ANOTHER BIG FAT WHUH?????

Ann Coulter doesn't drive GOP votes in one direction or the other. She makes her living maligning liberal politics and politicians. It's a pretty simple business plan... and not too hard most of the time!

The fact of the matter is that I find it nearly as entertaining to read the liberals on AD acting as if Ann Coulter is a Republican Senator from Texas... like the substance of her 'faggot' comment seriously will sway upcoming elections or the tide of politics in America. It's absurd.

She's been making snide remarks for YEARS, of which most are nearly this 'cutting'. I think her sentiment in reference to the way John Edwards acts was spot on, as do many people in the US. We were sayin' this man was 'light in his loafers' years ago. Did people laugh at her remark rightfully? OF COURSE! While I could've thought of other words that might've been more appropriate... no blood no foul. Her job is to act this way. She makes tons of money doing it. Right, wrong, or indifferent however... she does not and has never steered American politics. The only people (as a generality) that read her books or columns are conservatives.

This is where I got it - YOU said
which, if you take the emotion out of it, is actually a statement based in fact. Cheney is the architect of the war, and if he were gone, leaving Bush rudderless and leaving a power vacuum there, it is quite possible the tide would turn and fewer people would lose their lives because of Dick Cheney



The idea that “people would not die” if Cheney died is too ridiculous to discuss. As I said he does not run the war and we would not just “run out” if he died. (Ruderless???) - come on please.

And saying it might be better for (soldiers or anyone) if another person (Cheney) was dead is one hell of a lot more than Coulters joke.

I know plenty of former Republicans who cite the party's "meanness" as one reason they are former Republicans. Coulter is a symptom of a party that cares more about bashing gays than limiting government.
Barry Goldwater famously said government should stay off our backs, out of our pocketbooks, and out of our bedrooms. Much like avowed libertarian Bill Maher, I'm sure modern conservatives would lump him in with "the left" for that sentiment.

So maybe she doesn't drive votes away from the Republican party all by herself, but she's a symptom of something that does. I for one would disagree with those who think that's a good thing; this country needs two viable political parties. While I'd recommend actual conservatives (as opposed to Christofascist gaybashers) support the Libertarian party, I get the impression some have an emotional connection to what the Republican party used to be.

Christofascist Gaybashers? Come on. Seriously. That's enough. No one is making comments about Uberliberal Homocommunists. People might have different views than you, but that doesn't make them fascists, it makes them American and we should be grateful that we can openly express those ideas.

Many republicans are turned off by the current GOP, myself included. The Republican Party as a whole in the US has left its roots, but I'm VERY confident that this election will help turn the tide.

In reference to Ann Coulter, she generally doesn't necessarily even spew anything without objective factual information. I think what gets under liberals skin as a general rule is the language she uses, and of course her use of sarcasm. However- rarely are you going to hear her make comments about policy that you can even argue. Go to her site and read her columns. Maybe then you can argue her statements objectively. I'd be very surprised if most liberals have even read her columns...

I find this all rather touching.

In a gag reflex sort of way.

It shows just how much politics can warp one's sense of perspective.

Its shameful the way some try and defend remarks on both sides.

..and the blanket generalizations, we're all better than this.

that said this thread is about Coulter.

Crass, Counter-productive, not at all comical Ann Coulter.

Duh, its a joke. It's just a stupid, offensive, childish one.

Takes me right by the eight grade.

This just in:

Ann Coulter eats her boogers

So you think it's a good thing when Coulter uses a childish attack on John Edwards as an excuse to defend Isaiah Washington for physically assaulting his co workers while shouting slurs? It's a good thing to beat up your co workers and call them "faggot"?
Do you think it's a good thing to speak positively of terrorists like Timothy McVeigh? To "joke" about killing people you disagree with?
As for factual information, apparently if you verify people's prejudices they won't check your facts.

If Republicans don't like being called Christofascist gaybashers they might want to consider not behaving like they are. When you repeatedly invite bigots like Coulter to speak at important meetings and laugh and applaud as she promotes violence against gays, people are going to assume you agree with her.

Ummm... your basing your argument on a half-hearted argument from the "Daily Howler"?
Please- as I've already said 100 times (but you seemingly miss), that maybe Coulter should've used another word. You don't find her joke funny, but in this thread you've gone all the way from saying Coulter (paraphrased) drives Republican voters to that Republican campaigns are based on prejudice.

You've not proven any of it. Not once. Coulter can be crass, I'll give you that. Some people find Carlos Mencia funny, and he's very crass. The issue for many in my opinion is that Coulter does use facts, and in many cases she has at least a shred of a point. The post you used (if you'd have read it) argues semantics such as whether citings are plural or not. It takes literally a couple of footnotes out of one book, and never states that she's wrong. If I were a writer, I might not be so brash as Coulter, but then again I might not sell books.

Promoting violence against Gays? Seriously. This is ridiculous. Even after reading your post, all she did was poke fun of A GAY person... not ALL GAYS.

I work closely with a man originally from Mexico. Anytime he hears anything about Nascar or anything else "country", he makes the dueling banjo noise. If a trailer park gets hit by a tornado he tells me to run home and save my family. I make jokes about him having a side job pushing an ice cream cart or asking if he got picked up in front of Home Depot. We're BOTH making fun of A White person or A Mexican person, but neither of us hate the whole races.

As far as using the term "Christofascists", I think many of us could make the same "Uberliberal Homocommunist" statements (or whatever other absurd moniker we can find). Again- the glory of the US is that you'll find that no less than 70% of Americans associate themselves with Christianity. Many of them could care less about homosexuality as a whole. Another easily proven generailzation about Republicans is that they are as or more likely to be Christian than Democrats. Does that mean that Republicans are fascists? Nope. It JUST MIGHT mean that they disagree, but no one is oppressing anyone... or even approaching fascism.

Inflammatory speech, calling conservatives "Christofascists" isn't any better than Ann Coulter using the term "faggot". But then again considering the political affiliation of America's Debate... I'm sure someone will begin arguing immediately.

Her "satirical" point was that Isaiah Washington was a victim because he faced consequences for physically assaulting his co workers while yelling slurs. How is that not defending violence against gays?
You prove my point. Plenty of Christians don't want to force others to live by their faith, and don't act in a fascist manner.
Not conservatives. If you paid attention to my comments you would note that I approvingly quoted Barry Goldwater as someone modern "conservatives" (who demonstrate no adherence to anything resembling conservative values) would lump in as "the left". Do you know who Barry Goldwater was?
My point was that the Republican party and the "conservative" movement have abandoned actual conservatism in favor of fascistically enforced Christianity and gaybashing.

There is nothing absurd about coarsening the political debate in this country.

I'm sorry you ignored my attempt to open a discussion on Coulter's influence and impact on how conservatives are viewed. I think you're kidding yourself if you think people make a distinction between her and the philosophy she supposedly champions. That's one reason why McCain, Giuliani and Romney quickly repudiated her remarks about Edwards.

Coulter has more influence that a Republican Senator from Texas in the amount of heat she can generate. Here you had several Republican candidates for the presidency show up at a gathering of prominent and powerful conservatives and the only thing that's making news is one anorexic bimbo's foul mouth. Now that is absurd.

Whether or not "guilt by association" is fair is not the point. Ann Coulter is not the face of "compassionate conservatism." She is strident, nasty and brutish. Her shrillness has made her the Cindy Sheehan of the Right. Barely tolerated, she is just as likely to skewer her allies as well as her adversaries.



So that makes it okay? As long as this awful woman is making it's fine for her to denigrate gay people, 9/11 widows and suggest poisoning Supreme Court justices? Good Lord, whatever happened to the notion of civility? Ann Coulter is Andrew Dice Clay in a mini-skirt.

This snickering swipe at the sexual orientation of John Edwards as being "light in his loafers" is just sophomoric gay-bashing impersonating humor. Nobody's fooled by it. For someone like Coulter who looks like a bad tranny to cast aspersions on anyone's sexuality all you can say is, "Honey, you don't exactly got it goin' on yourself."

Even in a world where Madonna has to strap herself to a cross to get any attention these days, there is a line between merely being provocative and sheer bad taste and Coulter passed the red line a long time ago. She adds nothing to the body politic except the occasional knee to the groin.




What gets under my skin is the fact Coulter thinks she's being funny when she's only being obnoxious and isn't smart enough to know the difference.

I have no interest in reading Ann Coulter's column as I already know they are skewed by her hatred of liberalism. She is not an objective journalist and in fact, she isn't a journalist at all. She's a polemicist and any shred of objectivity and balance goes out the door when she is involved. Why should anyone try to argue her statements objectively when she doesn't use objectivity in her statements?

You're kidding here, right? Show me anything, any tiny shred of evidence anywhere, that proves or even hints that John Edwards is gay. You can't, because there is none.

Mitt Romney found out the hard way what associating with Ann Coulter can do. He introduced her warmly, she endorsed him (sort of) as a candidate, and now Mitt is backpedalling as fast as he can to distance himself from the shrew.

The fact that she makes money only proves there is a market for her hateful, fact-deprived drivel, as there is for many things people might consider offensive and worthless.

I'd venture that we could begin a never ending and heated debate about objectivity in journalism, beginning with the Iraq war and US Media. I suppose that might get us in trouble in this thread.

That being said, most all of her columns use factual information written in a way that you might disagree with. I have to admit that I generally don't read her column either. However, how can you call her (paraphrased again) a racist (as you have) or any other terrible names if you don't know anything about her columns? If you haven't read her books, don't read her columns, aren't you forming your opinion based simply on other people's opinions?

Here's my analogy. I work for an international communications provider. I know literally every competitor in and out in reference to pricing, how they do business, and even have sample contracts that I got from old customers of theirs in many cases. It's important that if I have to form an opinion, I know exactly why we're better. Shouldn't this be the case in your opinion of Ann Coulter? In my eyes, if you don't read her columns (and/or books), your opinions are really just prejudice. This might lend some creedence to your feelings about Conservative White men.... hmm....

AND to answer a previous statement... no, unequivocally I do not HATE you. The only person that gets that status is Nick Saban (I'm a huge LSU fan!). Truthfully, I don't know that you can lay that label on Ms Coulter either. It's possible, but if we don't live next door to the lady, don't spend happy hours with her.. don't share tips on growin' the best summer tomatoes...

If you think she is “fact deprived” you have not read what she writes. And her “jokes” and even nasty (non-joke) remarks are tame compared with many nasty liberals – who apparently you think are just fine including Chaney dead remarks by the idiot "comedian". So please spare us.

Would you be speaking of Bill Maher, an outspoken libertarian? Anyone who opposes the current administration is a "liberal"?

I don't just "think" she is fact-deprived, I know she is. I've read some of her screeds (as much as I can stomach, anyway ), and she plays fast and loose with facts. She's damn good at it, I'll give her that. She has a substantial portion of the population convinced, and she's laughing all the way to the bank. Spare me indeed.

By the way, she is on record admitting she is a polemicist.

What does making a statement about Cheney's destructive policies, that have in fact led to the deaths of thousands of people have to do with Coulter using a homophobic slur to attack Edward's personally and villify gays as a group.

If Cheney doesn't want to take the heat, he should lie and prevaricate in order to start misadventures in foreign countries that kill thousands.

From you posted link
The book is primarily focused on the controversy over real and alleged Soviet espionage in the post-World War II era. We can certainly stipulate that Soviet agents who worked covertly inside the United States government did commit treason.
To do this, she condemns the left and liberals for defending the proven (and alleged) Soviet spies at the time and the Democratic Party officials for not taking the threat seriously enough. Many have offered serious critiques of the actions of individuals in this era. But Coulter implies that nearly every person left of center is culpable for failing to take action to prevent a small group of Soviet agents and their willful collaborators from infiltrating the US government (a conclusion based in part on evidence that did not come out for years, including decrypted Soviet cables released in 1995). She frequently implies that liberal attacks on Senator Joseph McCarthy and the alleged hysteria of McCarthyism were nothing more than an attempt to cover up this widespread treachery:

And yet if you read here book you find the above is less than accurate. What she claimed, and has facts based on now released Soviet intel, is that every person Mr. McCarthy went after (and was crucified for doing so by liberal Congressmen and the NYT) was guilty of being a Soviet spy. The soft ball statement above “Many have offered serious critiques of the actions of individuals in this era.” Really doesn’t cover it. The left hounded McCarthy for doing his job and – he was RIGHT. And I am still waiting for the NYT to admit that they were dead wrong – but instead we get innacurate movies that essentially say the opposite. I won’t be holding my breath for retractions from NYT.

Another ad hominem attack by Ted. The "left" didn't hound McCarthy and his illegal investigation: loyal freedom loving Americans did.

I hope conservatives make a defense of McCarthyism one of their campaign slogans. It's perfectly captures conservative values.

Ad hominem against who?
I love your one liners with literally no backup. What did he do that was “illegal” and how, based on the info we have today, was he “wrong”. Were the people he named Soviet spies or not? Do you even know or care? I doubt it.

Don’t worry – McCarthy has been too villanized to ever get a fair hearing

You attacked the Left for attacking McCarthy. What Left, who, everybody whose liberal? Sound like your complaint again me for talking about conservatives and their attacks on the Constitution and common sense. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

By the way, this is the same Ann Coulter who a month ago called Gore a "total fag".

Do you see a pattern forming with this particular spokesperson for conservatism? What is it with conservative leaders and homophobia?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200607280001

We've proven? Who is we? When have you proven this? And to who?

I can recall numerous times where Bill O'Reilly claimed that college campuses were overrun with liberal professors. College professors are among the most educated people in our country. But that's really not the heart of this argument. The heart of the argument is about a single woman in her upper 40's claiming that a married man and father of four is a faggot. And whether the response from her audience says anything about them as a group. Starting off, Coulter's sexuality is more likely to be questioned than John Edwards. And I believe applauding these comments does suggest that there is bigotry within the party followers. Just face it aevans000, you're in bed with bigots. Don't be scared, be like your idol Ann Coulter and State the Hate.

I've told you before, Aevans176, but apparently it bears repeating: Generally, I get along fine with Conservative White Men. I've certainly interviewed enough of them. I just don't get along with some Conservative White Men specifically. Some of them being members of this board.

Regarding reading Ann Coulter to know where she's coming from, I don't read HUSTLER either, but do I have to know Larry Flynt is a sleazy pornographer? Do I have to read Mein Kampf to figure out if Hitler hated Jews?

I didn't say I don't know anything about her columns. I have no interest in wasting my finite time for reading on anything Ann Coulter vomits up. I know from the get-go that's it's just going to be crap like this:

The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"---syndicated column 10/29/99

To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."---MSNBC

"Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."---Salon.com 11/16/00

"I think we had enough laws about the turn-of-the-century. We don't need any more." Asked how far back would she go to repeal laws, she replied, "Well, before the New Deal...[The Emancipation Proclamation] would be a good start."---Politically Incorrect 5/7/97

"When we were fighting communism, OK, they had mass murderers and gulags, but they were white men and they were sane. Now we're up against absolutely insane savages."

-- August 16, 2004

"When contemplating college liberals, you really regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors."

--- Conservative Political Action Conference; February 26, 2002
link 1
link 2

And of course this was her last controversial drive-by shooting of someone that incurred her wrath:

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.

--- Godless: The Church of Liberalism June 2006

I'm trying to imagine how the Right would have reacted if Jane Fonda or Cindy Sheehan had said the exact same thing and I'm guessing the howls of absolute indignation would have been deafdeafening
But being a right-wing reactionary means never having to say you're sorry. Or have any class either.

1. Judging by the quotations listed in nighttimer's post, I guess I can't fathom exactly what would be considered out-of-bounds for Ann Coulter to mouth when the camera is on her. She makes a pretty tidy sum, I am sure, by being outrageous. It's a good gig for her.

That being said, I consider the term "faggot" as unacceptable as the "n" word, and I don't think what Coulter said was misinterpreted.

2. I don't consider Coulter a serious political commentator. I have a hard time listening past the insults she hurls. I think she fancies herself an entertainer.

I'm just wondering if she's jealous of Edwards because he's prettier than she is...

Also featured at CPAC. Because while the majority of the Republican party is happy to campaign on promoting the hatred of gays, they laugh at the base behind their backs. Same as we all do.

The link is hilarious, Grendel, thanks.

By the way, even a cursory stroll down the dark tarry tunnels of the rightwing blogosphere finds nothing but support for Coulter and her use of homophobic slurs. She seems unable to go a week without calling somebody a faggot or calling for some nation or other to be nuked.

What this says about the conservative movement in America I leave to the readers to decide. It's clear to me.

These two posts seemingly have a disconnect from reality and factual information.

The GOP and/or Republicans have not campaigned promoting the hatred of gays. I've asked on more than one occasion for the proof of this, of course to no avail. Does homosexuality also cause poor reading comprehension?

It's convenient for people to lambast Coulter without even reading her columns. I'm not sure what makes liberals so mad about her statements, her persona, and what she's done against liberals. Frankly, I'd have to venture that they're aggravated that many times she's right? Is that what's so biting for liberals?

The conservative 'movement' is not homophobic or anti-homosexuality. We might have a differing opinion, but at least we have the decency to not label people as biggots or with some other incongruous brand.

Like I say, the conservative blogosphere is filled with cheery defenses of Coulter's use of the term faggot to personally attack Edwards. That's a fact. Your claim that conservatives aren't homophobic isn't a fact, nor does it comport with the fact that a conservative spokesperson, embraced by conservative leaders, seems unable to go a week without making a homophobic slur.

I won't even get into the Christian Right and their outright homophobia, nor the conservative policies that not coincidentaly seem calculated to restrict gay rights.

I see a pattern emerging. Do you?

But let's make this simpler: Are progressives for expanding gay rights. Answer: Yes. Are conservatives for exanding gay rights? Answer: no.

Tell me if the above claims are incorrect or not and I think we'll have a sense of where conservatives stand vis a vis gays.

For the record, that's not quite fair. While the majority of right wing bloggers can't seem to muster any more than a cursory dismissal of Coulter before running off into tu quoque territory, lumping outspoken libertarian Bill Maher in with "the left"; at least one conservative blog seems to genuinely get it:
I certainly don't agree with much the guy has to say on many subjects, but he actually gets why Coulter's slur was so wrong.

Aside from calling them traitors?

I read this interesting theory about Republicans like Ann Coulter and Matt Sanchez who profess such hatred against certain groups - he calls them "Conflicted Conservatives in Crisis". It sounds pretty accurate to me.

For the record this guy sounds like a libertarian, not a conservative. Nobody in the Christian Right would agree with his support for "a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles." As you recall, Christian Right leaders blamed 9-11 on lesbianism. I don't even think traditional conservatives would agree with that (See De Souza's most recent book The Enemy at Home, where he blames 9-11 on "liberal lifestyles" that have offended traditional societies -- I'm not making this up http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/2/124437/8475 )

It is a tenant of modern conservatism (not libertarianism) that regulating lifestyles is a proper role of government. My disagreements with libertarianism are as large as my disagreements with conservatism, but not on the issue of civil rights.



Of course Freud has a simpler term for this phenomenon: latency. Or to be more precise: suppression and projection. Haggard appears to be a classic case.

Decency and Ann Coulter are not on speaking terms.

Some conservatives get what's wrong with Coulter's remarks and some don't. Michael Medved does:

Conservatives are right to condemn liberal fanatics who jokingly wish for the death of Vice President Cheney, or compare Bush to Hitler, but we should also speak out against celebrities on the right who violate essential standards of decency. Ann Coulter is a brilliant, important, consistently provocative voice in our national conversation but she needs to apologize for applying a cruel, anti-homosexual slur to Presidential candidate John Edwards. Invoking this explosive “f-word” in a public address to a leading conservative conference is bad enough, but it’s totally unacceptable to direct it at Edwards – who’s been happily married for thirty years to a breast-cancer survivor and fathered five children, one of whom died in a tragic accident. Senator Edwards deserves condemnation for his left wing politics, his naked opportunism, even for his long career as an ambulance chasing lawyer, but laughingly smearing him as a closeted homosexual constitutes an inexcusable degradation of public discourse. This sort of assault on a husband and father, especially coming from the never-married Coulter, wounds the attacker far more than it damages the object of her contempt. I like and admire Ann Coulter, but if she insists on marginalizing herself, we shouldn’t allow her to drag the conservative movement with her to the fringe. http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog.aspx

I agree with Nighttimer, and the Medved. If someone doesnt like Edwards, there's plenty to criticize him on. Coutler doesnt have to like Edwards, but if she really doesnt like him, there's much more to go on than the fact that he isnt as masculine as Ann Coutler (and apparently other members of the Republican Party) would like. I find it extremely tellling that Ann Coulter, as a spokesperson for the Republican Party, decided to use the term faggot, instead of critiquing Edwards policies or even his past. Grendal pointed what one would ultimately conclude after hearing all this.

And Medved gets it exactly wrong. Coulter's slur wasn't wrong because Edwards isn't gay, Coulter's slur was wrong because it demonstrates the right's fundamental hatred of homosexuals. But i guess it's a bit much to expect Medved to get that.
It isn't that Coulter insulted a political opponent with her childish slur, it's that she insulted thousands of people who have nothing to do with him. And for no reason other than the general antipathy towards gays typical of the right.

To add to this, there was an excellent point made on Bill Maher's Real Time by one his panelists, I don't remember the person who said it, but the basic idea of why Coulter thinks Edwards is weak is because he has compassion for the poor. To conservatives there is only one thing more contemptuous as the poor, and that's a homosexual. Her ability to combine two hatreds into one insult is beloved by the right. One small step for conservatism and one giant leap backward for mankind.

I don't have any problem with what Ann Coulter says or what she ever says.

Of course, I don't agree with most of what she says and clearly her latest statements were reprehensible.

But put it in perspective. She is what she is because people put her there. The republicans love her because she is willing to not be politically correct. The democrats hate her because she is willing to not be politically correct.

Like it or not, she is one of the faces of the republican party. The media put her there and made her that relevant. Had she not been in that position, she would never have been invited to speak in the first place.

Coulter doesn't simply disagree with her opponents. She amplifies her self-righteousness at the expense of others. So people will look for her to be wrong because she thinks she never is.

But the phonies in the republican party give this person credibility in light of the fact that she has never made these types of "provocative" statements against her own party that rewards illegal immigration, expands the size of government, and joins all the cowards who are willing to give up all our rights just so guys with box cutters don't hurt us again.

The republican party is dysfunctional and Coulter is the face of it. Whenever they get it wrong, all they can do is compare themselves to Bill Clinton and Al Franken. When the bar is set this low, behavior like this will never go away.

Yes- the GOP campaigns on racism and hate- it is not hard to find proof-

1) John McCain smear by the push poll in SC slyly trying to tie him to having a "brown baby" out of wedlock

2) Jesse Helms- need I say more?

3) the GOP regularly speaks at Bob Jones University- an institution no different than any Madarassah in Pakistan- in fact, GW spoke there. That place is a den of homophobia and racism. Look it up if you don't know.

3) Willie Horton- papa GH used "fear of the black man" as his main campiagn tool.

Here in Alaska- while Jerry Falwell was stumping with Jerry Prevo to bring in the REPUBLICAN vote- said "gays will just soon kill you as look at you"- I know this statement for a fact- because I was there!

The GOP today, has nothing BUT hatred and fear to campaign on, there is 0 substance otherwise. Certainly not fiscal conservatism

There is not one single issue they have that is forefront on thier campaign that IS NOT based on homophobia or hate of some kind. Not one.

Anti-gay rights? Check- in fact, this is one of thier number one "ace in the hole"- is fear of gay marriage- like it would affect anyone married in this nation or something

Anti-civil rights? Check (patriot act anyone? )

and on and on.

I feel I simply must address this; and frankly, it is telling that you cannot simply figure out while Ann Coulter is reviled. In fact she is repudiated by thinking and civil-minded people on all sides of the political spectrum.

Though I am not a regular reader of her columns, I have read several of her books, and numerous columns. Allow me to give you some choice bits, first, and I'll follow up with my analysis.



And you say that we don't like her because she is "right?"

Foul-mouthed and petty she may be, but her biggest error is in her generalizations. She foments partisan warfare because she rarely addresses singular issues; instead she uses one or two examples to then catapult her to her real point - lumping all liberals together, and making broad statements about them - and she does include ALL of them.

There is no one of comparable profile on the left. It is wrong to lump her in with Moore or Franken as examples of polemicists. Read one book by each of them - Coulter, Franken, Moore - and then we can talk. Franken is a humorist who prefaces his sarcastic wit with acknowledgements that he is expressly NOT lumping all conservatives into his statements. Moore is similar, and indeed, spent the 90s - and this is the part of his career the Moore bashers love to ignore - criticizing the Clinton administration.

I'm not surprised that Ann Coulter called some "liberal" (quotations are to show just what I think of that title for any mainstream Democratic politician) a faggot. It's her trade. It's how she sells books. But hey, if she's getting invited to mainstream Republican functions, I'd appropriate from Stalin and say she certainly is a useful idiot!

And we don’t see the same on the Left???? Air America, Jessie Jackson, Ted Kennedy, the whole “tax breaks for the rich” nonsense? On and on ….

Yes she is a partisan and no one I know will ever agree with all she says but she is not un typical of the nasty level of political discourse out there today. The only reason Moore cannot be directly compared to Coulter is he covers less ground but he is certainly as nasty and he goes beyond and outright lies. Coulter at least keeps her facts straight- even if we cannot agree on here conclusions. Moore is a liar – period. And plenty of far left loonies like him get invited to Democrat functions – and even, as in Edwards, work for them!!

I certainly don’t like everything she says or even how she says it but I will take here over Moore Franken and a dozen other idiots on the left – I am sure you disagree.

I'm sorry... again, I'm too busy to post all day long... work gets in the way

However- here's where this thread has gotten literally short bus special. What does supporting gay rights have to do with homophobia?

The basic divide among conservatives and liberals often when discussing homosexuals lays in that conservatives believe that homosexuals deserve no special rights, where as liberals often disagree. Liberals believe they should have protected EEOC status, be allowed to circumvent current law in reference to spousal legislation, etc. Conseravatives think they should be treated the same as all other people.

It's not about homophobia, but rather a differing opinion. I'll never understand why liberals don't get this. Furthermore, I'll never understand how an off-color comment by Ann Coulter can provoke liberals to call Christians homophobes, etc.

Ann Coulter does a good job of getting under the skins of Democrats nationwide. So be it. That doesn't give license for off-the-cuff and undocumented remarks by arm-chair politicians with no objective backing to their snide and boorish remarks.
Here are some good examples:


seriously. Attempt to provide links. These are utterly absurd claims. (Oh, and don't use the Dailykos as an objective source for starters to prove a point... frankly, it's worse than someone using Human Events or the National Review... it's like someone using... well, Ann Coulter as a source)

Are you seriously going to pretend you don't recall this? Or this?

"Short bus special"? classy.
Conservative opposition to EQUAL rights is obviously based in homophobia when the supposed "deeply held ideals" are ignored any time it would be inconvenient for them. Or more to the point, any time when it wouldn't provide an opportunity to denigrate gays. What are we supposed to think when people who cheered the supreme court appointing the President of the United States whine about "judicial activism"?
What are we supposed to think of people who argue in favor of reinstating sodomy laws, of locking us up just for being gay? Yeah, clearly conservatives are full of love for their fellow man.

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?
Totally out-of-bounds slur. Inexcusable to use that word in a speech ever.

2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?
Bomb-thrower, and an increasingly incoherent one at that. I think that she may have a drug or drinking problem, based on the few times I've seen her on TV lately. No poise, no charm, no wit, no logic and wearing jeans on the set so not even professional by TV standards. May she please go far far away.

I hate to see her continue to be treated as a face of conservatism, especially after she wrote a book with like 6 chapters "debunking" evolution. But hey, Pat Buchannan still gets introduced as a "republican" wherever he goes so conservatives are probably stuck with her until she's 80.

Well lets remember that Dems and the left say a lot worse every day – are they in the same category or only folks on the “right”?

I tend to agree though that she and the folks on the left who do the same are a bit over the top. But hey whats good for Howard Dean …..

It does take away from some of her more serious work. Did you read her take on McCarthy in Treason? He, was of course, the most whipped conservative inhistory. She contends, based on data released after the cold war that he was right about every person he went after. Any comment?

I read Treason. Did you? Are you saying this is a serious book? Wait... I have it here in front of me. The first sentence of chapter one is "Liberals have a preternatural gift for striking a position on the side of treason." And she ends chapter one with this nugget: Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down."

And she totally missed the point about McCarthy. The real problem with Joe was not whether some of the people he accused were actually spies - it was his methodology. One has to wonder at an apologist for someone who was so incredibly anti-liberty. Did the Venona papers prove him right? Sure, in part. But that doesn't excuse his shameless behavior.

I think Coulter and McCarthy apologists in general have conveniently forgotten what he was like. Did you know that in screenings of Clooney's excellent Good Night, and Good Luck people came away saying that the actor who was playing McCarthy was over the top, when actually they had used only actual clips of McCarthy for the film?

For those like you and Aevans who insist there are worse on the left - at a comparable level of media exposure - I'd like to see a list of quotes similar to the one I provided earlier. Should be easy, right? I only had to peruse three or four columns to get mine.

The biggest problem with Coulter is her crass generalizations. She doesn't say "liberal policies." She doesn't refer to particular liberals. No, she cannot help but destroy any potential arguments she makes by demonizing every single liberal in America. And we may think she is being "funny," but I have seen her time and again say that she means everything that she says.

In contrast, we have Moore, who speaks about policies, and dishes out plenty of heat to Democrats as well as Republicans, and Franken, who - at least in his books (I've never heard his radio show) - takes care to tell us specifically that he is emphatically NOT referring to all conservatives in one fell swoop.

But again, please, show me a list of these quotes that are worse than Coulter - after all, you said they occur every day!

1. Were Ann Coulter's remarks about John Edwards a totally out-of-bounds slur or just a joke that is being deliberately misinterpreted?

She was pandering to her book-buying base and went too far. She admitted as much (by default) when she attempted to explain that, because Edwards is not actually gay, it was not slanderous or uncouth. (my words, not her exact quote) Coulter reaps plenty of profit with her litany of nonsense because, when people point out her obvious idiocy, she can cry victim and blame the "evil liberals" for trying to silence her. Sadly, it is profitable in this country to act like a fool.


2. Do you consider Coulter a serious political commentator or a partisan bomb-thrower?

Coulter's role in right-wing partisanship seems to be as an anchor. By setting the standards at an incredible low she gives the less polemical attack dogs a comfort zone in which they can appear more moderate/sensible.
Proof enough that Coulter is a shrill, shallow "debator of the issues" is that, had ANY of her arguments been posted in a thread on AD, she would already have been banned from the boards.

In a recent debate on renewable energy on FOX she kept reciting her mantra that "liberals want us to light our homes with candles" no matter how well it was explained to her that renewable energy is sustainable.
She continued to explain that the problem was with the people in Hollywood who talk about renewable energy bu live in huge mansions. (Coulter owns multiple homes including her famous 1.3 million dollar mansion in Florida) Apparently it is OK to have excess as long as you preach the destruction of the environment...

Ann Coulter is neither a serious political commentator nor a partisan bomb-thrower...she is an opportunistic harpy, getting rich on her shrill cry and the "sailors" who willingly steer toward the rocks to hear it.

I find it sad that her trite, insulting and vitriolic spew is mistaken for real information by people who might otherwise be able to take a holistic approach to forming their world view.

[quote name='Ted' date='Mar 13 2007, 02:30 PM' post='210037']
[quote]
Well lets remember that Dems and the left say a lot worse every day – are they in the same category or only folks on the “right”?
[/quote]

Ted, I think this is a really weak argument, and in reality, it has no bearing on the thread. So what if there are allegedly there are "Dems and the left" who say things just as bad as Ann Coulter? Does that really excuse Coulter herself? I really dont understand why so many people feel the need to constantly bring up a point that doesnt really prove anything...Like, because one side does it, that makes it excuseable to do it on the other? Additionally, this is a thread about Coulter, not about "Dems and the left"...So why would even bother to bring up their reprehensible behavior in this particular thread?

As for your assertions about Coulter's impeccable research, a few other sources say otherwise.

Wrong Again

[quote]
The truth is that some of McCarthy's targets were or had been communists -- and therefore by definition "sympathizers" of the Soviet Union -- but he never uncovered a single indictable spy. There had been dozens of Soviet agents in government before and during World War II. But those espionage rings had been broken up by the FBI well before McCarthy showed up brandishing a bogus "list" of 57 or 205 or 81 Communists in the State Department.

Yet the Wisconsin windbag amassed sufficient power for a time to destroy innocent individuals, most notably Owen Lattimore, described smirkingly by Coulter as McCarthy's "biggest star" and the man he once named as Stalin's "top espionage agent" in the United States. "Somewhat surprisingly," as Coulter is obliged to note, Lattimore's name has yet to be found in Moscow's excavated KGB archives or in the Venona cables decrypted by U.S. Army counterespionage agents. The dearth of evidence against Lattimore matters not at all to Coulter, however. Though the eminent China expert was neither a spy nor a communist, he certainly knew and worked with some communists -- and worst of all, he disagreed with the far right about U.S. policy toward China.

Then there are names that Coulter doesn't dare name, such as Theodore Kaghan, a favorite McCarthy target who worked for the Voice of America. In fact, she doesn't mention the Voice of America investigation at all, perhaps because it was so obviously a destructive waste of time and money. Kaghan, a valiant opponent of the communists in Berlin, was dismissed from his VOA position under pressure from McCarthy. He was wholly innocent, but the reckless senator's inquisition ruined him and sabotaged Western interests. That same destructive pattern occurred in the State Department, in the Army Signal Corps, and in other government agencies. His ham-handed brutality made McCarthy an immense boon to communist propaganda abroad, especially in Europe. They loved it when his counsel Roy Cohn and his assistant David Schine junketed around the continent, tasked with removing thousands of "pro-communist" books from the shelves of U.S.-funded libraries.
[/quote] (bold mine)

Wait, there's more

[quote]
One of the most reputable scholars who has studied the McCarthy era in great detail, Ron Radosh, is appalled at the damage Coulter has done to the work he and many others have painstakingly done over the years. "I am furious and upset about her book," he told me last week. "I am reading it - she uses my stuff, Harvey Klehr and John Haynes, Allen Weinstein etc. to distort what we actually say and to make ludicrous and historically incorrect arguments. You might recall my lengthy and negative review in The New Republic a few years ago of Herman's book on McCarthy; well, she is ten times worse than Herman. At least he tried to use bona fide historical methods of research and argument." Now Radosh has endured ostracism and abuse for insisting that many of McCarthy's victims were indeed Communist spies or agents. But he draws the line at Coulter's crude and inflammatory defense of McCarthy. "I think it is important that those who are considered critics of left/liberalism don't stop using our critical faculties when self-proclaimed conservatives start producing crap."
[/quote]

More

[quote]
Klehr: Mr. Brennan claims never to have heard of any people falsely or maliciously attacked by McCarthy. How about James Wechsler, editor of the New York Post? Wechsler had long been public about his Communist background in the student movement of the 1930s and had for years been a vigorous and forthright anti-communist liberal. Senator McCarthy went after him largely because Wechsler had criticized McCarthy and suggested that Communist denunciations of Wechsler were actually part of a Communist effort to make him appear to be an anti-communist.

Even when he was attacking Communist sympathizers or fellow-travellers, McCarthy was often reckless and wrong. Did it do the anti-communist cause any good to accuse Owen Lattimore, a despicable man to be sure, of being the top Soviet spy in the United States? Whatever Lattimore's sins, that was not one of them. The more errors McCarthy made the easier he made the job of the pro-Communist left: to call anyone accused of communism a victim of a McCarthyite slander.

snip

Wechsler a "hero of the dominant Marxist left?" The Communists and their allies hated Wechsler and his fellow Americans for Democratic Action liberals like Walter Reuther, Hubert Humphrey and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. precisely because they had fought the Communists long before Joe McCarthy knew the difference between Earl Browder and Louis Budenz.
[/quote]

And, from the same source, some reasons why Joe McCarthy (right or wrong about Soviet spies) should not be seen as a true American patriot:

[quote]
Estrich: One example of the "reprehensible” tactics McCarthy employed? How about McCarthy misusing his Senatorial office, and the Senatorial hearing process, to enable his aide, the notorious Roy Cohn, to blackmail the U.S. Army into giving preferential treatment to his homosexual lover, David Schine. That's what the Army-McCarthy hearings were all about, Brennan. Cohn, fresh from his behind-the-scenes machinations during the Rosenbergs trial, was miffed that the Army would dare to draft his gay lover and refuse to make him an officer.

Separate and apart from the abuse-of-power involved, the Army-McCarty hearings diverted the attention of senior Army staff, and wasted thousands of man hours, at a time when our military preparedness was a critical issue. Brennan may not think it "reprehensible" for a Senator to undermine our national defense merely to ensure that his chief aide's "Boy Toy" is kept
happy. I don't think the rest of the country would agree.
[/quote]

Sorry, gross abuses of power shouldnt equal National Patriot.

Gee and I thought he had a job to do ? In the book she maintains McCarthy was badgered for questioning people about their connection to the Communist Party and Russia and that those people were defended by the NYT and Murrow etc.. She claims he was right so the question is 1. was he right? And 2. if so why were the people he pursued shielded by the press and why did they remain in government. Were his methods illegal? They apparently were not all “innocent babes” were they?

If the man was a fanatic about his job and right does that make him “wrong”. How many of our secrets walked out the door in those years? Is it nay wonder the Russians had the bomb by the early 1950s and had build a replica of the B59 bomber (for the nukes) that was accurate right down to the rivets. Is there any doubt that secrets left this country in this time and could have cost us our lives and our country?



Here are a few. Many are radio and not in print. Even some Dems are sickened.

The Boston Globe reports that Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a decorated Vietnam veteran, blasted Bush for dodging combat in the war,

Here's how FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly introduced a guest on the October 21 edition of The O'Reilly Factor: "Joining us now from Seattle is liberal radio talk-show host Mike Siegel, the author of the book Power Talk! [The

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410220008

Dan Rather.


Links fro Air America: http://www.bushorchimp.com/
http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/CTGY/gwbush_store

http://stevecopy.blogharbor.com/




I AGREE and that is why so many of us conservatives don’t really like her a lot. But to say she is worse than those on the left is not accurate. She is far too broad in attacking “liberals” in general but when she goes after individuals she can be accurate..




Please he is a liar and even his former supporters are saying so now.


Edited to remove and properly cite full cut and paste from outside source. Please review the Rules regarding citing others' work, please. - Jaime

Ted, please. Just because Louis Farrakhan is a critic of Bush, that does not mean he's a leftist. People criticize Bush all the time, and it does not make them leftists. Most leftists arent really advocating for the destruction of white people.

Think you've got a point there about something being physically wrong with AC, CW. Whether it's self-imposed substance abuse or an eating disorder, or maybe the Dorian Gray effect, the woman has become difficult to observe.

Here's a photo and news story about fallout from the remark:

Look Into These Eyes

I suppose some guys think this is sexy. I'd worry about getting a knife in my ribs. Reminds me of junky blues guitar players, not to offend any junkies out there. Just say no, eh?

Sorry, if "Dems do it too" is your defense here, you are on your own.

I must have missed Howard Dean saying 'faggot' or 'raghead' or the like. He has a lot of hate, yes, but I haven't seen even him this inarticulate.


Her take on McCarthy is right behind her take on evolution for me--just another reason to dismiss her as a loon.

I'm not saying that much of her writing isn't good, or that many of her broader points aren't true (Republicans tend to be portrayed as 'dumb,' Liberals tend to see America's faults before her good, etc.) When she was on her game, she could sit calmly, listen to a liberal argument and eviscerate it with a witty retort that held an underlying truth. Now she shouts over the top and calls names.

This chick is increasingly incoherent, rattling off more non-sequiturs than any pundit alive save Dennis Miller. This makes her argument impossible to follow, and, when sprinkled with hateful name-calling, impossible to defend as well.