Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 8, 2006

REACHING PARIAH STATUS....By now, you've probably seen the clip of Matt Lauer interviewing Ann Coulter about her new book, which includes a scathing attack on widows who lost loved ones on 9/11. "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies," Coulter wrote. "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." Lauer pushed Coulter on the comments, but she stood by her book.

Coulter's attack has generated quite a bit of attention, and last night, NBC Nightly News ended its program with a story about the controversy. Brian Williams told viewers:

"Tonight we're going to go off the air with a report on civility in American life. The explosion in our media, our deafening national noise level, and our changing mores, have made this a much different era in America than the one our parents grew up in. And just when you think it seems like there are no limits on anything, someone comes a long and makes a comment that goes over the line, the line that is shared by just about everybody because some things, it turns out, are still sacred."

I'm glad Williams was willing to say, on the air, that Coulter crossed some ambiguous standard of decency, but I'm not quite sure what took NBC so long. Coulter's record of hatred isn't new -- but that hasn't stopped the Today show from having this clown on nearly every other month since last fall. For that matter, how long until she's invited back onto the network to spew her callous nonsense again?

In the broader context, I've always been curious what it takes for a conservative to reach genuine pariah status in the political world. Last fall, Bill O'Reilly suggested that it'd be fine with him if al Queda attacked a major American city. There were no apparent adverse consequences. In 2001, just 48 hours after 9/11, Jerry Falwell said liberal Americans were to blame for the attacks and said the nation "deserved" to be hit by terrorists. Five years later, he's hanging out with John McCain as if he were a credible figure in Republican politics, which he unfortunately is. It's easy to pull equally disturbing comments from Limbaugh, Robertson, Dobson, etc. Not one lost his status as a leading conservative voice.

Coulter is a best-selling pariah this week, but she'll be back on the air soon enough. What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society? I have a hunch lashing out at 9/11 widows just isn't enough these days.

Steve Benen 7:32 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (204)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Oh go fuck yourself Steve...

Posted by: koreyel on June 8, 2006 at 7:43 PM | PERMALINK

A conservative would have to say that the Iraq war was a crime, that the way to end illegal immigration is to enforce labor laws, or that homosexuals are not destroying the American family in order to become a pariah.

Posted by: Boronx on June 8, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

See a tongue-in-cheek visual depicting "The New War On Terror: Afgh-Ann-A-Skank"...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on June 8, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

She's just trying to sell her books and shock is her gimmick. The press and the blogosphere should be criticized for continuing to give her a broader platfom. The best thing anyone can do with regards to cunts like her is to ignore them.

Posted by: Steve Bell on June 8, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

"What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?"

Well, you could ask David Brock . . .

Posted by: rea on June 8, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

If we are "The Party of Michael Moore" -- even though he's a registered Green, why can't the Republicans wear the label "The Party of Ann Coulter".

Posted by: J Bean on June 8, 2006 at 7:58 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't the Information Age great? All this technology so we can become a nation of mouthbreathing rubberneckers, gazing in slack-jawed wonderment at the carnage on the side of the highway.
Coulter gives us all exactly what we want.

In a decent society, she'd be placed in a nice, quiet hospital on a steady Thorazine drip.

In [i]our[/i] society, she's a millionaire.

Posted by: cazart on June 8, 2006 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

There's only one thing worse than being talked about - and that's NOT being talked about

Oscar, as always, was pretty perceptive.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 8, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

Are you being purposefully naive?

Posted by: nut on June 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Steve,

Just to bring up something that didn't surface here at all, so far as I know, let's just suppose that some Republican had spoken before the Institute for Historical Review. Would this be an issue? Would it get major coverage? Why, I rather think it would, actually; most Americans are really not keen on Holocaust deniers or those that "hang out" with them (to use Steve's phrase about McCain).

This didn't prevent the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times endorsing Pete McCloskey.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

What makes Ann Coulter so deplorable is not that she believes what she says, because she doesn't. No, she is a tyrant best consigned to obscurity because she says hateful things she doesn't believe for the money. She is a microcosm of the new Republican party. In under five years, she will be on the mea culpa circuit as a born again citizen of tolerance. We should still never listen to her again, so manifest is the amorality in her frightened eyes. She is a sad clown without a the ability to ride a unicycle or juggle.

Posted by: Sparko on June 8, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, he could shoot an old man in the face...no, wait.

Oh, yeah, he could be exposed as a gay prostitute...no, that's not it either...

Perhaps if he harmed national security by revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent for partisan political gain....no, not really....

Hmm, he could be revealed to be a gigantic crook who's been enriching himself for years by stealing the taxpayer dollars of hard-working Americans...huh, no, that doesn't work either, does it....

What if he sold sold weapons to the Iranian mullahs and then lied about it to Congress...or sold weapons to Saddam Hussein and looked the other way while he massacred the Kurds....or held hands with the repressive Saudi monarchs....or brazenly broke the law by spying on Americans in their homes....

Man, this is a harder question than it looks....

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, brilliant, I salute you!

Posted by: cq on June 8, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

J Bean:

If we are "The Party of Michael Moore" -- even though he's a registered Green, why can't the Republicans wear the label "The Party of Ann Coulter".

I like that.

"The Party of Ann Coulter"

Not only does it sing,
but it is a macho repartee...
sort of makes one's Adam's apple stand out and dare to be noticed.


Posted by: koreyel on June 8, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hid a couple of her books today in Target. It's one of my hobbies

Posted by: terri on June 8, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie/Cheney, ummmm how many people on this blog do you think own one of Ann Coulters books?

Posted by: Dilbert on June 8, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

One can only hope that terrorists will target any or all of the PA trolls, so that their spouses may share in the nirvanic joy that the 9/11 widows and widowers have experienced.

Posted by: Dan Coulter on June 8, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney--

There's plenty of folks that'll be doing that over at Media Matters and other sites of that ilk. Surely you can google "Ann Coulter" and "lies" and get plenty of what you're looking for. Miracle of the information age.

But we aren't internet librarians or masochists (or internet masochist librarians!) here so you'll have to figure out how to use google on your own. And I'm sure most of us have no desire to put ourselves through the trouble of reading Coulter so that we can do a book report on her for some random dude on the internet who calls himself "Cheney".

Posted by: kokblok on June 8, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK

No, it's OK Dilbert. I *don't* own any AC books, yet I can provide a quote that is untrue:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies," Coulter wrote. "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much."

They aren't reveling and they aren't enjoying. Untrue.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on June 8, 2006 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

You know what it would take? A bullet. A little physical violence directed at people who don't know how to keep their fat mouths shut would probably do the trick.

Oh, I'm only kidding, of course! (wink wink)

Posted by: Alexander Wolfe on June 8, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

EmmaAnne that is one, another...Max Cleland was lucky his limbs were blown off.

Posted by: Dilbert on June 8, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

It's rather dishonest to claim that O'Reilly said "that it'd be fine with him if al Queda attacked a major American city," without providing the context. The context was San Francisco just having voted to ban military recruiting at high schools and colleges. So O'Reilly, in typically bluster, was basically saying, "Fine, you don't want the military around? See how you like it if the military doesn't help you if Al Qaeda attacks."

That's far, far different from saying that he wanted Al Qaeda to attack a major city.

Posted by: Anono on June 8, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Cheney,

Like most here, I have avoided actually purchasing Ann Coulter's book. So let's stick to the comment she made that has most recently caused controversy, and see how true it is. Do you believe that the 911 widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths? Is there any particular reason to believe so?

And if not true, do you agree it would be a cruel remark to make?

Posted by: Glenn on June 8, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

You are a pathetic whinny liberal. Please keep it up, through all the elections you are alive.

Posted by: Clinton era on June 8, 2006 at 8:20 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps someone else then can provide even ONE quote from Ann's latest book you believe is UNTRUE?

How about:
"In thinking about this topic, I have come to realise..."

Actually, I'm just kidding. I'd sooner read The da Vinci Code than even her signature opus Mein Camp: My Struggle as a Transvestite in The Modern American Media.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 8, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Our ability to change what goes on on the right is relatively limited...but we *could* use this as an occasion to reflect on how to keep our *own* (liberal/centrist) house in order...

There's been a minor fad in the leftosphere to denigrate civility in political discussion (I even saw a post somewhere titled--and I want to stress that I'm not making this up--"F*ck Your Civility.")

One standard mistake here is to point out that there are points at which worrying about civility becomes idiotic. If, say, you meet Hitler in a dark alley in 1932. Don't be polite to him--wring his neck. But no reasonable person denies that; nobody's fetishizing civility.

But there ARE certain elements in the leftosphere that are urging us to emulate Coulter & co. Coulter should, of course, be resisted, but so should folks who want us to be more like her.

Posted by: Winston Smith on June 8, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

"What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?"

A conservative would be shunned by other conservatives if he or she suggested that taxes needed to be raised to fund the government that most Americans want.

And if someone suggested that personal wealth of more than $1Billion was immoral, he or she would be crucified. Spouse & children would be crucified. Pet dogs would be flayed alive.

Posted by: PTate in MN on June 8, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's rather dishonest to claim that O'Reilly said "that it'd be fine with him if al Queda attacked a major American city," without providing the context.

Here's the context: he said "And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead." That sounds to me like him saying it'd be fine with him ("we're not going to do anything about it," "go ahead") if Al Qaeda attacked a major American city

Now imagine Al Franken, for example, had criticized a Bush regime decision and then said "you want to blow up the White House? Go ahead." What do you think the right wing reaction to that would have been? What do you think Bill O'Reilly's reaction would have been?

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

Any of you folks comment when Ted Rall did basically what Coulter did, a few years back? I think Coulter's comment was despicable, but then I thought Rall's was despicable. Glenn Reynolds immediately linked the two and denounced them both. I have not seen anyone here do that either link the two incidents, or denounce Rall as you are all eager to denounce Coulter. Personally, I think they're both scum, and you need nothing more than their published work to demonstrate it.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

Who on Earth is Ted Rall?

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Moreover, how many times a month is Ted Rall, whoever he is, a guest on Good Morning America, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Bill Maher, and various other major American media outlets?

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:33 PM | PERMALINK

I have always thought the 9/11 victims were pampered way too much, sorry.

Posted by: Matt on June 8, 2006 at 8:34 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Who on Earth is Ted Rall?

Lefty cartoonist, nationally syndicated (at least, he seems to be everywhere). I was referring to a strip titled "Terror Widows" that caused something of a stir a few years ago. Google is your friend (well, unless you're Chinese, but let's leave that for another day).

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 8:39 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

I've got a few more ideas....

Maybe he could go AWOL from his military service and then lie about it....no, that's not it...

Perhaps he could lose $8 million dollars gambling while pretending to be an expert on ethics and virtue....no, huh?

What if he moved his mistress into his mayoral mansion, openly cheated on his wife with her, and had his mistress march alongside him in official New York City parades....that's not gonna do it either, hey?

Well, what if he served his wife with divorce papers while she was lying in a cancer ward...not good enough, you say....OK, what if that same guy had cheated on his second wife with an office aide who was 25 years younger than him....still not?

What if he was a notorious Southern rascist who had a secret black child from a 15 year servant girl he'd raped....ok, fine, no....

Perhaps if he was a drunk driver with multiple arrests?..what about an Oxycontin addict...?...what if he sexually harassed his female employees and was overhead on tape detailing his lurid fantasies about falafel and loofahs....?

OK, wait, I'm sure I can think of something....

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:41 PM | PERMALINK

Google is your friend (well, unless you're Chinese, but let's leave that for another day).

OK, but if I have to look him up on Google then he doesn't have quite the reach of Ann Coulter, does he, since she's a frequent guest on all major American media outlets. Has he ever even been on TV? The difference in their relative levels of fame merely underscores how widely accepted Coulter's violent and repellent filth is by the right wing.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

In the olden days hate enthusiasts like Father Coughlin* injected their venom with little hope of compensation. Today there is a career path in professional right-wing hate-smithing. Coulter is nothing more than an opportunist making some cash in politics. The outrageous things she says have the same function as Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.


*(who famously told his American audience after Kristallnacht "Jewish persecution only followed after Christians first were persecuted.")

Posted by: bellumregio on June 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Not only there the obvious tendency by many posters on the conservative side to stick to their "team" no matter their despicable comments, but I am concerned by the continual lowering of the bar by remarks from these right-wing pundits.

There was a concept of civility, that is expertly mentioned by Winston Smith. Less than a decade ago, would it have been appropriate for a person to call for the death of another on a national forum? Although it would be reasonable, people just didn't go out and give voice to their animalistic impulses like that. Of course I am happy, for example, that Zarqawi is dead. Of course I have posted on other boards of how much I hated him. However, since when did it become okay to give voice to these opinions on national television?

Over the course of a decade or so, I have noticed a continual lowering of political discourse thanks to the trend of conservative pundits. I say political, because I am well aware of Howard Stern, and because political has a higher elevation than some crude language on the radio. It is also not enough that it is just one person, but it is the echoing of these sentiments by many similar conservative pundits (Hannity, Coulter, the Fox News crowd, Beck, Savage, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, etc etc) in concert that causes a problem.

I personally have always been troubled with this way of speaking, and was offended of course. I also wondered, what was mentally wrong with these people when they kept advocating these things in the public avenue. This was appropriate, to me, online or in magazines or whatever. But when you usually rise up to the national level, there is a more civilized way of political discourse.

Take Presidential debates, could you imagine if a candidate said "If you promise to elect me, I will bomb and maim the people of (said country). If there are innocent civilians, then so bit. We will eliminate them" etc. I mean, I cringed when I heard Kerry mentioned he would "kill" Usama.

Of course that is your intention, but when did it become okay to say that? Is this culture shock, or is the use of shock by many these dishonorable pundits just a way to make money, and political discourse be damned.

I myself have said hard things (Ann Coulter is a cunt), but in public I wouldn't say that. The right wing gets a pass in this instance, because their discourse was not accepted (obviously). Now with their recognition on the national scene, it is getting more and more acceptable to deviate towards a lower standard. At what point do we tell them to learn some manners? Is it our goal to have 12 year olds recite how many different ways they would kill an enemy of the U.S. in graphic details?

For others not to repudiate Coulter, speaks volumes. I have respect for, say, Andrew Sullivan and even Peter King(!) for their public remarks. The rest have lost their authority for some time. Or, if I can speak their language, the rest can go fuck themselves.

Work is done, I'm out.

Posted by: Boorring on June 8, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Personally, I would rather burnish my moderate credentials by wringing my hands over the anonymous comments on some liberal blog.

Posted by: Nick Kristoff on June 8, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

What if he was a notorious Southern rascist who had a secret black child from a 15 year servant girl he'd raped....ok, fine, no....

I gather that either the "notorious Southern rascist" [sic] is himself black, or you believe in the "one-drop rule." I have a sinking feeling that you're talking about Thomas Jefferson, who is the last person in the world I'd call a "conservative."

Perhaps he could lose $8 million dollars gambling while pretending to be an expert on ethics and virtue....no, huh?

I suppose if Bennett had won $8 mil it'd be better? Really, there is nothing unethical about gambling at least, if there is, someone had better say something immediately to our Native-American purveyors of vice. Obviously they think they are doing nothing but good; they ought to be disabused. Any volunteers?

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's unfortunate, Mr. Benen, that the only examples you could find about over-the-line statements and behavior was on the conservative side. I can't imagine you had trouble finding them on the progressive side. But you shoot yourself in the foot big time by failing to include a single one.

Ms. Coulter? To hell with her. Ditto for the progressive idiotarians who've done similar things. Can you cite them and say that?

Posted by: Steve White on June 8, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

Now that we're among the very limited number of people on the planet to know who Ted Rall is, let's all rush out to google him so we can drum up some outrage to pacify the person who had to explain his identity to us.

Can't make this stuff up.

Stefan, I'm highly amused by your running list.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 9:01 PM | PERMALINK

I have a sinking feeling that you're talking about Thomas Jefferson, who is the last person in the world I'd call a "conservative."

No, Strom Thurmond and his daughter Essie Mae Washington.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

The outrageous things she says have the same function as Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

With one difference - CBS got hit with a massive fine for the wardrobe malfunction.

Matt Lauer ended his interview with Coulter by telling her how much 'fun' it is to have her on his show.

Posted by: Stranger on June 8, 2006 at 9:03 PM | PERMALINK

My wife came home from church last night and said they were ranting about that "liberal" woman that attacked the 9/11 widows.

They didn't know she was a conservative.

Posted by: ibobunot on June 8, 2006 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

I suppose if Bennett had won $8 mil it'd be better? Really, there is nothing unethical about gambling at least, if there is, someone had better say something immediately to our Native-American purveyors of vice. Obviously they think they are doing nothing but good; they ought to be disabused. Any volunteers?

Well, if I was a notorious purveyor of virtue such as Bill Bennett I could either give it to a casino or I could, say, donate it to some orphans, or endow a scholarship for some deserving students, or give it to Saddam's victims, or buy the homeless some food. Of course, there's nothing "wrong" with spending $8 million chasing a cheap thrill -- but there's something wrong with using it to chase a thrill while at the same time lecturing everyone else on their moral shortcomings.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

someone had better say something immediately to our Native-American purveyors of vice.

Said purveyors of vice haven't been lecturing us for ten years on how morally superior they are to us sinners.

Can't say the same about the Bookie Of Virtues, can you?

Posted by: Stranger on June 8, 2006 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, can't say that gambling seems like much of an ethical issue, even to most of today's most Christiany Christians (50 years ago was a different story, and there are still a few evangelical churches in which card playing is considered a big sin).

Bennett, however, has a serious addiction about which he's in deep denial. Will be interesting to see if he ever acknowledges and gets helps with that.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

What if he was a supposed opponent of gambling who'd secretly been taking payouts from Indian casino interests....really, that's not gonna do it, huh?

OK, say he's a supposed man of God who's in league with West African warlords and diamond smugglers...ok, wait, I can do better....

What about a steroid abuser with a history of sexually molesting innocent women?....really, still not?

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINK

Lefty cartoonist, nationally syndicated (at least, he seems to be everywhere).

never seen anything by him. how many bestsellers does he have ? has he ever delivered a speech at a DNC convention ?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Steve White:

Ms. Coulter? To hell with her. Ditto for the progressive idiotarians who've done similar things. Can you cite them and say that?

Exactly right! To hell with Herr Hitler! Also, to hell with Gustav Reinhold, that 18 year-old communist who always said outrageous things before he died at Ravensbruck of typhus! It is equally critical that we denounce them both!

Thank you, Steve White, for restoring a sense of equivalence and balance to this issue.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

grh, you crack me up constantly.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

wait, does the "Ted Rall" have a nationally-syndicated radio show, where he advocates killing liberals ? is he on 15 hours a week, making $31,000,000 / yr ?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

Easy - bolt the party.

Posted by: craigie on June 8, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

This question assumes that 'polite society' and 'conservative' are analagous, of course.

Given Ann's comments of late, I'm not sure that argument is a 'slam dunk'.

Posted by: floopmeister on June 8, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

So Strom Thurmond's child is black? You do believe in the one-drop rule. How very quaint of you.

shortstop,

I rather think most of the readers here know Ted Rall as well as Ann Coulter. I avoid both of them, and frankly find it remarkably easy to avoid both of them. You have to be seeking either to be exposed to them.

Stefan,

Of course, there's nothing "wrong" with spending $8 million chasing a cheap thrill -- but there's something wrong with using it to chase a thrill while at the same time lecturing everyone else on their moral shortcomings.

Well, only if you are on record as denouncing gambling as a moral shortcoming. Did Bennett actually do that?

Stranger,

Said purveyors of vice haven't been lecturing us for ten years on how morally superior they are to us sinners.

Can't say the same about the Bookie Of Virtues, can you?

I don't think Bennett has been parading himself as without sin, Stranger; no Christian would even try. If you're a Christian you are basically a sinner by definition. And I don't think gambling is sinful; I do think wantonly taking advantage of gambling addicts' weakness is morally reprehensible. So say what you like about Bennett; I'll say what I like about the "gaming" industry, which is more or less that it's a system of preying on the weak, which the Left would condemn if it weren't a major source of income for Native-American nations.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

was the "Ted Rall" ever Time Magazine's cover story ? did his blog make Blog Of The Year ?

i'm starting to think this "Ted Rall" is just some strawman cobbled together, by the people who regularly accouse 50% of their fellow countrymen of treason, to give themselves something else to attack.

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

What if he's a floppy-haired bowtied commentator who jokes that a lawyer who represented a five year old girl whose intestines were pulled out through her rectum by a faulty pool drain only takes "Jacuzzi cases"?...still no shunning?

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan, that would never be shunned. They like violence and death - that's their principle feature - so joking about someone else's injuries is probably cause for some kind of reward. As Coulter seems to understand well.

Posted by: craigie on June 8, 2006 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

Did Bennett actually do that?

YES! you silly person. That's the whole goddamn point!

Of course, maybe you don't know this kind of trivia, what with following the career of media titans like Ted Rall and all.

Posted by: craigie on June 8, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

So Strom Thurmond's child is black? You do believe in the one-drop rule. How very quaint of you.

Ms. Washington seems to believe she's African-American, so I defer to her opinion of herself. Certainly she was treated as black by the society she grew up in, and attended a segregated Africa-American college:

Essie Mae Williams:
....And it must have started around the campus that I was the governor's daughter.

Dan Rather:
To put this in some perspective, the college is segregated, is it not?

Essie Mae Williams:
Yes.

Dan Rather:
It's all African-American students.

Essie Mae Williams:
Yes. It was then.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

I rather think most of the readers here know Ted Rall as well as Ann Coulter.

Don't be deliberately obtuse.

I avoid both of them, and frankly find it remarkably easy to avoid both of them. You have to be seeking either to be exposed to them.

Yes, it's quite hard to find Ann Coulter, unless of course you look at the cover of Time Magazine, or watch such obscure shows as "Good Morning America."

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

Polite society exists, is well, and shuns naturally and quite a lot these days. But what does that have to do with commercial TV? Matt Lauer is used (blackmailed effectively for his pay check) to pimp for a commercial enterprise that is amoral, prostitution. Money. Its business not society.

Newspapers and TV should stop the denial and know that, yes, shunning takes place, and that's the reason for their declining viewer/readership.

For instance, in the Pasadena Star News a comic, Mallard Duck, runs at the botton of the daily editorial page. Years ago I read a few of the cartoons. They were perverted, hateful, based on contempt, a vile world view. Ever since, I find myself noticing that I have averted my eyes. That was my organic reaction - I shunned it and have never "looked" at it again. Remarkable that I would adapt the more inefficient shunning which has to take more energy than to just read everthing.

The Washington Times - owned by Sun Yung Moon. I shun no matter what the temptation because I want to protect myself from probable negative influences. And I read everything!

O'reily, Rush, Hannity - shunned albeit for different reasons. At some point polite society learns to look away.

The woman under discussion - My brain shuns her. I may not avert my eyes in the same sense that one's gaze may get fixed on a body in the street at an accident scene. And I figure a show that has her invariably has a low bar so I see it as a gift, a tip to shun.

Polite society is simply not an audience for commercial TV. Cable stations as well, they pimp fringe characters like sideshow barkers pulling at National Enquiror readers, high-sensory-seekers, a certain kind of socially deprived or developmentally delayed. "The media" doesn't exist within the context of discriminating taste because of the very essence of the discriminating. It reduces the audience. Afterall, the number 1 cable show every week seems to be wrestling. I assume that the Nat'l Enq has a much greater readership than the NYT.

There's no reason to question polite society because of content on TV. The street outside may be dirty but you can eat off of the floor in my home.

Posted by: kck on June 8, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

Well, only if you are on record as denouncing gambling as a moral shortcoming. Did Bennett actually do that?

Ah, so it's only wrong if you're on record as denouncing it. Well, since I'm not on record as denouncing opium use or drug-fueled gay orgies or the thrill-killing of drunken hoboes I guess I'm free and clear to indulge!

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:44 PM | PERMALINK

cleek,

Ted Rall exists; I didn't invent him. I haven't accused anyone of treason, much less half the populace. And the fact is, as I said, that Rall drew a cartoon lampooning "terror widows" some years ago, basically saying what Coulter just said. At the time, Rall was attacked by the same people who are attacking Coulter now on the right. The cartoon in question led to his being dropped from the NYT website, so I think it's reasonable to say that he wasn't exactly obscure.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

You have to be seeking either to be exposed to them.

Or, you know, you have to be watching the Today Show or looking at the cover of Time. That's only for Ann Coulter, of course.

Speaking of which, nexis shows during the past year, Ann Coulter was a guest on national TV fifty times or so. Ted Rall was on onceon Fox, for them to scream at him about being anti-American.

Perhaps "deliberately obtuse" is too kind a characterization for waterfowl.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 9:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well, only if you are on record as denouncing gambling as a moral shortcoming. Did Bennett actually do that?

Seriously, not "only if." Look at it this way -- Bill Bennett had $8 million in spare cash sitting in his bank account. The point isn't really that he spent it on gambling per se, it's that he spent it on himself, for his own personal satisfaction, when he could have spent it on the poor and unfortunate. My reaction would be about the same if he's spent it on shoes, or a yacht, or cigars or a wine cellar -- he spent it on himself, to make himself feel good, to feed his addiction.

Now, one can argue there's nothing "wrong" with that, but can one argue there's nothing "wrong" with that when compared with the chance he had to do good with the money? Would an ethical person, a virtuous person, really have spent all that money on himself or would he have spent it to make the lives of those who were suffering a little easier? Wouldn't a truly moral man have spent it on food or clothing or education for the poor? It may not be wrong -- but one can't argue that it's good.

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 9:54 PM | PERMALINK

Well, waterfowl, why don't we just leave it at this: If anyone here had ever heard of Ted Rall, much less seen the cartoon in question, we'd be sure to be really, really, really pissed off. You can count on us! Once you help us understand these equivalences, that is!

craigie, welcome back. Was it swingin'?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and this -- "basically saying what Coulter just said" -- is also wrong. Rall's cartoon attacked 9/11 widows for being in the media and seeming money-hungry. Coulter was attacking them for criticizing Bush.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

Was it swingin'?

Like it was 1969!

Posted by: craigie on June 8, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Never argue with the members of a cult. In this case members of the GOP cult. Everything that their cult does makes perfect sense to its members.

Posted by: nut on June 8, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

A few days back, on Memorial Day, I came across a few Pearl Harbor widows that were having a conversation about that horrible day sixty-five years ago. They had the nerve do wonder in the US government had done all they could do to prevent their husbands' deaths. How dare they. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.

Posted by: nuttylittlenut nut on June 8, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan! You realize, of course, that yours of 9:54 is emitting a high-pitched "liberal claiming moral position" signal that summons Will Allen to berate you, zombielike, for 22 straight hours...hardly changing a word from post to post! Quickly, light a candle and mumble something.

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

The cartoon in question led to his being dropped from the NYT website, so I think it's reasonable to say that he wasn't exactly obscure

nope, still never seen him. i've heard the right moaning about him, but i've still never seen him.

Coulter was dropped by the National Review. and yet she's still haunting our national discourse. still making bestsellers, still ubiquitous on cable talk shows, still all over the lecture circuit, still writing nationally-syndicated columns, and she's got a hell of a list of violent, obscene, hateful quotations. Ted Rall? who the fuck is Ted Rall ? a cartoonist got canned for an offensive cartoon ? big fucking deal. and that brings us back to the question: What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

Posted by: cleek on June 8, 2006 at 10:02 PM | PERMALINK

Like it was 1969!

Really?! Did you bring me a Mary Quant dress from Carnaby Street?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan,

Yes, it's quite hard to find Ann Coulter, unless of course you look at the cover of Time Magazine, or watch such obscure shows as "Good Morning America."

Not exactly what I said. Of course, since I don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," I may have missed the bulk of the Coulter blight.

Ah, so it's only wrong if you're on record as denouncing it. Well, since I'm not on record as denouncing opium use or drug-fueled gay orgies or the thrill-killing of drunken hoboes I guess I'm free and clear to indulge!

I see. So you're free to denounce Bennett as a hypocrite because he gambles and you think gambling is wrong. Or, possibly, you think he should think gambling is wrong. I wish you'd clarify that. I honestly don't see why gambling should be classed as a sin; but if you have a good argument, I'd like to see it.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Really?! Did you bring me a Mary Quant dress from Carnaby Street?

No, and I'm sure it will ruin your evening to be told that there is now a Starbucks in Carnaby Street. So I won't mention that.

Posted by: craigie on June 8, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

Well, since I'm not on record as denouncing opium use or drug-fueled gay orgies or the thrill-killing of drunken hoboes I guess I'm free and clear to indulge!

OK, I'm back, if a little shaky. All I can say is, one out of three at a time from my list above, quite good fun; two out of three at a time, it was nice but I won't do it again; but trying all three at once -- man, that was a little too much.....I think I need to lie down...and what the hell's this stuff all over me....?!?!?!

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

She is a middle aged woman who never quite grew up. The A list of the conservative movement (National Review) abandoned her years ago and if you notice , you don't see a lot of prominent Republicans on the right coming to her rescue now. I predict Ms. political exhibitionist will continue her tired old act, her shock books, and her sheer nastiness until her dwindling supporters see her for the millstone she is. Miniskirts, high heels and shock books are a young girls game.

Posted by: aline on June 8, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, since I don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," I may have missed the bulk of the Coulter blight.

Me too! Since I don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," I have come to understand that statements by George Bush and a barber in St. Louis are exactly equivalent.

This mode of "thinking" has kept my brain clean and lemony-fresh lo these many years.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

Ward Churchill refers to the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" and Republicans go into convulsions of rage.

Ann Coulter refers to the victims of 9/11 as "witches" and "harpies" and Republicans are overjoyed and ecstatic.

What am I missing here?

Posted by: Moonlight on June 8, 2006 at 10:12 PM | PERMALINK

What am I missing here?

The dynamic career of Mr. Ted Rall!

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

No, and I'm sure it will ruin your evening to be told that there is now a Starbucks in Carnaby Street. So I won't mention that.

Too late. I saw it in December. I hate when they ruin historical places I was too young ever to have seen back in the day. I feel like I've lost something really personal, you know?

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Some truth to that. Pushy widders > 9/11 Commission > Political Momentum > Massive bureaucratic reshuffle > Dept. Homeland Security > Size and turf paralysis > FEMA, Michael Brown > Katrina response, symbol of total quadriplegic bureaucratic paralysis.

Posted by: Myron on June 8, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?"

A conservative could get himself shunned by polite society by noting that Republicans are the Party that embraces the Culture of Death.

Or, alternately, they could get themselves shunned by pointing out that all the war-mongering conservatives in Bush's government, in the media, the trolls here, and those at The Project for the New American Century are all draft-dodging, gutless pukes who expect others to fight their battles for them.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

cleek,

Ted Rall? who the fuck is Ted Rall ? a cartoonist got canned for an offensive cartoon ? big fucking deal. and that brings us back to the question: What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

You do realize that "offensive cartoons" can get you assassinated in other countries, yes?

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 10:19 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

So you're free to denounce Bennett as a hypocrite because he gambles and you think gambling is wrong. Or, possibly, you think he should think gambling is wrong...I honestly don't see why gambling should be classed as a sin; but if you have a good argument, I'd like to see it.

Here's an ideamaybe the person you should be asking about why gambling is wrong is WILLIAM BENNETT:

"I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over."
Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

You do realize that "offensive cartoons" can get you assassinated in other countries, yes?

I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make. However, I suspect the point is "I'm losing an argument and need to create a diversion."

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

However, I suspect the point is "I'm losing an argument and need to create a diversion."

Quick! Look over there! Bill Clinton!

Posted by: Stefan on June 8, 2006 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

grh,

Me too! Since I don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," I have come to understand that statements by George Bush and a barber in St. Louis are exactly equivalent.

This mode of "thinking" has kept my brain clean and lemony-fresh lo these many years.

That's right. If you don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," you are obviously Out Of Touch With Real America. Because Real Americans think Ann Coulter (Lord knows why) is important.

Sorry, guilty here: I think Coulter is pathetic. I suppose that makes me one of those pseudo-Americans that don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America." If I have to take my news from stuff on the newstands and on TV, I have my favorites.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

You know, I'm still upset that the FMA failed yesterday.

I just can't get those poor, fatherless children out of my mind.

Sorry for being off-topic. Sniff.

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

grh,

[Bennett]:

"I have done too much gambling, and this is not an example I wish to set. Therefore, my gambling days are over."

This is evidence that Bennett thinks gambling is a sin? Doesn't look like that from here.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Waterfowl

What does it appear his current stance on gambling is?

Posted by: Pierre Asciutto on June 8, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Saw Anne Coulter being interviewed by Hannity last night. She was the most amazing caricature of herself. I think she's jumped the shark.

Posted by: karin on June 8, 2006 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

grh: Perhaps "deliberately obtuse" is too kind a characterization for waterfowl.

After her post of 10:34, I have to agree. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to miss someone's point that badly. But PA is always new, always fresh!

Posted by: shortstop on June 8, 2006 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

If you don't read Time or watch "Good Morning America," you are obviously Out Of Touch With Real America. Because Real Americans think Ann Coulter (Lord knows why) is important.

Let me be the first to point out there is NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER between these two sentences.

Moreover, that -- THE ABSOLUTE LACK OF CONNECTION -- is indeed the WHOLE FUCKING POINT.

Most people don't care about Ann Coulter or Ted Rall. Yet the U.S. media feels it must gives enormous, constant exposure to Ann Coulter. Meanwhile, it feels no need to give such high profile exposure to, say, Ted Rall. (Even granting the two of them are equivalent, which they're not.)

So, let me make a request: either say (1) wow, that's incredibly obvious, I'm embarrassed you had to point it out to me; or (2) I've understood this all along, but was just being deliberately obtuse in my quest to argue like a conservative.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

This is evidence that Bennett thinks gambling is a sin? Doesn't look like that from here.

Ah, I see. I'd made the mistake of thinking it might be worth extending the courtesy of rational discourse to you. My mistake; please carry on.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

[me:] You do realize that "offensive cartoons" can get you assassinated in other countries, yes?

[grh:] I'm not sure what point this is supposed to make. However, I suspect the point is "I'm losing an argument and need to create a diversion."

grh, my point was only that Ted Rall may be obscure to you, but if he were doing the equivalent cartooning in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran or Egypt, he'd be even more obscure, because probably imprisoned or dead. I suppose that constitutes a "diversion." I suggest some experiments in line drawing on your own part, and I look forward to seeing them.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

Right on. I see I was incorrect that I was "the first to point out" how completely waterfowl was missing the point. I'll have to be quicker next time ;-)

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Coulter's comments cry out for a "Sister Souljah moment".

Where is the prominent conservative with the balls to do the deed?

Posted by: Joe Canuck on June 8, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

I suggest some experiments in line drawing on your own part, and I look forward to seeing them.

See above.

Beyond that, sorry. You'll have to find someone else to play with.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 11:01 PM | PERMALINK

shortstop,

After [my] post of 10:34, I have to agree. I wouldn't have thought it was possible to miss someone's point that badly. But PA is always new, always fresh!

Hey, shortstop, just tell me where I went wrong. In all honesty, I don't want to misunderstand anything here.

Posted by: waterfowl on June 8, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Is it possible that Coulter is a psychopath?

Characteristics of a Psychopath

* superficial charm
* self-centered & self-important
* need for stimulation & prone to boredom
* deceptive behavior & lying
* conning & manipulative
* little remorse or guilt
* shallow emotional response
* callous with a lack of empathy
* promiscuous sexual behavior

She should be tested as a condition of employment.

Posted by: dr. freud on June 8, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

waterfowl:

Hey, shortstop, just tell me where I went wrong. In all honesty, I don't want to misunderstand anything here.

Wow! shortstop, I think you'll agree that this gambit -- ie, saying "I just don't understand" when there's an explanation three inches directly above -- is breaking impressive new ground in the "Let's Be Deliberately Obtuse" strategy.

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't you hear her impeccable logic? - "They (the 9-11 widows) are all over the news." Therefore, they are 'reveling in their husband's deaths'.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Why bother responding to someone so obviously broken and dysfunctional as this thing?

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on June 8, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

While personally considering what Coulter said to be out of line, she really has said nothing worse than what Bill Mahr, Al Franken and Michael Moore have said; and continue to say.

Posted by: Jay on June 8, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie, is there a reason for you to use "Don P" in addition to "Cheney"? I can understand why you dumped your actual identity, but why do you need TWO additional ones?

Posted by: grh on June 8, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

Charlie:

And, if you guys thought that was bad, just wait til this hits the news: "liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as 'religion,'" including a creation myth (evolution), priests (public school teachers) and a holy sacrament (abortion).

If I may quote myself:

One thing that's interesting about the internet is it's made it clear how much the U.S. right wing thrives on the manipulation of the stupid. It's something the people at the top of the food chain do relentlessly and with some real skill.
Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

While personally considering what Coulter said to be out of line, she really has said nothing worse than what Bill Mahr, Al Franken and Michael Moore have said; and continue to say.
Please do go on. I can't wait to hear this.

Posted by: TK on June 9, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Hey, I've got one. How would you simultaneously increase the IQ of this blog and lower the IQ of dumbassesforcoulter.com? Send waterfowl there!

Posted by: Captain on June 9, 2006 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

You keep this list of evil Repub stuff in a Rolodex or something?

Posted by: philly on June 9, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

You keep this list of evil Repub stuff in a Rolodex or something?

Nah, my brain, but the function is much the same.

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

While personally considering what Coulter said to be out of line, she really has said nothing worse than what Bill Mahr, Al Franken and Michael Moore have said; and continue to say.

Does it get moldy and chewy, this constant reliance on the false-equivalence defense? But please, go ahead and shock us with the dreadful statements of these over-the-top individuals.

Posted by: craigie on June 9, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

One thing that's interesting about the internet is it's made it clear how much the U.S. right wing thrives on the manipulation of the stupid. It's something the people at the top of the food chain do relentlessly and with some real skill.
Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

The two (rightwing and stupid) go hand-in-hand.

Rightwingers are stupid and gullible, and they need the stupid and the gullible to continue.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on June 9, 2006 at 1:12 AM | PERMALINK

Ted Rall is considerably more moderate than Ms. Coulter. In any case, as he explains at http://www.tedrall.com/rants.html:

"First, Coulter isn't always wrong about everything. No one is. Second, she's a lot meaner to the widows as people than my cartoon was, which explored the way specific media figures--Mariane Pearl, Theodore Olsen and Lisa Beamer--exploited their spouses' deaths to make money or political hay. The vast majority of widows and widowers of 9/11, I have repeatedly said and written, deserve our sympathy and whatever help they need to rebuild their lives. My commentary was about the media phenomenon, such as the parade of 9/11 widows who went on stage during the 2004 GOP Necropublican Convention in New York to endorse Bush, then the specific individuals."

Posted by: CDWard on June 9, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

I suggest some experiments in line drawing on your own part, and I look forward to seeing them.

I applaud waterfoul for reaching the point where she has decided to put herself up as a Coulter equivalent, thereby nullifying all previous arguments on her part.

Posted by: Disputo on June 9, 2006 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie:

I am not "Charlie" or "Don P" but feel free to quote yourself - the rest of us will stay on topic and quote Coulter.

One thing I really do wonder about with Charlie is what's going on in his head when he says this. I'd say most of the time he's so filled with hate and fear he genuinely can't perceive reality, and believes much of what he claims. But I don't think he's so far gone that he literally suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.

So, I wonder what story he has to tell himself to lie this brazenly? If I had to guess, I'd say he probably believes that "good" (what he believes he, Ann Coulter, etc. represent) is under such omnipresent threat from "evil" (that would be us) that lies are justified to protect it.

In any case, it's an interesting question. And certainly the internet has made it possible to observe people as mentally troubled as Charlie in a way that previously was far more difficult.

Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

I HAVE INDEED HEARD OF TED RALL.

I'm not a fan, particularly since the comic he produced mocking Pat Tillman for giving up a career in the NFL to serve and die in Afghanistan. I think he later apologized when he found out that Tillman was a free thinker, into writers like Noam Chomsky and simply not the right-wing meathead Rall had made him out to be. Anyone who hasn't read the initial article in the Nation should do so:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/zirin

It features a hilariously bizarre quote from Ann Coulter about Pat Tillman.

Hey, we were just talking about Ann Coulter! See how i did that? I addressed a troll's irrelevant point and brought it right back to Ann the Man! My rhetorical jujitsu triumphs again!

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 9, 2006 at 1:57 AM | PERMALINK

My opinion. I think we are, once again, returning to our own old failed ways. Coulter reminded us of this, and I am grateful for her.

The new community values that every new American should espoused are:
1. patriotism to our Christian nation,
2. evangelism (of our Christian faith),
3. resoluteness,
4. loyal adherence to the (evangelical) church,
5. moral integrity (no divorce, no affairs, no abortion, and no gays),
6. unquestioning belief in GOD (belief in second coming of Christ), and finally
7. utmost loyalty and confidence in our supreme leader (currently Bush, no dissenting view)

That's my 2 cents anyway.

Posted by: Mini Al on June 9, 2006 at 2:06 AM | PERMALINK

What makes Ann Coulter so deplorable is not that she believes what she says, because she doesn't. No, she is a tyrant best consigned to obscurity because she says hateful things she doesn't believe for the money.

Right. As opposed to the far-left commenters on this blog, who say hateful things they do believe, things every bit as abusive as anything Ann Coulter has written, not for money but to try and convince themselves of their moral superiority. Of course, they would also say those things for money if anyone were willing to pay them.

Posted by: GOP on June 9, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, they would also say those things for money if anyone were willing to pay them.

Yes, sadly, it's far easier to get paid to spout propaganda if you're a Republican. Armstrong Williams-level payola isn't available to everyone, you know....

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

GOP! What a FANTASTIC POINT you've made! I couldn't agree with you more.

Of course, you have absolutely no understanding of the significance of what you said, which is exactly the opposite of what you intended. But no matter. Job well done!

Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

What was "MT::App::Comments=HASH(0x8416b8c) Use of uninitialized value in sprintf at /home/apache/htdocs/mt/lib/MT/Template/Context.pm line 1187."?
Posted by: Cheney

That's the smartest thing you've said today, Charlie.

Posted by: Ken on June 9, 2006 at 3:51 AM | PERMALINK

The key difference between Rall's misplaced bit of dark irony and Coulter's venemous spewings lies in the fact that Coulter is making a distinctly political argument, while Rall was not. Coulter's larger point is that she believes the Republican Party "owns" 9/11, and that anyone, even a 9/11 widow, who dissents from the Republican 9/11 narrative is fair game for the most vicious of attacks.

Posted by: Donna Q on June 9, 2006 at 6:27 AM | PERMALINK

The key difference between Rall's misplaced bit of dark irony and Coulter's venemous spewings lies in the fact that Coulter is making a distinctly political argument, while Rall was not.

And that Rall is relegated to alt.weeklies, while Adolf- er- Ann gets herself on the Today Show and the cover of Time Magazine.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on June 9, 2006 at 6:41 AM | PERMALINK

But I don't think he's so far gone that he literally suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Chuckles is a major attention whore.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on June 9, 2006 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

Coulter's larger point is that she believes the Republican Party "owns" 9/11, and that anyone, even a 9/11 widow, who dissents from the Republican 9/11 narrative is fair game for the most vicious of attacks.

That's something I've never understood. Republicans support President Bush because the greatest national security failure in the history of the United States happened on his watch. That's insane.

Or, to put it another way: The greatest national security failure of all time happens while Bush is president, and that's why Republicans support him? Again, insanity!

I guess the question I'm asking here is this: Why would any political party want to own the greatest national security failure in the history of the United States?

Posted by: Moonlight on June 9, 2006 at 7:49 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie:

it's at least possible that I am NOT the person who once posted here as "Charlie".

Interesting. I'd evaluate this as a compromise between the insane part of Charlie and the non-insane part. The insane part is too strong for him to be honest, overflowing as it is with uncontrollable hate and fear. But the sane part still exists, if barely, and prevents him from lying outright (at least in this limited instance).

In some ways he really is a fascinating study in psychological pathology. As I said above, the internet really provides opportunities to observe the behavior of some genuinely troubled people in a way that previously was essentially impossible.

Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

Beyond the 9/11 issue, let's remember that Jesse Helms suggested that if President Clinton were to visit his state (North Carolina) he might want to wear a flack jacket. He should have been arrested for such a comment and Janet Reno should have been arrested for not arresting him.

Newt Gingrich said that President Clinton was "the enemy of all normal people" and a few weeks later some whack job was spraying the north wall of the White House with bullets.

Republicans - especially the ones in responsible public offices - have been getting away with this kind of langauage for years. Imagine if any Democratic member of Congress had made similar statements in public during the Bush adminstration's reign. They most likely would have been whisked away to a secret prison in Eastern Europe, never to be heard from again.

Posted by: Lamonte on June 9, 2006 at 8:50 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan: You are awesome. Your attempts to answer the question shall have me smiling all day.

And as for the initial question: the media is not "polite society". In fact, they are distinctly the opposite. "Polite society" is not entertaining, nor does it serve the media ownerships' interests. Thus, nothing a conservative can do will get them shunned by the media, save for ceasing to be conservative.

Posted by: S Ra on June 9, 2006 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

P.S. Moonlight - prior to 9/11, I believe that Pearl Harbor was the greatest national security failure in the history of the United States - that happened on FDR's watch, correct? Nonetheless, we supported the President because it was the right thing to do during war - does that answer your question?

I understand your point. I just think it's irrational to support a president because he failed spectacularly at his job. Especially if he had been warned of the danger ahead of time.

Posted by: Moonlight on June 9, 2006 at 8:54 AM | PERMALINK

"I believe that Pearl Harbor was the greatest national security failure in the history of the United States - that happened on FDR's watch, correct? Nonetheless, we supported the President because it was the right thing to do during war - does that answer your question?" - Cheney

After Pearl Harbor was attacked the US under FDR's leadership declared war on the nation that bombed Pearl Harbor: Japan.

After the Pentagon and World Trade Center were attacked by terrorists/hijackers mostly from Saudi Arabia, the US under George w. Bush's so-called leadership declared war on Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.


If in 1941, FDR and Congress declared war on Australia instead of on Japan, your analogy comparing Bush's war on Iraq to FDR's war with the Axis powers would make some sense, Cheney. As it's written, it's ridiculous.

Posted by: Jack Nasty on June 9, 2006 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Charlie you really are an idiot. FDR declared war on Germnay after Germany had already declared war against the US. Perhaps you missed that lesson in your homeschooling.

Posted by: Botecelli on June 9, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

my point was only that Ted Rall may be obscure to you

Ted Rall is obscure to everyone. If the best you can do is equate Ted Rall with Ann Coulter, forget it.

Ann Coulter has been all over Fox News where the fawning hosts like Hannity, O'Reilly and Cavuto just get such a kick out of her. She is widely accepted in the Republican Party. She only gets into trouble when she gets wider exposure to normal people like on the Today Show.

Matt Daou is right. Every Republican interviewed on TV should be made to respond to the things Ann Coulter says. Remember, the first question Tim Russert asked Barack Obama was to respond to a wacky quote by Harry Belafonte. Why doesn't Russert read a few of Ann's gems to John McCain and make him respond?

Posted by: Pug on June 9, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK

If in 1941, FDR and Congress declared war on Australia instead of on Japan, your analogy comparing Bush's war on Iraq to FDR's war with the Axis powers would make some sense, Cheney. As it's written, it's ridiculous.
Posted by: Jack Nasty

In making this same analogy I've always preferred Venezuela, since Venezuela conveniently has substantial oil reserves and makes a better comparision in terms of size and population with Iraq.

Posted by: CFShep on June 9, 2006 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Botecelli:

Charlie you really are an idiot. FDR declared war on Germany after Germany had already declared war against the US.

This is an interesting example of Charlie's psycho-pathology. The idiocy of this particular analogy has probably been pointed out to him 1000 times. But I think he genuinely doesn't understand why it's so incredibly stupid, and just holds onto it all the tighter.

By contrast, while he may be 95% crazy, he's not 100% crazy, and does understand that Charlie, Cheney, Don P, etc. are all him. So it's harder (though not impossible) for him to deny it outright, as you see above.

Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 9:36 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, I know it's quite pointless to rebut people like Charlie with facts. He is, though ,a fine example of the modern conservative - just make shit up and repeat it over and over.

Posted by: Botecelli on June 9, 2006 at 9:41 AM | PERMALINK

Coulter was not only rude in her book, but it contained bald-assed lies (such as the one about Dover, Pa. students being required to wear anti-Creationism T-shirts, or the one about there being no transitional fossils in the geologic record). This is a Wingnut hero.

Posted by: mark on June 9, 2006 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

My wife came home from church last night and said they were ranting about that "liberal" woman that attacked the 9/11 widows.
They didn't know she was a conservative.
Posted by: ibobunot on June 8, 2006 at 9:04PM

That's one of the saddest, most drepressing things I've heard recently.

Posted by: 2.7182818 on June 9, 2006 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

And the American Spectator comes to her defense. Twice.

Posted by: clark on June 9, 2006 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. under FDR's leadership declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Germany. Think of this analogy: Japan = Afghanistan / Germany = Iraq.

As I and many others have pointed out to Charlie/Cheney many, many times, the US did not declare war on Germany -- rather, Germany, on December 11th, declared war on the United States. It's a simple historical fact, one anyone can easily look up, and yet he keeps lying about it again and again and again....

\

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

"After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. under FDR's leadership declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Germany. Think of this analogy: Japan = Afghanistan / Germany = Iraq"

Oh sweet Jesus of Nazareth. Please tell me I didn't just read this.

Posted by: beefcake blogger on June 9, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Yes, I know it's quite pointless to rebut people like Charlie with facts.

It's quite pointless to rebut Charlie at all. Ignore him, let him declare victory and go away.

Posted by: . on June 9, 2006 at 11:04 AM | PERMALINK

the party of Ann Coulter

Posted by: christAlmighty on June 9, 2006 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

I don't think Bennett has been parading himself as without sin, Stranger; no Christian would even try. If you're a Christian you are basically a sinner by definition.

What?? Talk about moving the goalposts! So, since Bennett has never publically proclaimed himself without sin, the fact that he has a terrible gambling habit, yet decries the vice of gambling and decries the vice of prostitution, yet was seen in Vegas in the company of an S&M prostitute, he's not a hypocrite? We're wrong to point it out?

Waterfowl, you're way off base here. Ted Rall's comic was published over 2 years ago. So the fact that we're not still complaining about it is wrong? Ann Coulter's book came out this week. I don't get your point.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 9, 2006 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

"shortstop,

I rather think most of the readers here know Ted Rall as well as Ann Coulter. I avoid both of them, and frankly find it remarkably easy to avoid both of them. You have to be seeking either to be exposed to them." waterfowl at June 8, 2006 at 9:32 PM

waterfowl:

Assumption without evidence. From the responses since this comment was posted it is clear that very few people here had ever heard of this Ted Rall, while everyone here including those on the right knew who Ann Coulter was, even yourself. This shows clearly which one is better known even without comparing the massive difference in media profile for the past five-ten years now. Coulter routinely uses hate and dehumanization of those groups she despises be they liberals/Democrats or Islamic terrorists, indeed she will routinely equate them. This is also not something that she did in response to a specific act but a non-stop parade over a multi-year period.

While I have rarely agreed with you in the past waterfowl I had found you made better arguments with better reasoning than you have in this thread generally and in particular regarding the quoted assumption and your subsequent defence of it. This time out your attempt to find equivalence/balance failed utterly. Ann Coulter is quite possibly the most vile slanderous venomous pundit/media figure in contemporary American culture/society. She is clearly a devout supporter of the GOP, and generally is welcomed by the GOP with apparent acceptance of her views, especially when she writes a new book and the right wing noise machine smoothly moves into action to support her book as has happened yet again.

While you may be a conservative that avoids her work yourself you do not denounce her for what she is. Instead you shrug and say she is just another rhetorical bomb thrower like those on the left such as Ted Rall. Yet your comparison had no equivalence, had no merit, and even if it did does not change how hateful and disgusting Coulter is and how important it should be for the entire conservative movement to disavow her in the strongest terms without instead trying to equate her bile with those on the left the same as her in such matters. That is what tends to really bug a lot of us about how conservatives deal with her.

It is that the party/movement of family values and morality (which the GOP/conservatism has claimed for many many years now) has never had a problem with such a clearly immoral person doing the dirty work of slandering all the GOP/conservatives' opponents by use of hatred (which is anti-Christian in nature I might add) and welcoming her to all kinds of political events and is recognized as a major spokesperson for the political right by all media sources both "left" and "right" as is clearly shown. Your attempt at equivalence and then dismissal of her while showing you own distaste for her works seems quite mild, especially given how it is likely you would have reacted if someone from the very media visible left in American politics had said something equally hateful about the oh say widows of American soldiers reveling in their losses and using their deaths for media coverage and to make money.

I used to have a fair bit of respect for you even while disagreeing with you, but this thread has significantly reduced that.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

"Like it was 1969!"

"Really?! Did you bring me a Mary Quant dress from Carnaby Street?"

No, because then it would have been 1966.

Speaking of fashion, apparently you can shoot your mouth off about killing people, but don't wear the wrong T-shirt to a Bush rally!

Posted by: Kenji on June 9, 2006 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Absolutely EXCELLENT work with your many attempts to answer the question about what it would take for the GOP/conservative movement to disavow someone! You deserve great credit for that bit of work IMHO.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 11:46 AM | PERMALINK
Coulter is a best-selling pariah this week, but she'll be back on the air soon enough. What would it take for a conservative to get permanently shunned by polite society?

Coulter has been permanently shunned by polite society, its just that polite society's overlap with the US media is only a very small portion of the latter.

Posted by: cmdicely on June 9, 2006 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks very much, Scotian. That means a lot coming from you.

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK

Ann Coulter is an asshole.

That's all that really needs to be said.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 9, 2006 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. under FDR's leadership declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Germany

Learn your fucking history, Charlie. After Pearl Harbor, Congress declared war on Japan. Germany then declared war on the US, which, in turn, declared war on Germany. Got it now?

Are you that ignorant of history, Charlie, or are you lying. I can't tell for sure.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 9, 2006 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Ramesh Ponnuru, senior editor for The National Review, has a new book out called "The Party of Death". It has only one, single, glowing review on THE FRONT COVER! Guess who wrote it?

Now, I'm sure someone can point to a tome written by an editor of an influential liberal magazine that has comments by Ted Rall written on the front cover, right? Obviously Rall is an equal, if not greater, media barron than lowly Coulter...

Posted by: CKT on June 9, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

MeLoseBrain wrote: Are you that ignorant of history, Charlie, or are you lying. I can't tell for sure.

Charlie is doing what all Bush-bootlickers do: slavishly regurgitating scripted talking points (e.g. "Bush/Iraq" = "FDR/WWII"). He knows nothing of history and has no concept of "truth" vs. "falsehood". All he can do is robotically recite the scripted talking points that he is fed by the right-wing Republican propaganda network. When he gets frustrated with everyone shooting down his fake, phony talking points, he'll start spamming the thread with 1,000 word transcripts of irrelevant White House press conferences.


Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 9, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, posting as "GOP", wrote: As opposed to the far-left commenters on this blog, who say hateful things [...] to try and convince themselves of their moral superiority.

No commenter in the history of this blog has spent more time or written more "hateful things" to try to convince himself -- over, and over, and over, and over again -- of his "moral superiority" than the stupid, ignorant liar Don P.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on June 9, 2006 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji: No, because then it would have been 1966.

Oops! Well, I was within striking distance, huh?

Posted by: shortstop on June 9, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

You are quite welcome. Not that seeing this kind of excellent work from you is anything new or shocking, but even in that context this particular work was one of your best IMHO on a very serious topic.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'm late to the thread, and only half way through but have to weigh in on the Ann Coulter vs. Ted Rall convtro above.

I have heard of Ted Rall, and have seen many of his cartoons over the years. I agree that his "Terror Widows" is sick. I also agree that he is not nearly as well known as Man Coulter. Further, everything that bitch utters is right wing vomitous spew, whereas the general output from Rall is decidedly from the left.

So I give him a F for the controversial piece, but in the context of the overall body of his work, it's an exception. Coulter's latest is another in a long line of disgust.

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on June 9, 2006 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

convtro, no

controversy, yes

Posted by: E. Henry Thripshaw on June 9, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I don't think I'm the one "ignorant" about WWII history - between Stefen and MeLoseBrain?, which one is it:

1) the US did not declare war on Germany, or

2) the US did declare war on Germany?

After we get that tough one out of the way - do you libs think Germany attacked Pearl Harbor or not?

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, it is impossible for a conservative to be shunned by "polite society". First, all conservatives call the offender a liberal regardless of the offender's actual political beliefs. Then, only AFTER, the "liberal" tag has been incanted repeatedly in the various media, is the now liberal transgressor shunned.
Serveral former Bush administration officials have at various times come forward with information about BushCo irresponsibility. Republican stalwarts all their lives, most of them. They were accused first of being "disgruntled ex-employees" despite the fact that none had been fired. Within a week this morphed into a personal attack, then a "partisan attack". Successfully rebranded as liberals, you've never heard from any of them since.

Posted by: Geeno on June 9, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Don P. and more deliberate obtuseness from the right....

Germany declared war on the US, the US subsequently declared war on Germany, and each of Germany's allies. The last time the US actually declared war on anybody, it was deep into 1942 and a package deal of Bulgaria and 2 other German puppet states of the time.
See, back then, we didn't attack anybody we weren't actually at war with.

Posted by: Geeno on June 9, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

After we get that tough one out of the way - do you libs think Germany attacked Pearl Harbor or not?
Posted by: Don P.

Let me spell it out for you, you illiterate moron. December 8, 1941, US Congress declared war on Japan. Germany, on December 11, declared war on the US, who, in turn, declared war on Germany. Are all of you rightards so ignorant of history?

Jesus, Don P., I knew you were a liar, but the fact that you continue to argue this point shows how totally stupid you really are.

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 9, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

MeLoseBrain? - I believe then your issue is not with me, but with Stefan:

"As I and many others have pointed out to Charlie/Cheney many, many times, the US did not declare war on Germany -- rather, Germany, on December 11th, declared war on the United States. It's a simple historical fact, one anyone can easily look up, and yet he keeps lying about it again and again and again...."

Posted by: Stefan on June 9, 2006 at 10:26 AM

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Every minute that someone spends answering me is a happy, happy minute in my life. I don't care if my arguments are being shredded. I just want to make people who know better waste time talking to me.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

Coulter? It damn near kilter!

Posted by: Kenji on June 9, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

"My wife came home from church last night and said they were ranting about that "liberal" woman that attacked the 9/11 widows.'

Just goes to show the wingnut mind. All evil is librul.

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 9, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

YIKES. I see Charlie is at his absolute craziest today.

CHENEY: George Bush is the living incarnation of Jesus Christ, and god will smite all the dirty sodomites and abortionists of liberal humanism. Plus, World War II!

DON P: Excellent point, Mr. Vice President.

CHENEY: Thanks, Don P. I'm glad there's someone else here who knows what's what.

DON P: Sir, may I lave your magnificent scrotum with my holy spittle?

CHENEY: Don't mind if you do, Don P.

Etc. I wonder how many more different identities Charlie will soon unveil to agree with each other.

Posted by: grh on June 9, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

"She was the most amazing caricature of herself. I think she's jumped the shark."

For some reason, this made me think that I'd like to see a death match between Ann and that other recent shark-jumper, Tom Cruise.

How bout it? Ann v. Tom for ALL the crazy foaming-at-the-mouth marbles?

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 9, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

"Why doesn't Russert read a few of Ann's gems to John McCain and make him respond?"

Silly pug. Because Ann and John aren't black, of course.

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 9, 2006 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

How bout it? Ann v. Tom for ALL the crazy foaming-at-the-mouth marbles?

I'd much rather see Coulter vs. Bill "Diogenes of the Casino" Bennett, in some kind of nightmare sumo duel.

Posted by: sglover on June 9, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

Very funny, grh - but I don't accuse you of being every persson you agree with though - now, please prove "Cheney" wrong on this particular historical fact.

BTW - was that me or a fake "Stefan" who posted on June 9, 2006 at 10:26 AM:

". . . the US did not declare war on Germany . . ."?

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Whoa.... Yeah, Cheney, I know a displaced Bund member like yourself wants to forget it, but in 1941 Hitler flaunted his military genius with two absolutely wizard moves:

1) opening the Eastern Front
2) declaring war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor.

It was after (2) that America responded in kind, and declared war on Nazi Germany. Ya fucking twit.

Time after time after time, I'm astonished by the sheer historical ignorance of right-wingers. As much as anything, this goes a long way toward explaining their, ahem, eccentric views on how the world works. But the really irritating thing is how easily they brush aside any established fact that conflicts with orthodoxy.

Posted by: sglover on June 9, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

sglover: Bill "Diogenes of the Casino" Bennett

Water...exiting...nose...owwwwwww!

Posted by: shortstop on June 9, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Very funny, grh - but I don't accuse you of being every persson you agree with though - now, please prove "Cheney" wrong on this particular historical fact.

Reading comprehension, Don Pee. Cheney said that after Pearl Harbor, the US declared war on Germany, not Japan. His direct quote:

After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. under FDR's leadership declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Germany.

Ergo, he's wrong. Next.

But you have no problem with his "intellectual" dishonesty. Because Stefan and I have semantic differences whether the US declared war on Germany, while we agree on the more important point that Germany declared war on us first, you decide to pull that apart. Who's being dishonest here, Don Pee?

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on June 9, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Well said, Don P!

Excellent point, Mr. Cheney.

Posted by: Charlie on June 9, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent point, Mr. Cheney.

I couldn't agree more, Charlie.

Posted by: Tinkerbell on June 9, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

I couldn't agree more, Charlie.

Tinkerbell, that's just how I would have put it.

Posted by: John Lott on June 9, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

sglover:

I never said Germany did not declare war on us first. I think your disagreement is with Stefan, not me.

MrLoseBrain?:

I am not being dishonest - I am being precise.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for all the support, everyone.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

I can't get enough of myself.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Neither can I.

Posted by: Charlie on June 9, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

I can't get enough of myself.

I can't get enough of you either, Don P. Bring it on!

I wish Tinkerbell would chime in here.

Posted by: Charlie on June 9, 2006 at 4:16 PM | PERMALINK

I never said Germany did not declare war on us first. I think your disagreement is with Stefan, not me.

Two things, Don P. --

1) I made it perfectly clear that I was replying to Cheney, not you.

2) I made it quite clear in another, recent thread that I wouldn't waste time arguing with you, because you proved that you were logic-challenged and factually ignorant. It was the only thing you were able to make a convincing case for, but you did a helluva good job.

Maybe you were confused because I applied a term to Cheney that you probably run across pretty often, "fucking twit".

Hope that clears things up for you.

Posted by: sglover on June 9, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I wish Tinkerbell would chime in here.

Let me just add that I agree with everything the entirely separate and distinct people Charlie, Cheney, Don P., and John Lott have said here. Also -- and it's important to emphasize this -- none of them are insane! And neither am I!

NOT INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Tinkerbell on June 9, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

sglover,

I don't like your secular humanist, baby-aborting tone. And I'm going to go out on a limb and guess Cheney, Don P., John Lott, Tinkerbell and thousands of others don't either!

NOT INSANE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Charlie on June 9, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

sglover:

I could care less if you argue with uis "right-wingers" or not. I believe Cheney was correct on the following 2 points of historical fact - Japan attacked Pearl Harbor AND the U.S. declared war on Germany. They are not mutually exclusive, and you "fact" comes right smack in between them. I still fail to see how Stefan can deny any of that. But, I'm always willing to learn. That is what I am point out to you, although I admit it is getting confusing here with all the fake names.

For instance, I'm still confused with SecularAnimist calling me a "stupid, ignorant liar" above for something "GOP" posted. You guys really need to get your personal attacks straight.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

But, I'm always willing to learn.

Uh, why do I find that hard to believe?

Posted by: Col Bat Guano on June 9, 2006 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

I'm having the same problem with all these damn fake names!

Me too!

...not
insane...

Posted by: Tinkerbell on June 9, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Col Bat Guano:

How many different ways can I say it?! If I am mistaken about either:

1) Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, or

2) the U.S. declared war on Germany,

please, PLEASE, let me know.

Posted by: Don P. on June 9, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

How many different ways can I say it?!

How many different ways can Cheney say it?!

Posted by: Tinkerbell on June 9, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

How many different ways can I say it?!

How many different ways can Tinkerbell say it?!

Posted by: Charlie on June 9, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

It is being said around the 'net that Ann the Man-iac admitted on TV that she voted in the wrong district, or somesuch - does anyone know the score?

Posted by: Neil' on June 9, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Remember Ann Coulter, for whom the blog tolls?

You know, her Lady of the Closed Mind, Open Mouth, and Breasts Pointed at the Camera?

Someone ought to let her know its face-lift time. She looked rather haggard on the video insta-replays this morning.

Will we hear less from her as her looks go or will she sprew more venom when she finally realizes it was her looks that got the attention, not anything she actually said.

Posted by: Shoot Um All on June 9, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Got to love chuckles and his one man bureau of the Trolletariat in this thread. If nothing else he is a sock puppet master given his ability to manage so many sock puppets with so little innate intelligence. He does his master(s) proud.

Posted by: Scotian on June 9, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Don P, making a strong late push for the "willfully obtuse" award, continues to argue that
After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. under FDR's leadership declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Germany.
does not in fact mean that the U.S. responded to the Pearl Harbor attack by declaring war on Germany (and attacking North Africa), but that it merely means that the U.S. eventually declared war on Germany.

Good point, Don. And if the U.S. decided to declare war on Iran in the next year or two, it will also be true that "After Pearl Harbor was attacked the U.S. declared war on a nation that did NOT bomb Pearl Harbor: Iran."

However, those of us who are able to make some sense of Cheney/Charlie's post, especially since he has made exactly the same point before (defending tbrosz's contention that the U.S. did not declare war on Japan), understood him to mean that the attack on Pearl Harbor was answered with a declaration of war on Germany (and an attack on German positions in North Africa). This is factually incorrect, as even you must surely be aware.

Now, if you wish to argue that:
"after a attacked b, b declared war on c,"
really means:
"after a attacked b, b attacked c, but only after declaring war on a, and after c declared war on b"
go ahead an make that argument. It's foolish, really, but go ahead.

Posted by: keith on June 9, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

She should stop stuffing her bra and just get implants already. She definitely has the money for it.

Posted by: Jonesy on June 9, 2006 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

Back on topic: perhaps someone can finally provide even ONE quote from Ann's latest book they believe is UNTRUE?

That seems a little limiting, Cheney. Why does it have to be from her latest book? We know Ann has a fast-and-loose relationship with reality and truth, are you proud of her now that she might have written a whole book that stands up to scrutiny?

As you probably know, very few people here will run out and buy her book, but we can certainly access Coulter's ridiculous assertions available for free on the internet? Here's a famous one:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2663937?htv=12

Never mind the fact that it's brain dead, is that UNTRUE enough for you or are you going to join the group of amateur syntax contortionists claiming Canadians serving in the US military count?

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 10, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK

Well, sweaty guy, I think this thread is about her LATEST book
This thread is not about schilling coulter's latest book. You are, apparently, but this thread is about what outrageous thing a conservative has to say to reach pariah status. As Stefan has pointed out for the benefit of all, there ain't much.

Plus, the largest part of what coulter does is offering recommendations, and conjecture. This kind of crap doesn't lend itself to TRUE or UNTRUE:

"These women are the witches of East Brunswick!"
UNTRUE! I have never seen them cavorting with the devil.

"These women have enjoyed their husbands deaths!"
UNTRUE! Not once have I been over to their houses to eat popcorn, put down some beer and watch coverage of the collapse of the world trade center!

What is this garbage? In spite of this, I selflessly offered you an outright coulter fabrication and you don't even address it. My request is a bit more reasonable than yours. You can respond to it for free, no book purchasing or michael moore-watching involved.

Posted by: sweaty guy on June 10, 2006 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Coulter has decided to make easy money exploiting idiots. She not the only one. If she were'nt doing it, somebody would take her place. Karl Rove does it as well, just not as blatantly.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on June 10, 2006 at 9:00 PM | PERMALINK

<a>credit card processing</a>
<a>bad credit home loan</a>
<a>bad credit personal loan</a>
<a>online credit report</a>
<a>credit card debt consolidation</a>

Posted by: as72472 on June 11, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

<a>school loan consolidation</a>
<a>llege loan</a>
<a>loan calculator</a>
<a>debt consolidation loan</a>
<a>business loan</a>

Posted by: as42498 on June 11, 2006 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

<a>bad credit loan</a>
<a>consolidate loan student</a>
<a>tudent loan consolidation program</a>
<a>mortgage loan</a>
<a>online loan</a>

Posted by: as96017 on June 11, 2006 at 11:18 PM | PERMALINK

<a>home equity loan rate</a>
<a>ad credit home loan</a>
<a>bad credit personal loan</a>
<a>small business loan</a>
<a>riving mexico</a>

Posted by: as57570 on June 12, 2006 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

<a>free satellite system</a>
<a>dui lawyer san bernardino</a>
<a>florida gift basket</a>
<a>los angeles colocation</a>
<a>ortho tri</a>

Posted by: as22298 on June 12, 2006 at 3:39 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly