She knows how to lay waste her critics;
“I’d always suspected that Sean Penn was the type of “man” who plays with dolls, but I assumed that he liked the life-sized ones you have to inflate first.”
An interview with Ann Coulter, at Right Wing News
Update: Drudge reporting “EXCLUSIVE: ANN COULTER SCORES #1 BOOK WITH 48,408 SOLD, ACCORDING TO BOOKSCAN… TIM RUSSERT ‘FATHERS’ 33,563 COPIES… ANDERSON COOPER 29,447… DEVELOPING…”
Are you for real? Asking Eskimo to “please refrain” from “lumping us all together” while a few posts above generalizing that “most Americans”, are greedy, unethical, amoral, etc.!!!!
What do you not understand about hypocrisy?
Who’s the idiotic “ranter”, you dimwit?
Bravo Penny! It’s that old equation the left pull out: greed = capitalism = bad. Nothing we can do to stop it besides stopping their Canada Council Grants and subsidized education for the non-producers. After all who needs that many philosophy majors anyhow.
I believe someone said it above best. She is the Don Cherry of American Politics. Love her or hate her, you know where she stands.
“I decided that bloggers were just a bunch of losers with no audience and no credibility who sat around their living rooms in pajamas all day hatching crackpot theories that never pan out.” [From Interview #2]
Any comments, Kate?
At least Coulter is an equal-opportunity offender.
Why get so upset about Coulter. She is cotton candy for the obese, the Howard Stern of pundits. No one listens to her for a substantive meal or for serious commentary, but sugary air and shock jock one-liners. And, of course, for guys like Canadian Sentinel, she’s not too hard on the eyes, I suppose.
Ted
Cerberus
Love her or hate her? I pick door #2.
I am at a complete loss how anyone could be a fan of Ann Coulter, no matter where they land on the political spectrum. She has no respect for, you know, facts. Her sole aim is to get a rise out of people – good for her career and book sales perhaps, but journalistic junkfood. She is the very embodiment of “stupidly conservative”.
Apart from that, she’s okay.
I would suspect that even today there are more Canadians in American uniforms fighting the WOT than there are Canadians in Canadian uniforms. I like Anne C. she says what I think, she can afford to! I dare not. If she sells more books and people read them and understand her plain written blunt assesements then the better off we all are!
I would not dismiss Coulter so glibly. One might call her the Camille Paglia of political commentary. Paglia did a lot to restore interest in literature, rescuing from the suffucating air of left-wing academia. Coulter performs a similar function. There is a vast political audience suffocating in the left-wing, politically correct fake-speak that dominates academia and the media. People hear her plain-speaking soundbites and cry, “Air! Air! … at last” as they rush to buy her books. As I noted, she scores a lot of direct hits, but she falls flat when she steps beyond the boundary of her research.
She’s attractive if you are into that whole manorexic thing. She needs some cookies people. The idiotic garbage that she spews is probably a consequence of her brain’s main fuel being ketones (formed during starvation).
Ms Coulter’s aquaintance with ‘facts’ is very much on par with that of Al ‘I invented the Internet’ Gore.
In case no one has followed some of the other links on Kate’s site, Dan Cook has published some information on her scholarly research. Plagiarism is pure intellectual laziness. The simplistic patronizing answers she tends to deliver in what passes as discourse on some of these so called current affairs only proves this point. Name calling and ridiculing are not substitutes for a reasoned argument in favour or against something. She doesn’t make them because she doesn’t have them…must get in the way of her appointments with her publicist.
Unfortunately, it is a symptom of our own intellectual laziness as a society – on both ends of the political spectrum – that individuals like this with their 30 second ‘edgy’ soundbites are somehow driving the agenda. Perhaps its time that people stopped looking for magic bullets out of these sound bites and actually started challenging the premises coming at them from all sides. Four legs good, two legs bad? Four legs good, two legs better? Come on people, either start reading and thinking (as Rand recommended, start with Aristotle and work your way up) or just take your soma and go hide in your left- or right-wing self-reinforcing communities.
As a longtime member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy in good standing, I must say I don’t care for Ann Coulter myself. BUT she obviously gets people on “the other side” so riled up, I can’t say I mind too much. The anger she provokes is so far out of proportion to what she says, that it’s almost fun . . . oh no, Ann’s got another book coming out, Maureen Dowd’s going to have to book an appointment with her plastic surgeon!
However, for serious commentary, there are far better sources. And for serious and humorous commentary, there are also better sources. Both north and south of the border. What Ann knows how to do is write (or say) “the killer quote” (as Kathy Shaidle has noted) – which gets publicity and book sales but may not make one very happy.
As for David – if you can judge a people based on their television programming, well, my brother, you’re not going to want to know what I’ve learned about Canadians based on the CBC.
Meg the Friendly American in Edmonton
So many negative comments, I had to buy the book.
I think I’ll buy her book also. She has an over the top comical aggressive style, but there is nothing stupid about this lady…
Ann Coulter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
As an undergraduate in Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences, Coulter helped launch a conservative newspaper, The Cornell Review, and was a member of the Delta Gamma national women’s sorority [8]. She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School, where she achieved membership in the Order of the Coif and was an editor of The Michigan Law Review. Coulter often wore a fur coat to class, even in temperate weather. Fellow students interpreted her wearing of fur as a political statement directed at “PETA loving” classmates.
At law school, Coulter shared an apartment with human and civil rights advocate Cindy Cohn, who is now the Legal Director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. At Michigan, Coulter founded a local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[4] Coulter practiced corporate law for four years before becoming a congressional aide, in 1994, to Republican Senator Spencer Abraham, who served on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
In a long essay called Political Correctness — the Revenge of Marxism [link at Little Green Footballs: Fjordman: The Revenge of Marxism]this final paragraph:
As William S. Lind points out: “While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Americans realize that Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realization spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance” and “multiculturalism.”
Political Correctness is Marxism with a nose job. Multiculturalism is not about tolerance or diversity, it is an anti-Western hate ideology designed to dismantle Western civilization. If we can demonstrate this, an important part of the battle has already been won.
THIS IS WHY I APPRECIATE ANN COULTER SO MUCH — HER BOLD AND COURAGEOUS ATTACK ON POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WHICH IS KILLING US.
“This is the woman who said, “Canada is lucky we let them exist.” on live television.”
I see you “forgot” to mention why she said this. It was in response to Carolyn Parrish’s disgraceful, childish, and embarrassing stunt on our state-run TV when she took a George Bush doll and repeatedly stomped on it with her boot. It appears that you have no problem with that, but what would you have said if a member of Bush’s administration did this to a doll of our PM?
“Ann Coulter:”I decided that bloggers were just a bunch of losers with no audience and no credibility who sat around their living rooms in pajamas all day hatching crackpot theories that never pan out.”
Curiously, Canadian Observer “forgot” to give us the entire Coulter quote, which was this:
“I decided that bloggers were just a bunch of losers with no audience and no credibility who sat around their living rooms in pajamas all day hatching crackpot theories that never pan out. They did a special about this on CBS News (on 60 minutes II) just the other night.”
Clearly Coulter was mocking CBS News and 60 Minutes. Indeed, further down in the interview she says that she regularly reads some blogs.
“…Sheehan is just as uneducated and il-informed as Coulter.”
OMG! Take a look at Coulter’s education and history and then come back and tell us she is uneducated and ill-formed. Honestly, you come across as, well, uneducated and ill-informed.
Kate’s post has certainly brought out the “And I support Stephen Harper and George Bush” phonies pretending to be conservatives.
“She is a caustic and gifted speaker with a quick wit. She lacks education, and class. She seems to have a knowledge base like the delta of the Mackenzie river, miles wide and only inches deep.
Ann Coulter’s educational and work history:
“Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.”
And yet we have all these “real conservatives” trashing her intelligence. Who do you think you are fooling? Go back to Amazon and trash Coulter’s book under the typical “Lifetime Republican” user name.
Oh, I agree she’s smart. Al Franken is also smart.
So the question is: why do smart partisan people feel the need to rely simply on being smart-asses?
I guess it sells. And it’s easier to do vapid one-liners of anger on Leno.
Problem for someone like Coulter or Franken is that, while they continue to assist in the dumbing down of cultural and political discourse, they do more to organize and inspire their opponents than their supporters.
Another thing about such political candy floss is that it relies almost exclusively on the negative attack. I frankly have no idea what kind of world Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Al Franken, etc. envision in real life since they spend all of their time simply and simplistically attacking the other side.
And like candy floss: no one will remember them when they’re gone but we’ll all have this sticky stuff on our fingers that’s picked up all of the dirt. And we’ll still be hungry.
Ted
Cerberus
Are you seriously claiming that Al Franken is as intelligent as Ann Coulter? Come on, Ted!
I am glad that we have someone on our side who treats liberals just the way they treat conservatives–like shit. No wonder New Jersey Democrats are calling for Coulter’s book to be banned:
http://tinyurl.com/lfcb6
They attack her as a Nazi but it appears that they want to have a good old-fashioned Nazi book-burning.
I’m sick and tired of being called a barbarian (as former Vancouver Mayor Campbell said of conservatives), a nazi, a fascist, a reichwinger, and a homophobe because I support the 2000 year definition of marriage.
I’m tired of us always being Mr/Mrs Nice. Look how well being nice to the Democrats worked out for Dubya. Coulter is a flamethrower and comes at liberals with both barrels blazing. No one can stir up the liberal hate machine like Coulter and I like the way she exposes them. Liberals can’t debate the issues so they put forth tragic figures (who you are forbidden to question) to push their agenda (Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, etc). Ann Coulter has exposed that stunt and – hopefully – put an end to it.
Note that Coulter challenged the Jersey Girls to debate her on the FNC’s Hannity & Colmes. The Jersey Girls refused her challenge.
TALK ABOUT SOFT BALLS
I was going to pass, but you’ve collectively now convinced me to buy the book. I think the comparison between Coulter and Franken/Moore is misplaced. They are and always were entertainers. Coutler plainly has a sharp legal mind and inside experience with the court system.
Ted, people will remember the Democrats had Micheael Moore sitting next to former President Carter as an honoured guest at the 2004 Democratic convention.
That was their call and it is now part of American presidential political history.
It seems Ann Coulter is doing one thing to Canadian Conservatives. Dividing them. Once again the ‘red’ Joe Who type Conservatives are exposing themselves. Interesting.
I’m all for her. Anybody that can make politically correct cowards melt down into a mumbling toxic lump is ok in my books. Not to mention, exposing the vapid, brainless, factless left.
“…they do more to organise and inspire their opponents than their supporters.”
Interesting thought. Although I think John Kerry, Howard Dean, Al Gore, Paul Martin and Jack Layton have proven to do a far better job of that.
Toontown Kid:
I’m not comparing intelligence of anyone. Coulter may indeed be very intelligent; Franken may be very intelligent. You just wouldn’t know if from their books. They are empty attack books from historically meaningless shock-jock pundits that lower the discussion. None of them have anything positive to contribute about what kind of country they would like: it’s all focused on bashing the other side with witty one-liners.
Is this what conservatives cherish? Is this what progressives have been reduced to? A pox on both their houses I say: they don’t represent the common conservative or the common liberal or your average working family… in any way.
And to pick up one of Coulter’s talking points you so willingly echo: “(who you are forbidden to question) to push their agenda (Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, etc)”. You are kidding me right? Since when have conservatives had any bit of reluctance attacking Cindy Sheehan? Since when did Republicans and conservative groups have any hesitation to go for Cleland’s jugular in challenging his patriotism – a man who lost all of his limbs in serving his nation at war? It’s a problem that didn’t need to be addressed and certainly not in Coulter’s vainglorious, look-at-me!, look-at-me-piss-on-civility!, nasty manner. Can’t take them on on the issues, say they are making profits off of their dead ones and that they prefer their loved ones dead.
I don’t get riled up by her. It’s like listening to Howard Stern or Al Franken. A lot of funny lines, shock-jock smartass punditry, but in the end it’s just entertainment that you can’t take too seriously. I certainly don’t.
Ted
Cerberus
I think I will buy her book and not go to Gores movie. The applause for Ann on Leno last night even shocked him. Much louder than for Moore. She is exposing how stupid and dangerous political correctness has been. The jersey girls are not the only widows of 9/11. More have spoken in support of Bush than against. Why aren’t they on TV. Ann is right, you are not supposed to say anything against these victims. I don’t think it will work the same when they bring out the next victim. Now even the truth about Katrina is making headlines, and it wasn’t Bush who went to the strip shows, bought porn videos etc. Too bad for the next city hit by a vicious storm. The msm, especially CNN and Anderson Cooper really goofed up in their reporting. I think more cdns and americans are questioning everything they hear or see on the news.
Ted, have you read any of Coulters’ books?
She is much smarter than Al Franken and Michael Moore and also way too smart for most progressives to be able to debate her and win.
I assume by progressive you mean socialists or social democrats.
The left keeps changing the names but the progressive ideas are still based on communist and socialist philosophy.
That is the inherent problem with progressives as socialism and communism are PROVEN LOSERS.
Have you read any of Franken’s or Moore’s books, Concrete? Same level of trype.
Her smarts don’t come out as all that smart or certainly not any smarter. And, like I said, it’s all negative and attacks. No effort to describe the kind of world they want to live in; just an attack on the other side.
By progressive I don’t mean socialism. But if you want to spin this into yet another boring left-right rant that caricatures one side and then the other, be my guest. I’ve been deliberately non-partisan in my attacks on Coulter by being equally negative on Franken and Moore. I’m focusing on their approach – nasty and negative – and not content. They really are mirror images of each other (though truth be told, I’d rather be looking at Coulter than Michael Moore or Al Franken).
Ted
I have read them all. Have you?
You can call them negative and not smart if it makes you progressives (whatever that means) feel superior but they are actually satirists and the content IS the important issue as they are commenting on current world affairs.
I also am pretty sure that Moore and Coulter and Franken KNOW the what kind of world they want to live in as they ALL are very well to do and they all live in luxury in Manhatten.
Also, IMHO Canadians do not want and cannot afford to enact more progressive laws that enshrine the progressive visions of how the world should be.
Penny,
This is the problem with the right. As soon as their balloons start losing air they start lumping/misreading and start calling names like moonbat and dimwit. How childish!
Get over it…Lose your egotistical superior frame of refrence and open your mind. It’s liberating to let new ideas in.
Her comment last night on Leno about the “cvility” of political discourse in America was bang on.
My critique of of these celebrity entertainers has nothing to do with being a liberal or a progressive. Tons of conservatives dislike Coulter as well. Here’s a list of prominent conservative blogs in addition to the many conservative voices in this comments thread: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2006_06_01_digbysblog_archive.html#115017687147737423
I don’t even hate her, just like I don’t hate Howard Stern or Imus. They all fit into this niche of shock jocks who make their money by going out of the way to say the most shocking thing with the ultimate goal of… shocking you so you come back for more. Like the car crash on the side of the highway.
I just think they all lower the debate, and offer no solutions (whether I agree with them or not) but only negative and nasty attacks on the other side. As satirists, they are a step up from the real hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh or Cindy Sheehan’s because they are at least witty.
But they will all be forgotten because they offer very little substance.
Ted
Cerberus
“You are kidding me right? Since when have conservatives had any bit of reluctance attacking Cindy Sheehan?”
The NYT’s Maureen Dowd regarding Cindy Sheehan: “The moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute”
“Since when did Republicans and conservative groups have any hesitation to go for Cleland’s jugular in challenging his patriotism – a man who lost all of his limbs in serving his nation at war?”
I don’t recall anyone questioning his patriotism. However Al Hunt claimed that Cleland lost 3 limbs on a reconnaissance mission. In November 2003, Eric Boehlert wrote in Salon: “During the siege of Khe Sanh, Cleland lost both his legs and his right hand to a Viet Cong grenade.”
But it seems that Cleland dropped a grenade when hopping off a helicopter because he wanted to stay and have some beer with his friends. Cleland himself admitted this and said he was no hero and that is why he didn’t get a Purple Heart. A tragic accident to be sure, but when Coulter accurately pointed this out, she was attacked by Senator Jack Reed on the Senate floor, Molly Ivins called her column error-ridden, and Al Hunt called it a lie.
So what was the reason for sending Max Cleland out to Bush’s ranch – reporters in tow – to plead with Bush to stop the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads (pretending Bush was behind these ads)?
“None of them have anything positive to contribute about what kind of country they would like”
Yesterday, Coulter accurately pointed out: “Thousands of gay men died and their blood is on the hands of the so-called AIDS Activists who thought it was more important to push their political and social agendas [AIDS didn’t discriminate… heterosexuals engaged in sexual activity were just as likely to get AIDS as homosexuals political correctness BS] than it was to educate gay men about the dangers of public, anonymous, promiscuous, multiple-partner unprotected sex.”
Are you saying that Coulter is wrong? Or is she forbidden to say this because it we are talking about homosexuals who died from AIDS?
I admit that Coulter is a no-nonsense bomb thrower who at times goes too far. I would have changed, in regards to the 4 Jersey Girls, “enjoying” to “exploiting” their husband’s deaths, but she is dead-on 99% of the time and is no dummy.
Believe me, Al Franken would not want to debate Ann Coulter. She is a liberal slayer and deep down inside, I suspect that you know this. I always get a kick how this skinny woman lays waste to her critics and makes them foam at the mouth. She has had her every word analyzed on the numerous books and columns she wrote, and the thousands of TV/radio appearances and speeches she has given, yet the left has very very little dirt on her–unless resorting to calling her Mann “Adam’s Apple” Coulter is dirt.
Michael Moore can say outrageous things about Bush and he gets a prime seat next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC. Cindy Sheehan can call Bush the biggest terrorist in the world, the Fuhrer, and a lying b*stard, but when I complain about this, I am attacked for being heartless to this “poor woman who lost her son in Iraq.” Ward Churchill calls the 9-11 dead in the Twin Towers “little Eichmanns” and the left defends him by claiming free speech. But when it comes to Ann Coulter, it is a different story on the left. Indeed, 2 NJ Democrats want to ban her book in the state. I get so tired of these double standards.
Did you hear the reception Coulter got on Jay Leno last night? It appears that some of the public is thankful that she exposed the dirty Democrat “let’s put forth tragic figures to push our agenda; it will make it tough for others to discredit them” trick.
Kate: On civility, she missed the point. She said things were considered “civil” when there were only three TV news networks. You can try to argue they were partisan but they were civil. She and Franken and their like are simply not civil.
If she wanted to be truthful, she could have suggested that we go read the newspapers and pamphleteers from the founding of the US until about the 1950s. Anything could and was said about your opponents. Come the 1950s, the tone was lowered, conformed.
Ted
“As satirists, they are a step up from the real hate mongers like Rush Limbaugh or Cindy Sheehan’s because they are at least witty.”
Now Rush Limbaugh is a hatemonger–just like Cindy Sheehan.
Good grief!
RE: “go read the newspapers and pamphleteers from the founding of the US”
I have read lots and lots and lots of them.
Ted seems to think they should have been suppressed or had their “tone” lowered and conformed.
Yeah right./s Had their printing presses smashed is more like it.
Is 1950 when uncivil became anti-progressive and civil became progressive?
Hmmm, that coincides with TV and the beginning of the nightly news!/s
Just because I would prefer that people conduct themselves in a civil manner and try to engage in intelligent debate, concrete, does not mean that I would do anything to stop them from proving themselves to be idiots and morons and generally nasty people.
Toontown Kid: my apologies for comparing Rush to Cindy. You are right. No comparison. Whereas she is a leftwing loony who vents bile and hatred toward George Bush and the Republican hawks, Rush is a rightwing loony who vents bile and hatred toward all non-far right Christians. Rush is much more inclusive in his hatemongering. Thank you for the correction.
Ted
Cerberus
Ted,
You say your argument is non-partisan and then you have to go and goof it all up with your ‘Rush’ statement.
And you wonder why those in the right find the left illogical and hypocritical.
Hey, he’s as far right as Cindy Sheehan is left, just as full of angry rhetoric as she is. That’s the only point. I’m not picking between them or commenting on their “substance”, that’s all I meant be non-partisan.
Ted
Cerberus
“by” non-partisan.
Canada would be a far,far better country if it had one man who had the balls to talk like Coulter.Understandable why you guys hate her so much.Penis envy.
Does anyone have a link to the dialog, I fell asleep before leno started so I missed it.
I have to concede that liberal and progressive Ted EXACTLY represents Coulters point that conservative opinion and satire is dismissed by liberals as nasty, moronic and idiotic and therefore not worth debating.
Re: “If she wanted to be truthful, she could have suggested that we go read the newspapers and pamphleteers from the founding of the US”
If I may be a just a bit more idiotic, to whom and to what are you referring?
Ben Franklin is one of my faves when it comes to a founding US pamphleteer.
Concrete:
No you are deliberately misconstruing what I said, just as Coulter does.
I think there are indeed some great conservative writers and thinkers out there who hold positions diametrically opposed to my own in many regards. William F. Buckley Jr. and Milton Friedman being the quintessential “old school” examples, but even in Canada you have conservatives like Andrew Coyne or even, frankly, Stephen Harper when he was a private citizen. I don’t consider them “nasty, moronic and idiotic and therefore not worth debating.” Indeed, it is important to debate them because good ideas get refined by debate.
But people like Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Cindy Sheehan, etc. are not interested in debate. They are interested in “scoring points” and attacking the other side. They each think they are 100% right and righteous and full of attacks without a hint of a positive message about how life should be lived. I’ll give you another example of what I’m talking about: I don’t agree with the conclusions of most of these http://www.thomasnelson.com/consumer/dept.asp?dept_id=111005&TopLevel_id=110000, but they offer solutions. Heck, even this book (www.bible.com/), one of my favs, spends most of its time focusing on a positive or at least constructive message instead of negative attacks on non-believers.
(And BTW, the reference to the early journalists is a historical reference to early newspaper writers. Originally, there was not the same concept of “news”. The existence of newspapers and pamphlets was to espouse the proprietors point of view. I chuckle anytime anyone accuses either – note the non-partisan “either” please, concrete – the Democrat or Republican media, or Liberal or Conservative media are acting more partisan than ever before. Alexander Hamilton died in a duel over commentary in partisan newspapers. We don’t know partisanship like they knew partisanship back then. If you are a media historian, like I was/still try to be, it can be quite fascinating to read the “news” from back then (and even up until the end of the Victorian age) and compare the same story in two newspapers. Far more partisan and willing to make express reference to rumour than now. If you think today’s right and left whine on and on about how the country is on the precipice of an abyss if the other side wins, you will really enjoy reading that old stuff.)
Over time, and more particularly during the first half of the 20th century, there was a “professionalization” of newspapers (just like most every other trade and industry during this time) and we started to seem more of a division between “news” and “opinion” that didn’t exist before.)
Ted
Cerberus
Coulter’s latest column –
Townhall.com
Party of rapist proud to be godless
Jun 14, 2006
by Ann Coulter
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/anncoulter/2006/06/14/201333.html
The establishment’s current obsession with me is the MSM’s last stand. They’ve deployed the whole lineup of yesterday’s power brokers against me, and all they’ve accomplished is to make my book the No. 1 book in the country. In other words, their efforts to defeat me have just created more people like me. Now who’s stuck in an unwinnable quagmire, losers?
Take note, conservatives: No American need ever fear the liberal establishment again. It’s all over but the sobbing.
Back when there were only three TV stations and no Internet, talk radio or Fox News, it used to be so easy for the MSM to destroy reputations — Joe McCarthy, Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Robert Bork, Dan Quayle, Oliver North, Clarence Thomas, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Paula Jones and Linda Tripp, to name a few of the MSM’s prey.
Liberals aren’t having so much fun now that the rabbit has the gun.
Dick (penis envy, tee hee!).
Got a chuckle out of your remark. Reminded me of that description of Margaret Thatcher: The Only Man in the Cabinet. Bingo. She was also, of course, justly celebrated for that other famous phrase: “this is no time to go wobbly” which Ann Coulter probably picked up somehwere along the line.
Ted: believe it or not, I sort of agree with many of your observations. But they are incomplete. Limbaugh and Coulter, for sure, are on the “cheaper” end of the market, but they do fill a real need — play a geniune role in the “marketplace of ideas” as it were.
Simple parallel: I like classical music. I hate “Pops Concerts” — bit of snob here. However, my wife explained to me that Pops Concerts do play a valuable role by introducing people to classical music who otherwise may not make the plunge.
Limbaugh: I DO imagine him in white shoes and white belt, acknowledge that he’s a bit of ham, etc. I’ve only heard him a few times. In one show I heard in a motel room while travelling in the US, a young lady called in asking (earnestly) how she might determine if she was a liberal or conservative. Honestly, what followed was quite remarkable, even for people like myself who are steeped in much weightier stuff. He asked her a bunch of well-targeted questions, and while it was radio, you could see the lightbulb turn on in her mind. Not a liberal she felt.
Like that.
Me No Dhimmi:
Pop culture has its role.
But your example doesn’t really apply here. If I wanted to find out what kind of world a “liberal” world would look like and I read Al Franken, I wouldn’t get a dumbed down pop version of some intellectual theory. I only learn what he thinks about the right.
Similarly with Coulter (although admittedly somewhat less so with Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy). Coulter’s latest is called “Godless” so it implies and she has repeated that there needs to be more (right wing version of) God in society. But read her books, is it some dumbed down or pop version of something Dobson would write or even Buckley? Bill O’Reilly in his pop culture books at least tells you what he thinks society needs (beyond less liberalism).
Look, I don’t hate her. She’s just cotton candy entertainment.
Ted
Cerberus
RE: “Coulter’s latest is called “Godless” so it implies and she has repeated that there needs to be more (right wing version of) God in society.”
Coulter is merely stating that left wing philosophy and politics IS Godless which is hardly news.
But it does seem to drive the Democrats nuts to be reminded of it.
For instance, President Clinton has often made speechs in churchs in Harlem.
Does that concern the left that maybe Mr. Clinton thinks there needs to be more (left wing version of) God in society?
The answer of course is no because that would be ridiculous.
Actually, as she herself claimed on Leno last night, no one seems to be upset that she called them Godless. So, like you said, hardly news.
My point is she’s written yet another book fully dedicated with why one group of people is wrong, instead of telling us what she thinks is right. It’s another attack book instead of constructive input.
If she thinks being Godless is so bad, why is she so reluctant to tell us what her God-based society would be like?
I have the same criticism of someone like Al Franken: okay, okay, we get it, Bush and the chickenhawks are lying liars destroying civilization, but what Al would you propose is a better way for us to live? Give us a realistic alternative.
Ted
Cerberus
Ann Coulter used to be Andy Coulter. Check out her Adam’s apple. I guess conservatives aren’t as homophobic as I thought…seems like a lot of posters are attracted to him/her.
What the hell does famous pipeliner mean? Actually, I don’t wanna know.
RE: “If she thinks being Godless is so bad, why is she so reluctant to tell us what her God-based society would be like?”
We already know. We live in one.
Her God-based society is like England or the USA or Canada where the God-based systems have stood for something like 800 years, 230 years and 140 years.
We also know what a Godless society is like.
It is like Communist USSR and China or any one of the many, many cultures throughout the world with practices that are abhorent to Christian societys.