refuse to require raising CAFE standards (to the auto union’s and motor city dems shame as well) might make more sense.

As for their service to our country…

“They call me all the time,” said Thomas H. Kean, the commission’s chairman and a former Republican governor of New Jersey. “They monitor us, they follow our progress, they’ve supplied us with some of the best questions we’ve asked. I doubt very much if we would be in existence without them.”

We all should be standing up and demanding accountability not just from a few widows but from those responsible for the atrocious and immoral mess we are now in.

Posted by: Chris2x at June 11, 2006 7:55 PM
Comment #156629

Dr Politico,

You are correct. I’ve calmed down a bit and went back and re-read my original post - the “your defense” was a reference to the plural “you”, not the individual “you”. I apologize if you (the individual you) misunderstood.

But I stand by the point that when you (the plural you) Republicans defend someone whose statements are inflammatory, pre-meditated, and inexcusable, you (the plural case again) are yet again poisoning political discourse in this country.

The scenario goes like this. Ann Coulter vilifies 9-11 widows who dare to disagree with the invasion of Iraq. If the Dems call her on it, you (plural) attack them and call them a joke. If the Dems don’t call her on it, you (plural) attack them and call them wimps. Attack attack attack. This scorched Earth policy is poisoning political discourse. If you (plural and individual) can’t defend yourselves, change the subject by calling the Dems names. As I said before, Karl Rove would be so proud of you.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 11, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #156643

Elliott… You are correct. I don’t think Ann Coulter would use the same language to attack the President. In fact, she wouldn’t attack the President. However, she would (and does) attack his policies. I misspoke. My point was that republican and conservative do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Likewise, the present administration doesn’t necessarily please every conservative out there (or republican, of course). In fact, the things that I detest about President Bush are the things that make him look like a RINO. His fiscal policies make it hard to love him sometimes.

Posted by: Bruce at June 11, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #156647

Several above have called Ann Coulter a liar and other vile names. Show me the documentation that she is any of the names that she was called. You can strongly disagree with anybody but to call them a liar or other things just because you disagree with them is morally repugnant.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #156648

BlueDevil:


An excellent and well-written response, IMHO. But still…

It *is* a volunteer army, and people *do* die. I just feel like if I had a loved one to die in *this* war, I would feel great anger if I understood it to be based on lies and deception, as it most certainly is.

In principle, I agree with you BlueDevil. Very nice post.

Posted by: DavidL at June 12, 2006 12:24 AM
Comment #156652

A couple of New Jersey Democrats call for a ban on Coulter’s book. It’s quite sad:

“No one in New Jersey should buy this book and allow Ann Coulter to profit from her hate-mongering. We are asking New Jersey retailers statewide to stand with us and express their outrage by refusing to carry or sell copies of Coulter’s book. Her hate-filled attacks on our 9-11 widows has no place on New Jersey bookshelves.”

What they meant to say is “no person should have the right to buy the book.”

Posted by: Dr Politico at June 12, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #156665

Dr. If they meant “no person should have the right…” why didnt they say it? Thats crap. Its voluntary and will probably only serve to increase sales of the tripe she peddles.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 12, 2006 8:14 AM
Comment #156674

Misleading, unfair, or dishonest Ann Coulter moments:

* Her pending legal issues with fraudulent voting
* How old is Ann? The documents disagree.
* She claimed she was paid $5 for each National Review column. Incorrect.
* She mischaracterized NR’s editorial oversight as censorship, which it is not. Especially since she has and uses her own bully pulpit.
* She claims Annie Lee Moss was a communist, when in fact that has not been determined.
* Her publisher corrected five errors following publication of “Slander” — a dozen more possible mis-statements have been identified.
* In “Treason” she misidentified Owen Lattimore.
* Etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: Nikita at June 12, 2006 9:44 AM
Comment #156678

Scott,

The whining liberals keep denying the undeniable, George W Bush has kept America safe for 5 yrs.

Maybe it’s the terrorists themselves that kept America safe for 5 years. After all, even if GW would NOT want America be safe for 5 years (you may ask why he would not want that: don’t ask!), without terrorists will, he could not have accomplish it all alone.

No one thought that would be possible after 9/11.

Beware, “after 9/11” will last, well, forever.

Thank God for GWB, our military and strong republicans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And you’re right, those are all distinct people, indeed.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 12, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #156682
Her purpose is just to attack liberals.

Her purpose is just to get rich by selling a book that attack liberals. Suppress her book sales, and she will disapear soon.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 12, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #156698

Nikita

Annie Lee Moss was a communist. If you are using as a source Ed R. Morrow, then that is not a reliable source. There is plenty to document that.

Owen Lattimore had a very extensive backgroud as a communist with connections, that whatever you mean by mis-identification would be a stretch of reality not just imagination.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #156721

Annie Lee Moss has never been proven to be a communist and she was in fact reinstated to another position in the same agency because evidence against her was flimsy and legally worthless.

Owen Lattimore was identified as the “top agent” of the Soviets, when in fact he was nothing of the kind.

Posted by: Nikita at June 12, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #156726

I saw her on Lou Dobbs’ program last week and he compared her to Michael Moore, calling her the right’s equivalent to Moore. Needless to say she took exception to the comparison and proceeded to make some comparisons of her own, comparing herself to Mark Twain for one. While I disagree with comparing Ann Coulter to Mark Twain, I must say I found Lou’s comparison to Michael Moore to be quite apt. These are two of the most devisive figures in the media, and I think both represent what each side hates about the other. I’ve said it before, if politicians were to engage in a real debate on the issues without the cameras and the corrupt cash-driven culture of Washington, the parties might be able to come to some kind of agreement on most issues. Unfortunately, with characters like Moore and Coulter fanning the flames on either side I think were doomed to watch yet another bloody battle of attrition in November and emerge with a government more or less the same as the one we’ve got, with the same problems and the same “solutions.”

Posted by: Christian at June 12, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #156748

Nikita
There is too much government hearings evidence that shows you are wrong.
What would you calssify Owen Lattimore as? The evidence is so overwhelming showing Lattimore and his soviet connection.

Annie Lee Moss was shown to be a member of the CPUSA, period.

Posted by: tomh at June 12, 2006 1:53 PM
Comment #156750

tomh

Several above have called Ann Coulter a liar and other vile names. Show me the documentation that she is any of the names that she was called. You can strongly disagree with anybody but to call them a liar or other things just because you disagree with them is morally repugnant.
1. The word “liar” doesn’t occur in this thread until you yourself use it. If you can’t even get that right, why would anyone be interested in your opinion?
2. So it’s OK for Coulter to use vile language, but wrong for anyone else, huh? Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.
3. Got evidence that ANY of the 9-11 widows are witches or harpies or that they enjoy the fact that their husbands are dead? No? Guess what? That makes Coulter a liar.
4. As far as your “calling someone names just because you disagree with them” theory goes, it applies to Coulter too. Coulter is morally repugnant. And her actions show why support for her ilk is so low. But feel free to keep on defending her. Who knows, maybe you can drive that support % down to single digits.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #156751

Are you going to write a book anytime soon Dave?
Posted by: Jim at June 11, 2006 08:28 AM

Sure, why not? All I would have to do is lie, call liberals names, and vote illegally. Then I could sell lots of books.

Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #156752

The intensity of the responses from the democrats lead me to think that they are getting closer to trying to make critizism of liberals “hate speech”. Look for some wacko liberal judge to make this ruling for them.

Posted by: Carnak at June 12, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #156753

Elliotbay, you must have missed it.

I called Coulter a liar. I’ll post it here again in case anyone else missed it the first time:

There is nothing of value to add to a Coulter thread. She is a lying piece of shit attention whore. Saying ‘oh yeah, what about (fill in your pet liberal here)’ doesn’t mean anything to what a waste of time and bytes she is. Read her book, become more stupid. I don’t even care why.
Posted by: Dave at June 10, 2006 11:19 PM

Posted by: Dave at June 12, 2006 2:00 PM
Comment #156780

“quote by philippe Houdoin,At 10.25 am ” Her purpose is to get Rich By selling A book That Attack Liberals, Suppress Her Book Sales, And She will disappear soon.” If you Could Share Your Ideas on how You Would, Suppress her Book?

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 12, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #156790

Dave,

My apologies. I searched for “liar” on the page, not “lying piece of shit attention whore”, which is a more accurate description.

However, I think you should apologize to all the other lying piece of shit attention whores for unfairly comparing them to Coulter.

Posted by: ElliottBay at June 12, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #156791

Back and forth and back and forth. Doesn’t mean anything. Some of you are obviously seminar leftists; others are seminar rightists. You post here because it’s your job. Advance the agenda. Skew the polls. Screw the people.

Ann Coulter is a patriot like Thomas Paine was a patriot. She rattles cages and sparks furious debate. She makes you think.

And that’s what this is all about, for the most part. Beliefs. Democrats believe that Bush is the problem. Bush is the terrorist. Bush caused 9/11. Bush caused Abu-Grabh. In fact, Dems believe that anyone associated with Bush is no good. So, Rumsfeld is no good. Cheney is no good. Rice is no good. Chertof is no good. “Bush lied, soldiers died” and so on.

Just about every democrat diatribe is some variation of this theme.

-crowan

Posted by: Chris Rowan at June 12, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #156822

Dr. Politico Get used to it sometimes the truth hurts.Ann coulter has more heart than the left will ever have.The truth will set you free.Ann is a shining knitette in shining armour.

Posted by: lookingout at June 12, 2006 4:15 PM
Comment #156824

lookingout is a troll. do not feed the trolls.

Posted by: troll hunter at June 12, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #156831

Lattimore espoused some views which were sympathetic to communism, and some which were a qualified endorsement of communism in some cases (when accompanied by chinese nationalism, for example). However, he wasn’t a member of the communist party, and he could not be found to have done anything to undermine the anti-communist cause other than speaking his mind. Like some of McCarthy’s other targets, he retained his job because the evidence wasn’t good enough to be legally defensible. My quibble, though, is with the phrase “top agent” — clearly he wasn’t.

And folks, speaking as a democrat, Coulter is “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” I find her entertaining. And less offensive than some other self-styled pundits whose words actually have an impact upon the lives or careers of people. But it is not helpful to mischaracterize the alternate party by demonizing it.

Posted by: Nikita at June 12, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #156846

I thought the punchline within the punchline about Ann Coulter and the Jersey Girls is that the gals are Republicans!

Posted by: CPAdams at June 12, 2006 5:16 PM
Comment #156891

Coulter serves her masters very well. She is a button man, or if you will, a grunt soldier; pure and simple. Muddy up the waters, stir up emotions: Diversion…The payoff being book sales and fame. (She truly understands how to appeal and trigger base emotions and cloak it in civilised Socratic discourse; just as Goebbels.) As a liberal, I don’t think any of the widows should have received any government compensation. Nothing! But this administration was afraid to tell the suburban soccer moms; grow up. Life is not picket fences and the tax payers are not their brothers’ keeper. (Though I’m sure the wives of the dead janitors and livery drivers are quite aware.) ….After all, is this not the conservative way? If you need help, go to your local church and relatives. But, at the end of the day, is not their underlying reason for entering the political arena: How was this allowed to happen? The discourse should focus on the issue and not the person. Attack the person and not the issue…Tried and true since the beginning of time, and the people still fall for it. Hell, if qualification was required before gaining admission, Alexander Hamilton would have none of us working people in the political arena. Say nothing of the right to vote.

Posted by: Eisai at June 12, 2006 7:02 PM
Comment #156895

Dave,

“All I would have to do is lie, call liberals names, and vote illegally. Then I could sell lots of books.”

Maybe you can use the fowl language too. That way everyone will know how intelligent and articulate you really are.

Posted by: Jim at June 12, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #156901

I’m a Republican and will continue to be one until the Democrats can tell me what they believe in other than abortion,gay marriage and persecuting Christians.Go George go, and God Bless you

Posted by: craig beach at June 12, 2006 7:26 PM
Comment #156964

Hey Max, Just like a wimp liberal to want Rush off the air. That is always the answer for you libs. When you haven’t got the guts or the brains to challenge the things Rush says you want to take him off the air. What next, burning books like Ann Coulter’s? Perhaps you have forgotten that we have freedom of speech in this country. You know that little document called the Constitution. But there is nothing in it that says that you are required to listen.

Posted by: DW at June 12, 2006 9:35 PM
Comment #157000

Wow, some nasty bit of thread here. Oh well, I might as well go for broke, too…

YES, Coulter does indeed speak for the GOP — because she has LITERALLY done so. (S)He has been paid huge amounts of money to speak at OFFICAL Republican functions. This makes her a true Republican orifice, not just some sort of out-there independent pundit. She has been totally embraced by the party and has gotten rich in the process, thus, whatever comes out of her mouth, must be considered pure GOP.
Btw, commenting on the Jersey Girls for their political statements is entirely valid, I agree. Yet, that isn’t what that vicious horsefaced-whore Ann Coulter did. Her attack on these women as “Harpies” and “Witches” whose husbands “wanted to divorce them” before being killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack on the WTC, and who subsequently “enjoyed their husbands death” constituted a highly public PERSONAL ATTACK. Those who cannot tell the difference between those two things are being either being completely disingenuous, or are just too fecking stupid to understand the difference.
Besides, it was a LIE. Ms. Coulter knows nothing about those women, their marriages, or their feelings about their husbands untimely deaths. So, what she said was nothing more than an utterly dishonest SMEAR. If I were to take her tack, I might also say things such as:

George Bush is gay, and has been ever since his initiation with his Skull and Bones buddies at Yale. While in the Whitehouse he’s been taking it deep in the shorts from the fake newsman/hooker Jeff Guckert whenever he gets the chance. When Guckert is busy turning tricks elsewhere, Dubya uses Karl Rove. Karl may be impotent, but he’s good at wielding a crucifix-shaped d*ldo on the president in order to satisfy his anal fixations. It’s common knowledge that Dubya likes to scream his favorite psalm at the top of his lungs in the moments before reaching ultimate pleasure, while Karl laughs manically. Laura pretends she doesn’t know about or hear any of this — but is said to smack the crap out of one or more of the Whitehouse maids on the days when her husband is getting his unholy groove on.

You see? Anyone can make a horrible smears about other people — but that doesn’t make it right, honest, or factual, does it?

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #157009

First time visitor here and not too impressed with the grammar and spelling abilities of these folks who post their inane comments. Took particular offense at the assertion that the Republican party base is a bunch of people that “believes speaking in tongues while rolling around in the floor like idiots is an intended result of intelligent design.” I happen to speak in tongues, but I don’t roll on (nor ‘in’) the floor. Actually, aside from salvation, the intended result of intelligent design is intelligent beings having stewardship over the intelligently created planet. We have failed in both aspects, I fear - being intelligent and practicing stewardship. But then, what do I know? I’m just another knuckle-dragging, hate-mongering conservative. And I happen to like what Ann Coulter has to say even if she is silly and over the top.

Posted by: Bob Burns at June 12, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #157030

Bob Burns (interesting name there, btw)

You speak the (blah-blah-blah) “language of God”, eh? And yet you:
“happen to like what Ann Coulter has to say”

You like what she says? You like that she’s claiming that liberals are “Godless”? You LIKE how she “judges” people, despite the fact that she “may be judged”? Didn’t Jesus have something to say about people who judged, Mr. Burns? Because I’ve read where He did.

“even if she is silly and over the top.”

Yeah, she’s silly and over the top all right. She’s also a complete fraud. A fraud who claims to be a Christian. Just like those who claim to (blah-blah-blah) “speak in tongues” with God.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 12, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #157079

Does anyone here ever actually read Ann Coulter? Sure she skewers Democrats, but that is just because it is so easy. She uses them as a warm up for her views on Republicans (Republican politicians that is). She hasn’t uttered the word “Republican” without the accompanying descriptive “spineless” for about two years now.

As for the Jerssy girls, they brought it on themselves when they entered the political arena. They could have quietly grieved, but they had to become war experts. Well, I don’t care how many members of your family died on 9-11, that doesn’t make you a war expert. That’s why we pick military men for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and not housewives.

Posted by: David C. at June 13, 2006 2:20 AM
Comment #157108

Rodney Brown,

If you Could Share Your Ideas on how You Would, Suppress her Book?

Don’t buy it.

PS: Always happy to share a clever idea.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 6:32 AM
Comment #157118


I wish liberals had the ability to read complete paragraphs and entire thoughts.

Commenting on 1 sentence taken out of context and put in to a literal light.

Seems to be the common place with liberals.

I broke these sentences up for you, to make it easier for libs to read..hehe

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 8:19 AM
Comment #157138

I’m just waiting for Ann to make similar comments about Lisa Beamer. Remember her? That’d be Lisa Beamer, 9/11 widow who has made millions from her husband’s death. She who trademarked the phrase “Let’s Roll” and then licensed it for use by Wal-Mart. She who also established a charity in her husband’s name which doesn’t meet the BBB’s standards for accountability.

Of course, if Ann commented she’d be an equal opportunity polemicist. And we know that’s not the case.

Posted by: Nikita at June 13, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #157160

I want to touch on something that was mentioned early in this blog. If the left is arguing that Tim Russert is on the right and the right is arguing that he is to the left. Could that possibly mean that he is in the center? Why is everything left or right, the majority of us are in the middle. I am far, far away from Coulter and Moore. It’s nice to see a real “journalist” that asks the tough questions to everyone! Tim Russert is that journalist. Not Bill O’Reilly and not Ed Schultz.

Posted by: Brandon at June 13, 2006 10:40 AM
Comment #157186
I wish liberals had the ability to read complete paragraphs and entire thoughts. Commenting on 1 sentence taken out of context and put in to a literal light. Seems to be the common place with liberals.

You’re right MacIrish!
I’m sooo sorry. Let me fix my mistake:

Rodney Brown,

“quote by philippe Houdoin,At 10.25 am ” Her purpose is to get Rich By selling A book That Attack Liberals, Suppress Her Book Sales, And She will disappear soon.” If you Could Share Your Ideas on how You Would, Suppress her Book? Posted by: Rodney Brown

Don’t buy it.

PS: Always happy to share a clever idea.

Hurray, this time I didn’t took Rodney sentence out of its context. Doesn’t change anything in my reply, though… Oh, BTW, being french, I’m not a liberal but, according to *your* political spectrum, a communist. :-p

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 13, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #157220

Philippe, thank you always, (MY political Spectrum ) ha ha . thank you for *your* political wisdom! btw, HEY !I Am Very Moderate! ;^) my french wife, is the Conservative! HA! :>) Rodney -Brun.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 13, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #157224


Im starting to think Philip is a closet Conservative. Unless he had help putting those sentences together.

There is hope for libs..haha

Posted by: MacIrish at June 13, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #157338

I’m not going to re-post the link - it’s up there from a day ago - but at least two of the Jersey Girls really are women who voted for Bush (the voting histories of the other two are not mentioned).

That’s not surprising since the areas in NJ from which they come are traditional GOP strongholds.

After all this time, I am still amazed to see all critics of the administration demonized. However, to redefine the Jersey Girls as liberals goes beyond cynicism (“if it’s criticism, it must be politically motivated”).

But it does server Coulter, Rove and Co. to declare the Jersey Girls, and by association, 9/11 Commission, just another partisan attack - one more piece of ammunition to fire up that ignorant, GOP Values base.

Yep, long time Republican Tom Kean, head of the 9/11 Commission, was actually a Democratic shill.

Posted by: CPAdams at June 13, 2006 5:07 PM
Comment #157407

Dr Politico, you asked if you can count on my vote. The short answer is no one can count on my vote. For the longer answer, what are you running for (as opposed to from, I hope) and what’s your platform?

Second, If Ann is your running partner, advisor or in any way connected to you…Hell, NO!!!

Posted by: gergle at June 13, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #157437

Hey, Adrienne! Great judgment calls there. Hypocrisy is most ripe among those who seeth with righteous indignation, I suppose. Especially ignorant indignation. To clarify: I like what the lady has to say - not all of it nor her manner - and, yes, I would agree that most liberals tend to be “godless”. But, then, according to Jesus whom you seem to know so much about, we are all godless until we repent and give our hearts to Him.

Speaking in tongues is not “talking with God” by the way. It is an unknown heavenly language given by God to those He fills with His Spirit. If you can understand all that then you are doing better than 99% of the rest of us. And judgement is not forbidden - just cautioned. To paraphrase the scripture: “You’d better be careful how and why you judge someone’s words or actions because you may be judged by the same standards. ” That aside, I didn’t detect a lack of judgmental words in your little post.

Do me a favor: do some homework, drop your nasty attitude towards people of faith, and debate with some intelligence and substance.

Posted by: Bobby Burns at June 13, 2006 9:51 PM
Comment #157455
Dave, “All I would have to do is lie, call liberals names, and vote illegally. Then I could sell lots of books.” Maybe you can use the fowl language too. That way everyone will know how intelligent and articulate you really are. Posted by: Jim at June 12, 2006 07:07 PM

How’s this for fowl language: “Cluck….cluck, cluck, cluck. Coulter is a cluck. She sticks clucks in her cluck” ?

Posted by: Dave at June 13, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #157961

Yes, I’ve been ignoring this thread, so I almost missed Bobby Burns’ reply to my post!

Mr. Burns, I’m Agnostic — so I don’t feel the need to play by your religious rules when I speak to you. That said, I’ve read plenty about religion, and have fully absorbed all the biblical dogma — well, at least enough to catch the falsely pious out on their frequent hypocrisy and lack of clear thinking.

I’m of the opinion that those who “speak in tongues” are truly the biggest charlatans and mumbo-jumbo fakers of ALL the pious poseurs in the religiousphere. I tend to think of most of these folks as babbling morons practicing a stupifyingly insane form of “Keep Up With The Joneses” — with their flailing, and frothing, and spouting of utter nonsense — all at a fever pitch. This, in turn, appears to have the bizarre power to prompt their neighbors into the same sort of performance, lest they find themselves completely left out of all the religiouswooning.
To me, it seems like just one big daisy chain of nuttiness, which has unfortunately been passed down from generation to generation. Worst of all, I believe that many of these folks know deep in their hearts that it’s all a pathetically dreadful sham. Knowing this, I wonder how they could live with themselves. Perhaps I’ll never know…

If I judge too harshly, or wrongly, I hope you’ll find a way to forgive me. After all, that is what Jesus told us we should do with one another, right? Despite the fact that I’m not the religious type, I still think that is an excellent philosophy.

On a brighter note, surely you’re aware that there was once a great poet who went by the name of Robert Burns? And btw, much like myself, the man had little patience for religious folk in general, and often liked to tweak them about it, too.
One great poem he wrote describes how sense and true worth are more important than wealth and mere appearances. A wonderful sentiment.
Additionally, Burns once wrote something that seems tailormade for any discussion of an insanely cruel, vicious and heartless person like Ann Coulter. A woman who thinks nothing of personally attacking widows who lost their husbands, simply because they had the collosal nerve to try to find out WHY (yes, even if it would end up making the president look bad). One line especially applies here:
“Man’s inhumanity to man
Makes countless thousands mourn!”

I’ve always considered that a very true statement from a very good poem.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 15, 2006 3:46 AM
Post a comment