The Ann Coulter Republicans respond

[BobcatJH]

Well, I knew this would happen. I write a story about the face of the Republican Party, Ann Coulter, and the Ann Coulter Republicans come out of the woodwork to prove my point. Through replies to the post, comments elsewhere and personal e-mails, right-wingers illustrated my arguments as only they could: Embarrassing themselves.

Coulter Republicans, like their namesake, are unable to do what seems so simple a tactic in a debate. They can't, for the life of them, disagree with someone on the merits of their argument. Instead, they lob grenades from afar, ruining the dialogue by making it about mudslinging, not civil, coherent, rational back-and-forth.

Why do this? Why drag any debate into the gutter instead of moving it forward by making solid points? Why, when pressed on actual issues, resort to name calling and overused right-wing insults? Because, deep down, Coulter Republicans are hiding a dirty secret. They simply don't know what they're talking about.

Claiming to speak for "Middle America", one right-wing e-mailer told me that "Coulter said what many in America did not dare to say as we saw the 9/11 widows pontificating. They just seemed like they were enjoying the spotlight a bit too much. The same to say about Sheehan. Even on critisizing Bush I think their credibility got undermined by playing the partisan game. ... Always looked bad to me and Coulter nailed it. Good for her." Well, there's a reason many in America "did not dare say" what Coulter said about the 9/11 widows. Because what she said was ridiculous and has no place in civilized society. When you call these individuals "broads", "witches" and "harpies", adding, "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much", you're not making a point. You're lobbing insults and looking to start a fight.

These women didn't seek the spotlight. Do you think the widows wanted to see their husbands die on September 11? Do you think Cindy Sheehan wanted to lose her son? What's admirable and worthy of respect is that they used their losses to point out the Bush administration's shortcomings. If criticizing the government on the merits of its actions is "playing the partisan game," then consider that the widows said many of the same things the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission said in their final report. And that Sheehan has made points about the war in Iraq made by prominent Republicans, including Sen. Chuck Hagel and President Bush himself.

One commenter, T, took things a step further, saying the widows "exploit their husband's death" and saying the same of Sheehan, "that bitch". Not done, T added about Sheehan that "I can see why that WHORE sheehan's husband divorced her WRINKLY ASS!!!" Nice. A real "compassionate conservative", don't you think? It wasn't the childish insults, however, that stood out from T's comment. It was when T criticized the widows and Sheehan for "using someone else's death to advance your politcs". This, more than anything, shows me the grasp T has on the current state of affairs. Widows speaking about about how little has been done to prevent the next September 11? Using someone else's death to advance your politics. A president and his party using "September 11" as a rallying phrase for every misguided policy since the tragedy occurred? Just fine.

When they're not insulting people or making faulty arguments, Coulter Republicans employ tired right-wing talking points and overused bumper-sticker language. Aaron from the blog My Brain is Made of Things Made of Gold encountered one such Coulter Republican. This particular right-winger marked the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by insulting Russ Feingold. "Today Russ lost a powerful ally in his war against America. This is Feingolds worst nightmare not only did the BusHitler score a victory it was given to him by the evil civilian killers who make up the US Military," Chris said. He later added, "Russ has to be crushed that his on going campaign to defeat America in its war on terror took such a serious blow."

When confronted point-by-point by Aaron, Chris replied both there and at his blog by accusing those who questioned him of thinking they were the smartest people in the room (his words) and by referring to them as evil moonbats. Chris even went so far as to send me an e-mail with the subject line of, and I'm not kidding, "Wow what a smug arrogant prick you must be". He also referred to me as an "asshat", accused people like me of never being happy, insulted my education and said "you have wasted most of your young life already". Notice that, at no point in any of his responses, did Chris rebut Feingold (or Aaron or I for that matter) on the merits of our arguments. Instead, he turned the debate into an opportunity for him to insult those who dared respond to his mistake-filled, meritless writings.

Getting back to a point our first example made, he accused the widows and Sheehan of "playing the partisan game". This gets to the heart of Coulter's point, something Amanda Marcotte illustrated perfectly when she wrote, "I think the purpose of slandering 9/11 widows is that Coulter needs an outrageous distraction to smuggle in the idea that politics is a game and anyone who takes is seriously should be ejected from game play." She adds, "There's already a tendency in our culture to value detached observation above experience and Coulter's building on that to argue that anyone who is actually hurt by a government policy or action should be disqualified from speaking out against it."

And that's just it. Coulter, despite her bluster and heated rhetoric, is really arguing that it's not fair for the widows - or anyone with direct experience, for that matter - to speak out. Writes Marcotte, "She's also trying to bolster the already-existing idea that if one side has much better arguments than the other, the other side should get a handicap to make it 'fair'." But this isn't, as Marcotte says, a game, despite what a Coulter Republican would argue. This is real life, and some arguements are better than others. Arguments with, say, evidence behind them.

Arguments without evidence, accordingly, come part and parcel with being a Coulter Republican. Why? Because people like Coulter don't know what they're talking about. A local radio host, one friendly to her beliefs, asked Coulter to speculate today on the fall elections. A seemingly easy question to answer. A question that Coulter stumbled and bumbled through with severe difficulty. Her answer revealed that she has no grip whatsoever on electoral politics, only on grenade tossing and below-the-belt, sophomoric insults. Issue by issue, she has nothing substantive to add, a fact that conveniently gets lost in a deluge of her shameful slurs.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at what's happened, considering my track record as regards to right-wingers commenting on what they read on liberal blogs. Here's the thing, Coulter Republicans. Debate us on the merits of what we say. Find fault with the intellectual underpinnings of our arguments. Disagree with our points, not on details that have little to do with the matter at hand. That you are unable to do so speaks to your inability to engage in reasoned discourse. That you treat politics as a game speaks to your ability to rationalize policies that have had disastrous results. Policies that have had real-life effects and real-life consequences. Ask the widows. Ask Sheehan. Women with more character than any Coulter Republican will ever have.

[rkc3]

1. Why reosrt to mudslining and name-calling?

Because it's easy. Because it requires no thought.

Calling someone anti-American or anti-Christian is the only refuge for the illiterate and the incurious.

What's worse is that we sometimes are drug down to that level.

[wryter2000]

3. It also gets you a lot of attention

Look at how much attention has been paid to her for this latest outrage.

Some folks at DU think if we keep silent about this, she'll be ignored. They think we're giving her free publicity. I wonder how you can look at such evil and keep quiet.

[rkc3]

6. The lunatic on the street corner shouting about the end of times

gets attention too.

We should continue to pound on her here. If we can start to link the bush supporters around us with her viewpoints, she'll become marginalized. When people like Matt Lauer ask real questions, she marginalizes herself.

[erknm]

62. She gets what she wants, but we should not be silent.

Two obvious points:

This was obviously a calculated publicity action to develop interest in her book.

and

She was showing herself to be a right wing hypocrit.

The more people talk about it, the better for her? Perhaps. Going back to the "all publicity is good publicity" cliche leads us to believe this. But some of her language was so outlandish that she is even getting criticized from the right. This is not the right that turns on itself with regularity in the form of McCain, etc. We are seeing traditional right apologists turning on her, at least turning on the rhetoric.

I do not like politicians lining up the dead bodies and getting elected on the tragedy of others. She refuses to recognize that the right has made this approach high art. Her rhetoric is unecessarily divisive and takes such a stupid, emotional approach that it absolutely stymies any opportunity for real, rational discussion.

She has a legal right to write and publish what she wants. Certainly it still seems to me that if there was no response, her book would likely be a dud. But we have to respond and as a result we are aiding her book sales.

Were it not for our this response, would anyone have heard about her book?

FH

[Kikosexy2]

12. Repugs...

just can't handle the truth...they'll resort to immature tantrums of name-calling and threats...but they just can't debate anything without resorting to low level name-calling, obscenities, etc. People like Ann the man and et al when you're ready to seriously debate anyone, please get your thumb out of your mouth/ass and grow up!

[iamahaingttta]

34. "People like Ann the man..."

Sorry, friend! You are JUST AS BAD as they are!

You need to grow up too...

[Debs]

61. No they arent

If I see someone punch a Nun, then punch them. Does that make me as bad as the guy that punched the Nun? No it doesnt same thing.

[Ganja Ninja]

13. Why resort to mud slinging?

Because it's either Ann Coulter mud slinging right wing pundit or Ann Coulter hash slinging Denny's waitress. Which do you think pays better?

[wryter2000]

2. That's what struck me

A local radio host, one friendly to her beliefs, asked Coulter to speculate today on the fall elections. A seemingly easy question to answer. A question that Coulter stumbled and bumbled through with severe difficulty. Her answer revealed that she has no grip whatsoever on electoral politics, only on grenade tossing and below-the-belt, sophomoric insults.

I can't and won't watch her, but I did watch the video of her with Lauer. I was struck by how utterly lame her performance was. I expected her to be evil, but I hadn't expected her to mumble and bumble and answer "I don't know" to so many questions.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Did you see her eyes?

She was high! They were all glazed over and she was having trouble focusing on Matt Lauer. And the cocktail dress?

She was loaded.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

20. Yup, me too.

On Lauer, she sounded like she didn't have a grip on what was going on.

After each question, she looked like a deer in headlights, actually offended that such questions were thrown at her. They weren't even offensive or critical of her -- they were just rather broad political questions, and she couldn't respond.

After a question, she stood there, looking stupid, and thought for a few seconds before stumbling through an answer.

And why does she get so mad that she's being asked questions? On Lauer and Dobbs, she chided them both for actually interviewing her before selling her book. It's clear that she has a very simplistic view of politics, of America, and that her entire purpose is to sell books.

[progdonkey]

26. near the end...

She had this almost meek look to her, like she wasn't prepared to actually be challenged on something, especially by a "mainstream pushover" like Matt Lauer (ie. this isn't Mike Wallace or Ed Bradley, but a morning show interviewer, who spends much of his time also gabbing vacuously with celebrities--well, when he's not being "glib"... :P).

It actually reminded me a lot of one of her "performances" on Hannity and Colmes, where Colmes actually stood up to one of her broadside slanders. I forget what it was exactly, though, but my recollection is that it was one of her usual "Liberals say this and they support the terrorists," and Colmes simply asked, "Which Liberal said that? Give me one name," and she couldn't do it. She blustered a bit more, then sank back into her chair, leaning towards Hannity, like she was seeking protection. It was pretty pathetic. She was so used to just saying complete bullshit and not being called on it, especially by someone like Colmes.

Her performance on the Today Show reminded me of that; you're completely right about the "deer in headlights" comment--that's exactly what it was. She obviously expected to come on, be treated cordially by Matt, be able to throw some "Ted Kennedy, Chappaquiddick, blah blah blah" grenades, and then be thanked for her time and leave. Instead she had to actually defend what she had written in the book--on national television, in an interview with Matt Lauer, whom America trusts.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. They can't debate the facts

They are brainwashed to think one way, and have no critical thinking skills. So when we box them in a corner, they resort to personal insults.

They aren't worth my time anymore. We will win this battle because we have hearts and we can think. It will just get nastier and nastier as they keep losing.

[truedelphi]

53. Actually those at the top have fabulous thinking skills

Karl Rove et al can think

And he has analyzed the debate process to include the insight that
most times what matters in the debate is the confidence, the
timing of a remark, the dismissal of a truth.

Remember the "There you go again" of Reagan when debating Carter?
Reagan popped the balloon of Carter's statements, and it does not
surprise me to learn that Rove was already on Reagan's payroll.

The Repukes are making the fine art of controlling debate by
popping the discourse. When I talk to the young Ann Coulters that surround me at a local coffee shop, they defeat all my arguments with, "It doesn't matter that."
Then they go on to say, "It doesn't matter that we found no WMD's" or "It doesn't
matter that we don't have Bin Laden" etc.

What does matter they would never admit to.
In many polaces, they have the voting machinery and really and truly that is all that counts.

[erknm]

63. Amazing that Coulter doesn't recognize what she accuses dems of doing

I claimed in an earlier message that I see democrats engaging in this sort of name calling, appeals to emotion. While some her disagree with that statement, I think it is obvious. What really irritates me to no end is that Coulter is accusing dems of doing just what republicans have done for ages.

Whether you agree with parading the so called "Jersey Girls" out to rallies, etc. as being acceptable politics, I wonder if this is what is really bothering Coulter and her fans. Perhaps she is just upset at the possibility of her opposition effectively using methods traditionally used by republicans.

I know that there are some people in every forum who are more or less reasoned than others. Be it democrat or republican, there are kool-aid drinkers out there. You will find name calling here, in right wing blogs, etc. However, Coulter seems to be absolutely blind with an emotional response to an emotional argument. Her hypocrisy is palpable and she should be embarrassed.

FH

[texastoast]

7. You expect them to have thinking skills

And somehow, I guess their God just forgot to give them any apparently. I think they are disabled that way. Debating on the facts is beyond their ken.

[Ron Green]

8. It's all entertainment.

One of my favorite themes points out that the Market, the State and the Church have always governed human affairs, albeit in different guises throughout the ages. I believe this is the case because these three institutions replicate the human personality of id, ego and superego respectively.

What the corporate masters have done is turn everything over to the Market, appealing to the id and driven by fear and money. Hence the Church, which is supposed to instill principles and character, is now sold on satellite TV 24/7, and the State is of course controlled from K Street. The Market itself, through the use of TV, has learned how to bypass the ego and appeal directly to the fear, hunger and sex centers of the id.

Ann Coulter is perfect: She's hot in a skanky sort of way, outrageous in her claims, and she voices the fear and bigotry of legions of dumbasses who, like it or not, have always been the composition of the masses of people in this and every other country.

Like GW Bush, she is a symptom of our disease of being human.

[gratuitous]

9. They're looking for a fight, and don't know what they're talking about

Yes, a peculiar admixture of belligerence and ignorance. Their fall-back position is exactly as described: Either "you take this so seriously" or "you have actual facts at your disposal, so I have to resort to childishness in order to knock you off reality and drag you down to the gutter with me, where I can beat you with experience."

Decide going in how you're going to play the game. Stay above it all, and keep to facts and reality. It isn't as viscerally rewarding as beating them in a slime battle, but you can at least maintain your dignity even if your opponent has none.

Or, get down in the dirt, and if you do, commit to it 100%. Use every nasty, underhanded, venomous word at your disposal, and realize that you'll get as good as you give - for a little while. Then they'll run out of words, because really, they're not very intelligent. Then press your advantage until they're reduced outwardly to the simpering mound of mewling gelatin they are inside. It can be quite rewarding in a cheap sort of way, but in the long run you don't feel real good, because it's sort of like kicking the crutch out from under the crippled kid.

[geardaddy]

24. The thing is...

that RWs claim that liberals are too emotional about everything. They base their arguments on emotion rather than logic. And when they start slinging mud at their opponents, who sometimes naturally get upset, they prove their point that their liberal opponent is emotional. I think a lot of that dynamic stems from a real dysfunction in their families of origin.

[nxylas]

37. I've said something similar on another thread

Though not as well as you did, gratuitous. Both approaches have their drawbacks. If you take the high ground and fight them with facts and reason, it can end up looking like Hannity and Colmes, where liberals are made to look weak and ineffectual compared to their "muscular" conservative opponents. But, as you say, getting down into the gutter with them does nobody any favors.

On balance, though, I think I prefer the first approach. To me, Coulter Democrats are even worse than Coulter Republicans, because they're supposed to be on the side of the angels. Simply saying "Ann Coulter is a cunt", as someone did on another blog, demeans us all AFAIC.

[Child_Of_Isis]

10. Coulter Republicans

Very fitting.

[gatorboy]

11. Look, a quarter of the country is hopeless.

You can't reason with them. You can't debate with them. They have had their bigoted, hateful minds made up for some time now and nothing will change that. I know it's hard to comprehend that such a sorry group of people could exist in America, but it is what it is...

[spooked911]

57. perhaps you are right, though I bet if you could get them one on one

they might moderate their tone a bit. Here's an idea-- what if we each made a project to reason with ONE rabid right-winger-- each of us spends all our time to one "wingnut", to see if we can get them to change their mind.

Might be a little fun.

[erknm]

64. You cannot reason with extremists

,,,

Be they right or left. We have to ignore them. Reasonable people do not lie on the extremes. While I applaud you optimism, if not naivete, I don't see it working. To make real progress toward a political or social goal, we have to stay on task and promote a reasoned message.

FH

[booley]

14. This is probably my fault

I liked his last journal entry so much, I posted it on other forums chock ful of Coulter-Republicans.

Seems they didn't like that.

[Initech]

15. What really sucks about this country anymore...

and you bring up a good point - is that the only people who are allowed to speak up at all are ones with:

A. Experience

B. Media connections

C. Only have positive things to say about Der Fuhrer and the W Cabal.

[Mz Pip]

16. This from the party

that has invoked 9/11 to justify every damn thing they've done. That was apparently fair for them. Question them and we were the ones not being fair. Not being fair was only a mild rebuke - treasonous was tossed about quite a lot from this crowd.

"9/11 changed everything!" was not the mantra of those who lost loved ones on that fateful day.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Rocknrule]

40. They think the people who died that day were martyrs

who sacrificed their lives to further the GOP's cause

[zbdent]

17. Ann Coulter Republicans respond? I didn't know you could

send e-mails in crayon . . .

[chaska]

18. Excellent post.

[DirtyDawg]

19. So they can't engage in civil debate...

...so they have to resort to name-calling and gutter language...Fuck 'em!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

21. I assume you're being ironic? n/t

[The Sleeper]

22. No, you shouldn't be surprised....

Face it, they aren't fed anything but lies wrapped in faulty reasoning. How else could they be convinced to fight against their own self interest.

The truth about the RW is that at the core of all their positions, there is nothing but a giant steaming pile. No Wonder they have to use every dirty rotten dishonest trick in the book to get the suckers to buy into it.....

[Minnesota_Lib]

23. No one has tried to profit from a spouse's death like Lisa Beamer...

Beamer, the widow of the late Todd Beamer of Flight 93 fame, wrote HER memoir (note the cover photo below--talk about self-promotion!) and even tried to copyright the phrase "Let's Roll." While the 9/11 widows were selflessly working to improve our national security, Beamer was endlessly hawking herself and her memoirs on the talk-show circuit and crying on cue at the mention of...err, what was his name again, oh yeah, Todd.

So why isn't she in the right's crosshairs? Well, perhaps a clue can be gleened from her book's publisher, Tyndale House, marketers of fundie Christian books such as the Left Behind series. The most telling reason, however, is that Beamer openly supported George Bush and even made numerous appearances with him.

Now, I thought widows of 9/11 were supposed to just sit down and shut-up. I guess this rule only applies to those not of the greedy, self-promoting, fundie rightwing variety (is it just me, or does Lisa seem to have a lot in common with the Bulimic Blond herself?).


Lisa on Lisa


More about Lisa Beamer at http://www.counterpunch.org/sperrybeamer.html

The hypocracy of Coulter and her clown posse is enough to make you want to vomit.

[nxylas]

36. They emply the same double standards for entertainers

Wonder if Ted Nugent, Pete Townsend or other right-wing musicians have ever been told to "shut up and sing". Likewise RW actors such as Ah-nuld, Charlton Heston or Joan Collins. This applies to both sides of the political spectrum. The right turns a blind eye when it comes to their own side, while I don't see progressives calling for boycotts of the entertainers I just mentioned based on their opinions, the way Coulter Republicans boycott movies starring Johnny Depp or George Clooney, and burn Dixie Chicks albums. I despise Heston's position on gun control, but Planet of the Apes (the original, not the "re-imagining" that saw the once-great Tim Burton jump the shark) is still a great movie. Regressives don't seem to be able to make that distinction.

[geardaddy]

38. Pete Townsend is RW?

How is Pete Townsend right wing? He was one of the first rockers to become involved with Amnesty International according to wikipedia.

[MsMagnificent]

39. Pete Townshend is anything but Right-wing

In fact, as he considers himself anti-Thatcher, I consider him anti-Conservative. I know of no right-winger who worked for Nelson Mandela's release.

That being said, I do not presume to speak for him nor his political views other than to offer that defense. Read for yourself his statement "Won't Get Judged Again"
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/diary/display.cfm?id=285&zone=diary

Just because his song was co-opted, misinterpreted and misrepresented by Conservatives; that does not mean that was the spirit in which it was written or meant.
You should really research such knee-jerk assumptions before you post them. To many, even including Pete Townshend in the same sentence with that draft-dodging chicken-hawk pseudo-rocker is downright heresy on any level.

Any road, calling him right-wing is highly inaccurate and ultimately unfair.
I do not mean to insult you or flame you... just trying to set the record straight.

Namaste. Peace. :hippie:

[nxylas]

42. My apologies to Mr Townsend

I know that he refused Michael Moore permission to use Won't Get Fooled Again over the end credits of F911 and his statements at the time led me to believe that it was because he disageeed with Mike's politics. I guess it was my prejudices surfacing and I had him pegged as yet another baby-boomer rebel turned Thatcherite. I'm sorry if I drew the wrong conclusion. I'm now off to write "I WILL RESEARCH MY STATEMENTS MORE THOROUGHLY IN FUTURE" 100 times on the chalkboard :blush:

Now, Phil Collins, on the other hand....

[MsMagnificent]

43. I'm sorry

I really didn't mean to sound like I was reprimanding you -- I just didn't know of any other way to word it :(

Please accept my apologies, and welcome to DU!

[nxylas]

45. S'OK

Maybe I deserved to be reprimanded. I didn't take it personally.

[Mythsaje]

49. I always heard "Won't get fooled again"

as a song that exposed the foolishness of playing "follow the leader" rathering than following your own conscience.

It's funny that the conservatives would take it as some sort of an anthem.

[Mythsaje]

48. And Depp being the greatest actor of his generation?

In my opinion, anyway.

Their loss.

The nitwits.

[Drops_not_Dope]

47. Responses to trauma

vary as much as individuals. The loss of Todd to Lisa Beamer is no more, or no less painful or tragic, than the losses of the other women being discussed. It's good to keep that perspective.

[neoteny]

25. Ad hominem attacks

In watching the Lauer/Coulter interaction it seems that
Coulter cannot understand the fundamental difference between
attacking ideas and attacking persons. No one has ever denied
this evil skank the right to debate the ideas proposed by the
Jersey Girls, however when you dip into the ad hominem bag of
tricks then common decency steps in and people become enraged.
Coulter is at best a low-functioning individual (what were her
grades like at Michigan and Cornell? what do her actions say
about her social abilities?)who cannot debate/discuss ideas
and must resort to grenade lobbing and below-the-belt attacks.
I do not propose ignoring this mental midget but rather
attacking her ideas at every turn. Check and recheck her
"books", each is replete with plagiarism, loopy
logic and errors so sad that a high school freshman would
cringe. Confront her ideas head on everytime she speaks and if
some ad hominem comments slip into these head on collisions
then so be it. This fascista needs to learn that what goes
around eventually comes around.

[greiner3]

33. I just took my first evolution course too;

Are you accusing coulter of juvenile features? I admit that she has masculine features, but that of an adult, not of a 'boy' as put forth in neoteny. For what its worth.

[progdonkey]

27. It's Larry the Cable Guy!

I checked out Chris' blog....

That is all. :evilgrin:

[geardaddy]

28. Chris needs to eat less cheese

His problem probably stems from constipation from too much Wisconsin cheese.

[cyberpj]

29. COULTER REPUBLICANS should be something we use over and over and over....

It's short and has immediate meaning - ie, those who only know how to hate and attack instead of debate.

How to make that happen?

[ThoughtCriminal]

30. Coulter's response to "My Pet Goat"

I wish I had a link to the transcript from "Real Time". She said something like: liberals wanted Bush to leave the school where he was "Safe" so that terrorists could kill him.

Ohhhh-Kaaay, Ann

Why would the President be safe there? At a known location and time at a publically announced event? If the U.S. Air Force could not defend the Pentagon what chance did the the Secret Service have protecting an elementary school if it had been attacked? Bush was not attacked either because Al-Quada was too stupid to check his public appearances or they wanted him alive.

Why does she think he was safe there? The only reasonable analysis of Ann's explanation is that BUSH WAS USING CHILDREN AS HUMAN SHIELDS. Nice.

[Minnesota_Lib]

31. There are good Ann Coulter fans...here is a picture of one...

Pictured above is an example of a good Ann Coulter fan (aka "Freeper").
The identity of the shooter (also pictured) remains unknown.

[bocotton]

32. Exploitation? Are you kiddin' me?

Queen Ann's entire shtick is based on her devotion to a superstitious, irrational, mystic death cult obsessed with the execution of one man 2000 years ago. Talk about exploitation.

[Voltaire99]

35. This is why it's so pathetic to see Dem leaders pander to NASCAR Murrica.

We're in a cultural war. Welcome to what war against pluralism looks and sounds like: bitter, painful, savage. "For keeps."

But there is more to do than wring our hands about the indecencies of the NASCAR tribe.

Understand: huge swaths of America are lost. Their denizens are never going to get it, never going to be tolerant, never going to cease to put you under their autocratic, theocratic thumb. They'd burn a brave woman like Cindy Sheehan at the stake if they could, inviting Coulter to light the pyre.

When Hillary urges you to press the mute button on abortion or Biden goes on Maher and attacks Democratic "elitism" toward religion, they're only encouraging these scum. Every bully likes surrender.

Instead we need leaders who will oppose them. Who will rally American indignity against darkness and misrule. Moderate-to-right wing appeasers like Hillary and Biden aren't up to the task. Until the Democratic Party has far better leadership, the swine will rule the day.

[NavyDavy]

52. Not all NASCAR fans support Bush......so stop stereotyping

us...thank you.....

[a la izquierda]

60. right on...

i sure as hell don't! but i do love nascar.

[bigmonkey]

41. I thought she gave one thing away in the Lauer interview.

She went on and on specifically about how it was unfair for people to speak up who "couldn't be attacked." I thought it very revealing, that she was obliquely admitting that character assassination was all that was in the bag of tricks. Any argument by anyone can be engaged by the lights of the argument itself, so what could she be referring to besides character assassination?

[HockeyMom]

44. Turning a Tragedy into a Vehicle to Right a Wrong

I give you Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) whose husband was killed and her son severely wounded on the LIRR train by Colin Ferguson. Remember? She too "used" her husband's death to advocate for stricter gun control.

I suppose Ann Coulter would consider this now two term Representative a "witch" also.

[SeaBob]

46. Coulter

so, I heard her name before her operation was Stan and after the operation he changed it to Ann.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wetzelbill]

51. good stuff

:)

I'd like to see you add what exactly Coulter said when she fumbled on about the upcoming elections, just so the reader knows exactly what it is. Other than that, no complaint here. :) Liked the piece very much.

[scoey1953]

54. ANN COULTER ...IS A "GIFT'...

It seems so simple to me....
Submitted by sco_angel on June 10, 2006 - 6:46pm.

Yes it may be underhanded, yes it may not be kosher to some, but this is a "Gift". The Democrat leaders have to see this as a "gift". The elections are not that far away...To pick up Ann Coulter's words and say, "See this is how the Republicans think...this is the true heart of the Republicans."

And when they "deny" she is the voice of the Republican platform, you destroy her..and their credibility as well. She is a weapon to be used against them...and a way to help people to start thinking that maybe it be a lot better to have a Democrat in the white house.

[tlsmith1963]

55. This is Why...

I've stopped arguing with a lot of people in that 29% who still love Bush. They can't come up with anything intelligent to say. They only know how to hurl insults at you. How did this country end up with so many stupid people? It's shameful.

Tammy

[maine_raptor]

56. Leave out the name calling and just look at the argument presented

Someone who suffered the tragedy in his/her life of losing a loved one does not have the right to work towards preventing a similar tragedy from happening in the future.

That is what Ann Coulter and the other Coulter Republicans are saying here, plain and simple.

Is this truly what compassionate conservatism has come down to?

I have said this before and I will keep on saying it again:

If you believe that, then you must be against; MADD, victim's rights and ability to speak at sentencing, crime stoppers such as John Welsh, any sort of Amber Law, Mandy's Law, and other such legislation.

Yup, if you truly accept that argument, then when it come to criminal law, only the criminals count, not the victims.

Coulter Republicans, indeed.

Very good article, Bobcat. Enjoyed the read.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.