It is equally touching and meaningless that at last count 43 conservative bloggers have signed an open letter protesting the keynote speech (in consequence if not formally) by Ann Coulter at CPAC. Their entirely reasonable complaint was that CPAC, possibly the most important annual gathering of conservatives and their higher office hopefuls, legitimizes Coulter and presents her as the public face of conservatism despite her being a spiteful harridan who defines the bedrock floor of intellectual credibility. Some of us used a basic rule to predict that the petition and every other form of protest would do little to blunt Coulter’s presence either in the national media or at major conservative gatherings.
The rule of course is that no rightwinger can possibly disqualify him/hersef from polite society through hateful speech alone. Coulter could call people ‘faggot’ twice a day for the rest of her life and she’d still show up on FOX, MSNBC, CNN and at gatherings like CPAC. It’s the Inalienable Right.
As expected, the ACU told its conservative critics to piss off. Let’s be honest, I were the ACU I would wonder why not one of these people complained before she appeared. As far as I can tell she delivered precisely as promised.
So far seven local newspapers have dropped Ann Coulter’s column. That isn’t nothing, but the CPAC story has run its course so I doubt that too many more will follow their lead. Some advertisers have dumped her webpage, but those are not too difficult to replace. If the gaps become noticeable she can lower her rates and the market will do its thing. Coulter’s syndication with with Universal Press Syndicate seems perfectly safe.
The day after her faggot comment Ann Coulter appeared unapologetically in the womblike shelter of FOX News. If you expect a blacklist to hold at any other networks, don’t hold your breath.
“Some people on NBC’s ‘Today’ show didn’t want to see Coulter before she was booked to talk about ‘Godless‘ last summer, said Jim Bell, the show’s executive producer,” the AP reveals.
However, the AP reports, Bell “overruled them. Having only certain points of view would make for a bland program, he said. Since Coulter is a best-selling author, clearly there’s an audience that responds to her.”
While the AP finds that many news organizations may be growing weary of Coulter, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence that Coulter will be “blacklisted.”
And there’s the crux. The logic of these networks is indisputably rational, even if the result is repulsive. Think about it from their perspective. More than a few random yokels pay upwards of $25 for each of Ann Coulter’s hardback books. Almost every one of her recent screeds has jumped to #1 on the New York Times bestseller list. How many conservative writers can claim that? Measure a conservative’s influence by his or her sheer popularity within the movement, measure popularity by the rate at which their books sell and Ann Coulter is indisputably one of the most influential and mainstream conservatives in existence. Her numbers suggest that she speaks for more conservatives than nearly any other pundit. Networks cannot ignore that reality.
So I would say that Glenn Greenwald gets it mostly right when he says that the movement will never dump Coulter because her emasculating insult comic act is precisely in line with its overarching message. The screeching McCarthyites who accuse Democrats of treason, wrap every imaginable policy in the mantle of terrorism and feminize their opponents with peurile humor are the movement. Our brave petition signers (at least the credible ones) sit on the outside looking in.
Jay C
Thanks, Tim: that nails it in a nutshell as how I have viewed Ann Coulter for years: basically an entertainer, rather than a “pundit” (however much the latter term has been debased). And that, I think is the way (probably, as Tim notes, the only way) to counter her “influence” – get the public to view her as a poorly-scripted comedian, instead of a “political thinker”. Laughter is the best disinfectant, etc…..
Richard Bottoms
And yet, some Decmocrats can’t bring themselves to say that there isn’t a Republican running who desrves to be president based on their party’s dispicable behaviour.
They are troubled, nay disheartened that the Dems running aren’t perfect, that some of them are downright meannies.
*Sniff*
Well here’s what I think. We are going to kick the GOP’s ass in 2008, from sea to shining sea.
Tulkinghorn
There is a lot of manipulation of the rankings – Coulter tends to shoot to the top on strategically placed bulk orders, then she fades quickly. Just wingnut welfare at work, as usual.
Pb
More can claim it than those that actually deserve it:
And of course instahack isn’t a credible anything, either.
ThymeZone
Yeah, I’m still a little puzzled, though.
What exactly is the point of decrying Coulter, when you guys let a Darrell post here?
He’s as bad as she is, and much more disruptive and destructive to this website. She’s out there, but he’s right here.
I don’t get it. Who can explain this to me? Anyone?
Tsulagi
That’s true. However, poor Annie seems to have really lost it the past few years. It is a little sad. The comments about the 9/11 widows who have far more character and spine than say The Decidertard were just classless with no humor.
Now she comes up with the faggot thing, which actually is pretty funny coming from Annie. With her oversized feet, hands, adam’s apple, and long horse face, spinster Ann looks/seems far more like a tranny than the married-with-children Edwards a faggot.
You would think she’d know that old saying about glass houses and stuff. If not, the Jesus crowd should clue her in to that casting the first stone thing. But then again, cluelessness is a trademark of the 28%ers.
Either that or she’s just simply proud of her tranniness. If so, I applaud her being comfortable in her own skin and know her like-minded conservatives will too. Just like Mary Cheney.
Yeah, she’ll likely be back at the next CPAC. As long as s/he continues to be the role model for the Bill Bennett Republican manly man giving them their needed fix of faux testosterone. They’re smart and strong like that.
Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report
Ann Coulter is an entertainer, who happens to center her act around conservative politics. She isn’t a policy maker, and she really isn’t much of a policy analyst. Disagree? Can you see Coulter hunkered down doing low-profile research at the Cato Institute? No, me neither. She makes speeches. She does television interviews. She writes books. She has good hair and nice legs. But she’s not an elected official, and has no real influence on anyone.
So why are so many people so offended? Because she’s offensive? Sure. But she’s also famous, and makes loads of money. Tulkinghorn can say what he wants about “strategically placed bulk orders”, the fact is the lady sells more books than any of us ever will. That doesn’t make her right, or good, to be sure. And it doesn’t excuse bad manners. But let’s not make her out to be anything but what she is: an entertainer.
Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report
Tulkinghorn
Kiss off, Kasoff.
Coulter is a fake and a fraud. Her books are bought and paid for by the kleptocrats who have taken control of the Republican party, all so her views can get the vindication of being from a ‘Bestselling Author’.
The best measure is how much money she makes compared to Michael Moore or Al Franken. She is way, way behind on that race.
Pb
Incidentally–and speaking of thugs–this sounds like quite the story–anyone else heard about it?
Tulkinghorn
NO. That stuff is never reported. The Heathers and cool-kids of the national media are not concerned about low-status journalists without connections. This is the true decadence of this age.
Richard Bottoms
>I don’t get it. Who can explain this to me? Anyone?
John’s board. John’s rules.
If everyone responded to Darrell’s post with a hearty ‘Fuck off’ there would be little problem after a while.
Tim F.
You misunderstand both the role of Coulter and the influence of Cato.
It doesn’t matter whether Coulter is an egghead. Of course she isn’t; two out of three “facts” in any given book are transparent bullshit. She isn’t an egghead but rather a figurehead. She is the smiling public face with which the movement chooses to present itself. They do it because they know that it drives liberals insane, but most don’t even realize the cost to themselves. It’s a clear mistake to assume that an influential person must be a deep thinker.
And Cato? The small government libertarians, at least the few remaining who remember what limited government means, despise Bush and he despises them. You could have picked AEI, Heritage or the Competitive Enterprise Institute. None of them do anything that resembles deep thinking (as I recall their best work, collectively, was drawn on a cocktail napkin) but at least they have some influence.
Darrell
Not nearly to the extent that mainstream Dems have embraced Michael “terrorists are minutemen” Moore, who has a far worse track record on “facts” than Coulter
Let’s recap – Michael Moore hosted private VIP reception with DNC party chair along with who’s who of Dem senators and congressmen. Not a fringe group, but the core of the Democratic party.
Afterwards, Moore was given royalty VIP treatment complete with Presidential suite embrace by Jimmah Carter and wife during the convention.
Michael Moore = embraced by the highest levels of the Dem party mainstream.
Ann Coulter = sort of embraced a faction of Repub party with much objection
Do the math.
Darrell
Ah yes, compared to your “deep thinking” Tim
jg
Coulters job is to point out the type of man that can’t get a nice conservative blonde wife.
grumpy realist
Heh. I prefer to label all pundits as “an entertainer pretending he is an intellectual.” God knows they certainly don’t suffer from any lack of hubris…..
And I would like to see Ms. Coulter have to defend the argument and evidence of any of her screeds in front of the equivalent of a thesis committee. With the result that if she failed it would be the guillotine.
(Yes, and I’d like to see this implemented for anyone, left or right, who puts out a supposedly “non-fiction” work. Back up your claims and your sources, otherwise it’s heads-on-spikes for you.)
Richard Bottoms
And once we wrest the White House away from this bunch of crazies, while shoring up our majorities in the House and Senate then we can do what the GOP did: use our own think tanks and policy groups to groom new leaders to keep this insanity at bay for a generation.
Just think about it. A mere three months into control of Congress, there is serious talk of Alberto Gonzales and Robert Mueller resigning. At least two GOP Senators may be in the soup for their role in politically motivated firings and the entire system for care of verterans is in upheaval.
All their strengths are now their weaknesses: defense, competence, fiscal responsibility. The lies of more than 13 years are crashing around them.
Meanwhile, gays are accepted as never before and the agenda of the closeted self haters & opportunists is out for all to see.
Top it all off, a black man has a real shot at running as nominee for president, and a lock on VP if he falls short.
We are so going to kick their asses.
Punchy
Fixed for you fucking hypocrites.
AkaDad
Which reminds me, when Ann Coulter came on the media scene her title was “Constitutional Law Expert”.
Zifnab
Is that really Ann Coulter’s sell? Sex appeal? Talk about low standards. But, I guess, between Bush and the recent ’08 Presidential line-up, the wingers are just getting used to it.
Give it five or ten years and I can only hope that the right looks on Ann Coulter like my sister looks at Britney Spears.
If by “think tanks” you mean “publicly funded universities run by a sane administrative staff” then I agree. Conservative think-tanks are about one step off from conservative drunk-tanks. They’re pure propoganda without more than a hat-tip to reality. I’d like to think that Democrats will groom new leaders to keep the insanity at bay simply by running a sane and competant government that promotes social justice and economic opportunity. You know, those silly little core American values we were founded on. From what I’ve seen, when you play straight and smart, people just start voting Democrat for the next 40 years because you’re doing such a good job.
Zifnab
Is that really Ann Coulter’s sell? Sex appeal? Talk about low standards. But, I guess, between Bush and the recent ’08 Presidential line-up, the wingers are just getting used to it.
Give it five or ten years and I can only hope that the right looks on Ann Coulter like my sister looks at Britney Spears.
If by “think tanks” you mean “publicly funded universities run by a sane administrative staff” then I agree. Conservative think-tanks are about one step off from conservative drunk-tanks. They’re pure propoganda without more than a hat-tip to reality. I’d like to think that Democrats will groom new leaders to keep the insanity at bay simply by running a sane and competant government that promotes social justice and economic opportunity. You know, those silly little core American values we were founded on. From what I’ve seen, when you play straight and smart, people just start voting Democrat for the next 40 years because you’re doing such a good job.
Pb
That is to say, they write policy for this administration. And then the conservative foundations (propped up by their billionaire wingnut sugar daddies and Satan knows what else) play a key role in doling out the wingnut welfare to them and to the other cogs in the machine. I mean, all those liberal professors aren’t just going to smear themselves! And someone has to make sure that enough Coulter books get bought!
Richard 23
You forgot to mention Daily “Screw Them” Kos, Darrell.
Then you entirely missed the point. Her point was about how the left carefully chooses its advocates based on their victimhood. The “Jersey Girls” were able to say all sorts of vile things about the Bush Administration because nobody could criticize them due to their victim status. See also: Saint Sheehag, aka the “bitch in the ditch.”
Ann steadfastly refused to play by the rules, causing liberal heads to explode. And her strategy worked. When was the last time you heard from these classless “victims?”
Same with the infamous “faggot” remark. It was about PC gone mad — say the word “faggot” and you end up in rehab. Ann was poking fun at that. It’s also a two-fer. Ann gets called “trannie Annie” and “mAnn Coulter” by the ‘tolerant’ left because they really don’t give a crap about homosexuals. Hypocrisy is part and parcel of the leftist mindset.
Naturally liberals are too stupid to get the nuance. They ignore the subtext and choose to clutch their pearls over a single word. Pathetic.
Ann Coulter is brilliant!
Richard 23
Hahaha, Pb links to a blog entry by Lydia Cornell, a co-star on the hideously unfunny sitcom Too Close For Comfort and expects to be taken seriously. Too funny, dude.
Pb
Richard 23,
I don’t know Cornell from Eve, but thanks for the link–apparently she and Coulter have some feuding history as well:
Oh, Ann, classy as ever!
Tulkinghorn
Actually, they are able to say nasty things about Bush by dint of being citizens in a free country. They are just somewhat insulated from the Republican smear machine, which infuriates the Coulters (and creeps like you, apparently)and such to no end.
And as for “Mann Coulter” and “Trann Coulter” and such bigoted inanities: The people making these statements are not lionized by the Democratic Party, are not making careers out of sloppy, subsidized books, and are not presenting themselves as the face of a political party.
Oh, I get it, widows who do not follow the party line or keep their mouths shut are not really ‘victims’? What a vile, petty, nasty little apparatchik you are, Richard23. Enjoy watching your political movement get wiped out for a generation or two — knowing that people like you killed the Republican party.
Ted
Shriek! Shrieeek!!
mclaren
Tim F. is certainly right that “The screeching McCarthyites who accuse Democrats of treason, wrap every imaginable policy in the mantle of terrorism and feminize their opponents with peurile humor are the [conservative] movement” today. Many others have pointed this out, of course.
Trenchant article on just this point in Salon.com today: “The Coulterization of the American Right.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/03/13/coulter/
The key paragraphs:
“A few newspapers have dropped her column, and some GOP presidential candidates condemned her statement — who cares? As should be amply clear by now, there is virtually _nothing_ that Ann Coulter can do that will cause her to be cast out of the bosom of the American right. And even if she was to lose her head and cross a line that even she can’t cross — calling Obama a “nigger” is about the only thing that would do the trick — a thousand hissing Coulters would spring up to take her place.
“For this isn’t really about Coulter at all. This is about a pact the American right made with the devil, a pact the devil is now coming to collect on. American conservatism sold its soul to the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world to gain power, and now that its ideology has been exposed as empty and its leadership incompetent and corrupt, free-floating hatred is the only thing it has to offer. The problem, for the GOP, is that this isn’t a winning political strategy anymore — but they’re stuck with it. They’re trapped. They need the bigoted and reactionary base they helped create, but the very fanaticism that made the True Believers such potent shock troops will prevent the Republicans from achieving Karl Rove’s dream of long-term GOP domination.
“It is a truism that American politics is won in the middle. For a magic moment, helped immeasurably by 9/11, the GOP was able to convince just enough centrist Americans that extremists like Coulter and Limbaugh did in fact share their values. But the spell has worn off, and they have been exposed as the vacuous bottom-feeders that they are.”
spoosmith
“The “Jersey Girls” were able to say all sorts of vile things about the Bush Administration because nobody could criticize them due to their victim status.”
Richard, she was pissed because she felt she could not insult them PERSONALLY. She was always perfectly able to attack their POSITION, but she is incapable of doing that without personal insults.
Dug Jay
P l e a s e …While Coulter is clearly far more popular than similar polarizing figures on the Left – and nitwits such as Al Franken and Duncan Black, among many, come to mind – she is certainly not the only one among them to say outrageous things. She just happens to be a CONSERVATIVE, and we all know that they’re just nasty and mean.
GET A LIFE.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Has Al Franken ever accused all Republicans of treason? Has he ever told a disabled vet, “People like you are the reason we lost the war”? Has he ever called for the invasion, subversion, and genocide of an entire people? No? Then I’d submit that Ann Coulter is just a teensy tiny bit nastier and meaner than he is.
That was a great show. It only lasted two seasons, but it was arguably one of the funniest shows ever. Chris Elliott is an underappreciated genius. Did you ever see the one where the toxic radiation makes him the smartest man in the world, and he uses that knowledge to win every Spelling Bee trophy on the planet?
Tim F.
Dude, nobody should compare Coulter to Michael Moore. Can you count the number of people Moore has explicitly accused of treason? I bet you didn’t know that has a death sentence. Poisonings? Terrorist bombings? I don’t recall Michael Moore calling for any of those. Racial slurs? Hate speech? Mostly he has a habit of calling people really, really big assholes. Assholes in DC, imagine that.
For a perfect parallel you need to do better than just point out that he’s popular and makes the other side really, really angry.
A typically pithy rejoinder, D-man. I bet your shut-in buddies live in fear of your rhetorical brilliance.
Mr Furious
Yeah, I watched that on Crooks & Liars, and if you notice, neither Coulter nor any of the FOX hosts actually had the balls to say the “f-word” again in the course of the lengthy discussion.
If everything’s fine, why so tentative, Ann? Sean?
Say “faggot” loud and proud if you’re standing up for yourself.
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
Zifnab
But he’s really really fat. His ass is fat too.
And he interviews people who hate America. Besides, just because he doesn’t say all those things doesn’t mean he wouldn’t kill our President in a heartbeat if he had the chance. Michael Moore’s movies give aid and comfort to the enemy and insult our troops. Which is worse, calling a former US Senator running for President a “faggot” because he’s secretly gay and everyone knows it, or defaming our troops with vile hatespeech while making millions upon millions of dollars off of moonbat Hollywood welfare to spend on hotdogs and gay hookers?
Ann Coulter is just exercising her freedom of speech and you moonbats hate that because she’s smarter than you and you all know it and she looks realy pretty and I wanna bone her which proves I’m not gay. Michael Moore is a fat man, and the fact that you all spent hundreds of dollars on his movies and all worship little golden idols of him in your closets just proves that you’re all crazy and stupid like all liberals and you should move to San Fransisco so terrorists can attack you.
Stupid Liberals
/Darrell
Mr Furious
Michael Moore does NOT equal Ann Coulter. Not even close.
Get a grip, Darrell. Then, as Richard suggests, “Fuck off.”
Mr Furious
Actually, he doesn’t even call anybody an asshole, he just points the camera and SHOWS the asshole-ness.
jill
And, when was the last time we heard from Michael Moore? He isn’t on TV on a weekly or daily basis like Coulter.
Zifnab
Conservatives mention him alot.
jcricket
Michael Moore is on the run, so we’re winning the war on terror and the tax cuts are working.
Darrell
Well if terrorists insurgents in Iraq are noble minutemen as Michael Moore asserts, aren’t our soldiers thereby guilty of moral abomination? And he has also said that Osama bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty, so I guess mainstream Dem senators and congressmen endorsed that too with their fanclub adoration of Moore.. How about when MMoore said that if there were black people on the initial 9/11 flights that people would have fought back (were there no blacks on the flights which crashed into the WTC towers and Pentagon?) thereby shitting on the graves of those in those flights who died. Mainstream Dems embraced all of it, in the highest levels of the Dem party, with their fawning over Moore, paying him tribute over and over.
And wrt Ann Coulter calling some leftists traitors, there most definitely is a traitorous aspect to some on the left including so many who scream that Bush lied his way into war to steal the oil. If not traitorous, such actions are the polar of opposite of patriotic, that’s for sure, so don’t act so self righteous when someone calls scum for what they are.. unless you support those views yourself.
Tulkinghorn
Earth to Darrell: jimmy Carter sitting next to the man for a few hours does not mean that “Mainstream Dems embraced all of it, in the highest levels of the Dem party, with their fawning over Moore, paying him tribute over and over.”
Now compare that to being paid to give a prominent speech at CPAC. This is a ridiculous stretch.
Oh, and for whatever you think of Michael Moore, he does not rely on rich patrons to by thousands of his books in order to succeed in selling them. It would be like having someone buy out all the seats in the theatres where his movies show, in order to promote him in news shows as a best-selling film producer. Michael Moore is ten times the entrepreneur that Ann Coulter is.
Darrell
Except that MMoore didn’t “just” sit next to Jimmah Carter for a few hours.. Moore hosted private VIP showings of Fahrenheit 911 to the DNC chair along with the who’s who of Dem Senators and congressmen at a special event. He was personally welcomed by Jimmah Carter and invited to sit with JC in the VIP presidential booth.
Flipside, it would be as if Coulter was welcomed by Bush Sr. and invited to sit next to him and Barb in the Presidential booth, after already having had the hightest levels of Repub senators and congressman stop by to pay her tribute.
But unlike Dems, that never happened with Repubs and Coulter. She was applauded by a faction of Repubs at a private meeting, a number of whom forcefully objected to her speech (did even one single Dem objected to Moore’s VIP treatment at the Dem convention? No?). Coulter was not cowtowed to like Moore was by the highest levels of the Dem party mainstream.
Mr Furious
Darrell’s examples? A link to some anonymous asshole protester with a sign that supposedly represents “the left.” And saying that questioning Bush’s motives is somehow treasonous.
jh
At the end of the day, Ann Coulter said what she said an no alleged transgression by the left will change that.
Enter Darrell (who clearly must fancy himself as the low-rent verion of Harvey Keitel’s “cleaner” in Pulp Fiction, Walter Wolf:
Pay no attention to Ann Coulter.
Instead, Look over there!
Isn’t that Michael Moore?
And did I mention that people who disagree with Bush’s elective wars are traitors?
Oh and when you have a moment, here’s a link to a completely unrelated photo that might somehow make you conflate a handpainted poster with the views of the entire left.
Tulkinghorn
Uh Darrell. Give it up — you are making my points for me.
Teak111
Well, this certainly exposes the current cultish GOP crowd, but I wonder where the real conservatives are these days. Out here in calif maybe. Is Arnold a truer conservative then the coulter crowd? I think so. As a dem who used to be a Richard Ryadon (former mayor of LA) conservative, there where some good things conservatives stood for but maybe that was all window dressing. I certainly hope the fog of 911 is lifting and these people are exposed as the kooks (not conservatives) they really.
Teak111
Well for one thing, Moore is actually funny, or makes funny movies. Does anyone remember Roger and Me?
Darrell
First, I went out of my way NOT to say those protesters represent “the left”, but they do represent some on the left. Then there is much of this and this. Even among those on the left who didn’t harass military through protests and physical encounters, there was MUCH sympathy on the left to forbidding the military to recruit on campuses, which is why so many predominantly liberal campuses do not permit military recruiters to set foot their campuses. Most of these same campuses who block military recruiters, welcome and cheer vile Anti-american scum like Noam Chomsky, who is probably the single most popular speaker on leftist campuses. But don’t dare question their patriotism, right?
These actions are absolutely the polar opposite of patriotism, and physical assaults on military recruiters are criminal.
Then we have others on the left asserting that Bush lied us into war in order to steal oil. Again, this is not “patriotic dissent”
Darrell
If one side is going to throw stones about extremists on the conservative side, it’s entirely fair to point out that the core of mainstream Dem Senators, congressmen and former President openly embraced and paid tribute to an even more extreme member of the far left.
Ted
Wonderful. More Darrell-shrieking.
John S.
So of course you have examples of such hate-filled fringe elements of “the left” speaking at Democratic political events, being paid to work for Democratic events or being accepted as spokespeople for the Democratic party?
I’m If you want to make comparisons, try apples to apples.
John S.
So of course you have examples of such hate-filled fringe elements of “the left” speaking at Democratic political events, being paid to work for Democratic events or being accepted as spokespeople for the Democratic party?
I’m If you want to make comparisons, try apples to apples.
Darrell
Michael Moore has claimed that terrorist insurgents killing our troops are noble “minutemen”. Extremist as hell.
This same Michael Moore was asked to host special VIP showings of F9/11 to the most influention Democrat Senators, Congressmen, and the head of the DNC, all of whom came to pay tribute to Moore. Not a fringe group, but the core mainstream Democratic leadership embraced him.
No equivalent embrace of Ann Coulter from Republicans.. not even close. I’m just sayin’
Mr Furious
Link?
jh
Notice readers how, in a simple matter of rhetorical legerdemain, Darrell equates ALL insurgents with terrorists.
Shit like this is what makes you a dishonest poster Darrell, and why no one takes you seriously.
That and your continued use of “Democrat” when “DemoCRATIC” is the correct term.
And your continued beating of the Farenheit 911 horse.
But by all means, carry on.
You are doing such a capable job of bring us evil liberals around.
Darrell
Are you really that ignorant?
Ah yes, noble “Minutemen” killing our troops and blowing up women and children in open markets. I can see why you Dems so embrace MM
Darrell
Dem Senators, Congressmen, head of DNC and former President embraced it all.. which is precisely why they paid such tribute to MMoore
Mr Furious
Making her comments at the same forum featuring the sitting Vice President and Presidential hopefuls for 2008?
Nah, not equivalent at all. Neither is the video of Romney yukking it up with Coulter backstage at CPAC.
Mr Furious
Thanks for the link. Seriously. Moore said it, but you are skewing the context.
Moore made those comments three years ago specifically in reference to the press calling Iraqis who were at the time resisting an invading and occupying US force (which we were and still are) terrorists or insurgents.
At the time, I would have agreed. Labeling resistance from the population of a country we invaded “terrorism” was bullshit. I could go with insurgent (at the time) or guerrilla, but they were not terrorists. they were engaging troops only at the time, and were forced to do so asymmetrically.
Once the targets became innocent civilians and marketplaces, the label “terrorist” fits. That hadn’t really happened yet that early in the conflict, and wasn’t what Moore was referring to.
what is going on now is not rebellion against an occupier (hence the comparison to minutemen) but a full-on fucking civil war we unleashed with us in the middle. I’m sure Moore would not make that same statement today.
Darrell
Did they invite her to join them after her comments for a special private meeting?
And Romney is in no way representative of the Republican party.. Furthermore, his “yukking up” with Coulter backstage was BEFORE her speech, whereas Dems embraced Michael Moore AFTER he claimed that terrorist insurgents killing our troops were noble “Minutemen”
Look Coulter is sort of our side’s Michael Moore, except that she’s smarter and less extreme than he is.. But she still doesn’t know how to keep a lid on her nonsense. At least a number of conservatives petitioned to complain about her appearance. Contrast that petition to Dem Senatorial and Congressional public embrace of Michael Moore in which there was no Dem party objection to his VIP treatment at the DNC convention.
Remember, many of those complaining about Coulter are the very same leftists who defended and cheered John Edward’s hiring of Amanda Marcotte. Again, just sayin’. If you were more honest, you’d admit I’m right.
Darrell
I am absolutely giving Moore proper contex. He said it in April 2004, a full year after Saddam had been toppled and his army defeated, after it was already well established that these were terrorists killing our troops and innocents, not noble minutemen struggling for their country.
Krista
Questioning the motives behind an elective war is traitorous, or at the very least, seditious?
Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave right now…
The Other Steve
I think the telling point about all of this, is that with all of Darrell’s accusations of treason and other gotcha take quote out of context game playing.
The war hasn’t gone any better for them.
One would have thought the lesson would be learned from the Soviets, that manipulating the perception does not change the results in any way. But I guess not.
John S.
Ok, so Michael Moore represents the Democratic party, but in no way does a former Republican governor and conteneder for the Republican presidential nomination represent the GOP. Got it.
So a screening of a movie by the director = a political action committee tied to the Republican party? Wow, that’s really stretching, even for you, Darrell.
Come back when you have some newe material.
Krista
Just a quibble, ’cause I know you are nothing but honest in your arguments, but I do have to say that you keep using that word “noble” as though Moore actually used that term to describe the insurgents. He didn’t. If you want to disagree with every word coming out of his mouth, that’s your prerogative, but disagreeing with words that you’re putting in his mouth — well, it really just makes your entire argument suspect.
Roger
Re: her book sales, and appearing on the NYT bestseller list, I believe a lot of that is bulk sales by outfits such as the Heritage Foundation.
Jim
Darrell,
Have you seen any of Michael Moore’s films, or are you just parroting what others have said?
Thanks.
Jim
The Other Steve
BTW, Pat Buchanan made a similar comparison between Iraq and Revolutionary War America on the McLaughlin group. At the time I thought it was rather insightful, certainly moreso than the rhetoric that comes out of Darrell’s mouth.
In short… When shown a poll that said 30% of Iraqis wanted America out now, Buchanan simply commented that 30% was roughly the same number of Americans who wanted Britain out of the colonies back in 1776.
The Other Steve
But you have to admit. Darrell is arguing in good faith.
The Other Andrew
A question for you, Darrell. Should there be criminal charges against the people (on the left and right) that have said that oil could have been, or was, the motive to go to war?
Pb
Even that was debunked, long long ago–but that doesn’t stop The Darrellizer Bunny, he just keeps spewing, and spewing, and spewing…
jh
Darrell,
I didn’t see where Moore used the term “noble” when referring to Iraqi insurgents, so please stop with the dishonest bullshit.
Thanks.
He actually said,
The fact of the matter is that Moore was correct on at least two counts and partially correct on at least one other.
Be it to for the purposes of driving out their American occupiers, reprisal against their sectarian adversaries or the killing of apostates, or any synthesis of the above, the numbers of people willing to engage in violence in Iraq DID grow, and that growth WAS revolutionary in nature.
Whether or not Iraqi nationalist, anti-occupation insurgents* should have been compared to minutemen at the time depends on your POV. It’s certainly not an extremist view to compare the two considering the now evident lack of any justifiable causus belli for war and the post-invasion atrocities committed by our side.
Here’s the bottom line. Some Iraqi insurgents could be viewed as fighting against an occupier (and a proxy government which they view as illegitimate) . If taken in that context the comparison to the minutmen seems entirely appropriate.
If this makes Moore a demon in your view, I don’t plan on losing too much sleep about it, especially when it’s transparently obvious that this discussion is little more than your last line of defense for Ann Coulter’s comments and the sinking politcal fortunes of the right.
Right now, as of March 2007, on our plane of existence, Michael Moore’s comments from 2004 aren’t hurting the Democratic Party nearly as much as Little Orphan Trannie’s comments are (rightly) acting as an Abbatross around the necks of conservatives. Despite your bleats to the contrary.
But by all means keeping beating the dead horse.
If this is all your side has got, the right is in worse trouble than I thought.
Anyway, thanks for playing Name That Strawman.
Your Turtle Wax and Rice-A-Roni are in the mail.
* not to be confused with Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia or any other acutal terrorist group, which recruited outside Iraq with the goals of killing apostates AND driving out the Western occupiers.
Bo
Most of the people I have met who cannot stand Michael Moore, upon prodding, admit to never having seen the films upon which this hatred is based.
Farenheit 9/11 was a very powerful movie full of inconvenient facts – none of which have been disproven by the lunatic right.
Say what you will about Moore’s political views, when it comes to sizing up George W. Bush and the previous GOP controlled congress – he was right and deserves some respect from those that are now starting to see the light.
Darrell
He strongly implied it, which is why he compared them to the Minutemen of the American revolution, and made clear that they were not “terrorists”, just noble patriots struggling against the US oppresors. Not much honest doubt about that.
Darrell
What’s interesting is that TOSser regularly gets caught in bald faced lies here at BJ. I’m not talking matters of interpretion, but outright lies. He never owns up to them, he just snipes from the sidelines afterwards like a whining little chihuahua. Pathetic really.
Darrell
I knew you leftist would defend Michael Moore’s comparison of terrorist insurgents killing our troops to noble honorable “Minutemen”
It’s extremist as hell, and it’s who so many of you are.
Pb
Agreed: you’ve never argued in good faith.
Andrew
Spartans are G – A – Y gay!
Pb
Wait… Darrell thinks there’s only one ‘leftist’ on the left? Like, we are Borg, or something? Well, that assumption would make sense of a lot more of his claims… You see, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and/or anonymous anarchist assholes with signs somewhere represent and/or control the Democratic party, because they are Leftist, and you will be assimilated!
jh
Leftist is a singular description now?
Jeez are you dumb.
Oh and for the record, comparing an indigenous Iraqi nationalist movement to our own “noble” minutmen is more logically and ethically defensible than Coulter’s remarks any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Ted
Yes, folks. Question the judgment of the Iraq war, or worse, opposing it, is now treasonous! Welcome to the New Conservatism! I’m Darrell, and I’ll be your guide today.
Tim F.
It sounds like you failed my test. Rather than point out a single time that Moore has called for a poisoning, bombing or execution for treason you have listed a series of statements which piss you off. No gold star for you, Darrell.
And I have to confess that your obsession with random sign-holding protesters borders on pathological. If you cannot point to any meaningful Democrats who hold these views that clearly cause you so much pain then it’s safe to conclude that you have proved exactly the opposite of what meant. Drum’s law. If your only evidence is a handful of complete fringe actors then you have proven the rarity of an opinion, not its ubiquity.
Your entire “point” is utterly incoherent and self contradictory. I can’t even figure out why you would bother making it at all. Oh right, offense is always more fun than defense. That’s especially true for a stinker like Coulter, isn’t it. Me, if somebody called for the execution of a Supreme Court judge, most of their political opponents and the staff of the New York Times I’d cut ’em loose. I guess I’m not like you.
Darrell
I see, so if I don’t bite at your false choices, my point is not valid. Got it. You’re such a clear thinker Tim.. and so honest!
Let me make it clearer for your little mind: Seriously describing terrorist insurgents who are killing our troops and killing women and children in open markets as honorable “Minutemen” like minutemen of the American Revolution is WORSE than sarcastic unserious threats made by Coulter.
And after saying this and more, he was embraced not by some minority faction of Democrats, but embraced and paid tribute to by the who’s who of Democratic party: Dem Senate Leaders, Congressmen, DNC chair, and former Prez.
Bo
“Let me make it clearer for your little mind: Seriously describing terrorist insurgents who are killing our troops and killing women and children in open markets as honorable “Minutemen” like minutemen of the American Revolution is WORSE than sarcastic unserious threats made by Coulter.” – Darrell
I think that if you remove the emotional hyperbole – Moore was correct in stating that the Iraq insurgents are just as fanatically motivated and self-righteous in their cause as were the Minutemen. Both examples show that “The cause” can be just – while the means employed to achieve it may not be.
But people like you cannot get beyond the moral equivalency fixation. Fine, in that case given there were no WMD and Iraq was not an immenent threat to America, what exactly are you faulting the Iraqies for? That they have found a magic bullet – the marriage of bombs and suicidal will to defeat an invader? Gee, like that’s never been tried before????
Mr Furious
I’ll do Darrell’s homework for him. Here’s Sean Hannity trying to defend Coulter by giving us the “Top 10 Worst Examples of Liberal Hate Speech…”
[video at Crooks and Liars]
Highlights:
10. An incomprehensible, context-less quote from household name Nina Totenberg, that sounds like somthing overheard at a barbecue, not something said on the air.
9. A nine year old Alec Baldwin appearance on Conan.
8. A radio host I have seriously never hear of.
7. Dick Durbin’s infamous “Our troops are Nazis” speech. Of course that’s not at all what he said…
6. Brain-addled Harry Belafonte.
5. Al Franken on Tonite Show(?) making a clear joke. Quote: “So basicallly, what it looks like is gonna happen is Scooter Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed.” [uproarious laughter]
4. Hillary’s failed stand-up routine.
3. Joe Biden’s size 10 snack.
2. Roger Clinton. Yeah, that’s right. The second-worst hate speech of all time is the former President’s half-brother using the n-word when being arrested. It’s not clear whether this was in 1984 or in 2001 when he was arrested drunk.
1. “And the number one most disgraceful liberal hate speech moment:” Robert Byrd explaining that there are “white niggers if you want to use that word.” Context? Who fucking knows, because Hannity doesn’t give you any.
Notably absent? Michael Moore. And rightie pinata Bill Maher.
les
Hey, what’s a poor darrell to do? The shit’s so deep on his side there’s no way to hide it; all he has left is to hop and scream and point at the jackalope. And Annie C. isn’t helping–Sadly No! is poking fun at her latest column, claiming that global warming is a plot by Teh Left to kill all the conservatives. They’re really down to stems and seeds; I know how tough that can be.
Tim F.
You have repeatedly been asked to show where Michael Moore called the insurgents honorable, noble or any such adjective. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that is how it sounds in your head. The problem is that you have one of the worst abilities to understand a speaker’s intentions that I have ever seen. Almost nobody twists the intentions of others worse than you do. So unless you can cite Moore calling these people noble or anything of the sort I suggest that you drop it.
Further, you have not shown that Moore’s statement is objectively worse than calling for Americans’ deaths. You have shown that it pisses you off worse, which strikes me as more than a little disturbing. Do you, like Coulter, want to see Americans die? Or maybe you just understand the sentiment. Either way it makes me glad that you are two time zones removed.
Jim
Darrell,
Have you seen any of Michael Moore’s films, or are you just parroting what others have said?
Thanks.
Jim
ThymeZone
Yeah, we’re all glad too. But we’d be really glad if you guys bought a clue and either banned or at least limited the sumbitch.
Faux News
There are a myriad of voices babbling in Darrell’s head. We can only hope he finally listens to the voice that tells him to enlist in the US Army or US Marines so he can fight the terrorists in Iraq.
ThymeZone
Why are you and Darrell against victory for America? He should enlist on the other side, and thereby help us win.
jenniebee
Darrell is really trying to capitalize on timing here too, to make Moore’s statement seem worse than it wasn’t. Moore didn’t make that statement at a time when the insurgents were “killing women and children in open markets” – he made it when the insurgents were “just a few dead-enders” and their targets were almost exclusively soldiers. Moore’s statement, as poorly put as his statements usually are, was a pretty straightforward rejection of the moral relativism that has plagued this war from beginning to end: to wit, Moore was saying that just because we’re doing it doesn’t make it the right thing to do. What they are now, we were once, and what we are now, we once called enemy.
I’d ask what Darrell thinks is so “noble” about an anti-aristocratic movement that won its autonomy by shooting at redcoats from behind trees, but he’s so locked into “your side is worse no matter what because I say it’s worse because I said so because it just has to be that way” that the answer is pretty much a given.
jenniebee
Zifnab:
It does, however, suggest that you may have a praying mantis fetish.
jenniebee
triple post – I suck
zomg – Darrell faked a Southern accent! And we all know what Darrell thinks that says about a person’s character…
Rome Again
I happened on this thread looking for entertainment, and thought better of it after seeing so many posts by Darrell. Sorry, I’m not in an addling mood right now.
Darrell
Let me get this straight Tim, you are seriously arguing that Michael Moore was NOT attributing noble, honorable motivitions to the terrorist insurgents? Say what you want about my ability to gauge a speaker’s intentions, in this case Moore was crystal clear. Again, here is what he said:
He makes clear that they are not bad people, specifically objecting to the “terrorist” characterization, and then he takes it further in comparing them to the “Minutemen” of the American revolution. Most definitely he was attributing noble motivations to the terrorists by any honest reading.. your problem Tim being the “honest” reading part.
Ah yes, on one hand we have Michael Moore seriously praising the terrorists who are killing our troops and blowing up innocents in Iraq, and on the other hand you have Ann Coulter facetiously calling for the deaths of some liberals.. because if her threats were anything other than 100% patently facetious, Coulter would have been arrested for making death threats.. you do realize that, do you not Tim? I hope this helps cut through some of the fog in your head
Rome Again
Darrell obviously NEEDS them to be “bad people” to make himself feel better about bombing the hell out of their country and people.
I knew I was going to regret this thread. God, help me please! Give me “big project, NOW!”
Mr Furious
Wrong. What he makes clear is that things are in the eye of the beholder. One man’s terrorist is another’s freedom-fighter. At the time he made that statement, his was the more apt description.
He never attributes any of the positives you infer.
Give it up. You lost.
Darrell
That is a lie, a blatent lie. Moore made that statement in April 2004, a full year after Saddam has been toppled and his standing army disbanded. A time in which terrorists were blowing up markets and churches, as well as killing our troops. It was at that time Moore decided to praise them as noble ‘Minutemen’ who were neither “terrorists” nor “enemy”, just righteous Minutemen fighting for freedom.
It was of course, despicable as hell for Moore to say it at that time. Almost as despicable as those here now still defending Moore’s words.
Darrell
I see, so it’s ok to praise Mohammed Atta and the rest of scum who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 because they thought of themselves as “freedom fighters”? It’s all about Eye of the beholder, right moron?
Jim
I’ll take your silence as a no. Hopefully you’ll see the folks you surround yourself with aren’t always right(no one is).
“If you fccking beat this prick long enough, he’ll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don’t necessarily make it fccking so!” -Nice Guy Eddie in Pulp Fiction
Darrell
Take it however the voices in your head tell you to take it. I already provided links and citations, but when you’re willfully ignorant, I guess facts don’t matter.
jh
Mohammed Atta was what nationality again?
I believe he was EGYPTIAN. Not Iraqi.
And what was his affiliation with Iraq?
Oh right, there was link whatsoever between Mohammed Atta and the post invasion insurgency in Iraq.
This should be clear to anyone with a passing familiarity with reality, as the man died on 9/11.
Crude and sloppy Darrell. Very sloppy.
With every post, you further explain why some people object to your presence here.
Darrell
Doesn’t matter halfwit, it’s all about “eye of the beholder” as I’ve been told here. Atta felt he was speaking truth to power flying a plane into the WTC Tower, and terrorists, er Minutemen, in Iraq blowing up children in markets who believe they are righteous in carrying out such bombings, bomb strapped Palestinians blowing up pizza parlors full of people…as long as they ‘feel’ justified in their actions, that’s all that matters, right? Eye of the beholder explains all.
What? You mean to tell me that extremists on this site might not like me? Sob
Rome Again
Any moment now, TZ will be along to praise you for that!
ThymeZone
Why don’t you write us a list of all the people here who have any use for you at all, Darrell?
Go ahead. Produce the list. Unless you are suggesting that everyone here save for you is an “extremist.”
You appeared on this thread ostensibly to defend Coulter’s use of the word “faggot.” Is that what you think is a mainstream view? That politicians who comb their hair before going on camera are “faggots?”
What position exactly are you representing here, you lying cowardly piece of shit?
Darrell
Let’s see, first you attribute words to me which I never wrote or implied, then you get angry over it. Brilliant.
That pretty much makes you a textbook example of whackjob extremist.
ThymeZone
So, what position ARE you representing here, you lying cowardly piece of shit?
Write or imply the position, and let’s see who is wrong.
Answer a question for once, fuckstain.
Darrell
The always eloquent left. This is what it looks like when they have nothing else.
ThymeZone
This is what it looks like when a psychopathic troll like you gets call on his shit.
Answer the fucking question, Darrell. What is your position here?
John S.
I believe it is somewhere in the neighborhood of Michael Moore is worse than Ann Coulter. Or at the very least, just as “extreme” as she is.
Quite frankly, the only similarity I see between the two is that they both have Adam’s apples, although because she is thinner, Coulter’s is more pronounced.
BARRASSO
Wow Darrell disapears really fast when you ask him for an actual position. Keep that in mind whenever he shows up.
Darrell
I have explained and cited my position repeatedly on this thread. That I choose not to respond to the freakish obsessiveness of a mentally ill poster, well, draw your own conclusions.
Krista
You presume that your interpretation of Moore’s statement is the only honest one. And yet, your bias against Moore appears to be much more passionate than any bias towards Moore by any poster here. If you were anywhere as honest as you proclaim yourself to be, you’d admit that it is VERY possible that your interpretation of Moore’s statement is clouded by your bias against him.
“Seriously praising”? Once again, that appears to be your bias showing. Reading Moore’s statement, I really don’t see anything more than perhaps an effort to empathize with them. Bit of a difference there.
Let me ask you a question, Darrell. I would appreciate if you would give me an honest answer. Let’s say that Coulter’s statement was facetious, just for argument’s sake. I would love to hear a) what your reaction would be, and b) what you think the right-wing commentariat’s reaction would be, if a left-wing pundit, even jokingly, called for the death of right-wing Supreme Court Justices.
Darrell
Let’s say it wasn’t, which is what you are suggesting. Because if there was even a tiny shred of doubt that she wasn’t being 100% facetious, she would have been arrested for making such public death threats.
jg
I can’t believe are actually discussing what someone named Michael Moore said a hundred years ago. I mean there have been some jackalopes that are hard to detect right off so you get sucked down there, but Michael Moore? This is being responded to? Sad.
Krista
Okay, sure. You do have a point. I’ll alter my question somewhat. I would love to hear a) what your reaction would be, and b) what you think the right-wing commentariat’s reaction would be, if a left-wing pundit, jokingly called for the death of right-wing Supreme Court Justices. Would you (and they) just laugh it off, or would you (and they) be offended?
Darrell
Well, we did have the Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry joke about killing President Bush, did we not? Leftist reaction to that one? {crickets}. Why? Because most of you truly are unprincipled hypocrites.
Par for the course
Darrell
Although it’s obvious Coulter AND Kerry were being facetious, conservatives comparitively made a tiny miniscule amount of noise over Kerry’s remarks (A Dem Presidential Candidate) as compared to liberals going on and on over Coulter’s (a pundit) “death threats”.
It’s ridiculous on both sides, but I ask you, which side is “more” guilty here?
Krista
Can’t speak for the rest of the leftists, but I never even heard of that Kerry joke until you pointed it out, and have certainly never heard of any of the people that Malkin pointed out. I’ll have to see if I can find a transcript of Kerry’s joke, though — my computer speakers are on the fritz.
At any rate,
And what was your reaction to that? Were you offended?
Darrell
Honestly? Not one bit. It made him look even more like the idiot he is.
The double standards between treatment of Coulter versus Kerry riled me a bit though. Leftists (you gotta admit) play the aggrieved victim part much more than conservatives, which is the exact reason you never heard of Kerry’s tape. It’s obvious that both were being facetious, yet one side tried to make something serious out of it when there was no serious point to be made on either side.
Krista
I’ll have to do a bit of looking around to verify that one. You’ll excuse me if I don’t take too much of what you say at face value. (I doubt you’ll be greatly offended by this, as I assume that you also operate under the assumption that your blog opponents are not to be trusted in anything they say.) :)
Krista
Okay, so I found the two quotes in question:
Kerry:
A damn stupid thing to say, but it could be interpreted a few ways. Even Michelle Malkin didn’t seem to think that he meant anything serious by it.
Coulter’s quote:
Yeah…she said it was just a joke, but it’s still pretty unambiguous.
Kerry has a history of putting his foot in his mouth and making idiotic statements. Coulter has a history of making very mean-spirited and ugly comments under the guise of humour.
We might have to agree to disagree on this one, but I really don’t think that anybody, right or left (discounting under-the-radar extreme fringe on either side) is anywhere near as offensive and hateful as that woman. She’s definitely not fringe. She may not be running for office, but she’s pretty darned mainstream, and if the Republicans had a lick of sense, they’d distance themselves as far from her as possible, ’cause she’s NOT helping you at all.
Darrell
Which is why I linked to the actual video of Kerry making the statement.. so little stink was made over Kerry’s remarks, that many haven’t heard about him joking about killing Bush. But those liberals who are well aware of them and have also decried Coulter’s remarks, haven’t said peep over Kerry.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Whatever discussion this thread was going to have is dead, buried, and rolling in its grave. Darrell, the notorious thread-slayer, has another notch on his axe-shaft.
Doesn’t matter, though, Darrell, because the Spartans were still gay boyscouts who only stopped hugging and kissing other men long enough either to go to the gym, make love to their transvestite wives, or kill some slaves. I think it’s important that you re-emphasize your love for this culture. I think you, as the representative of the entire Right, should proclaim it from the rooftops.
It’s who you are, Darrell. A Spartophile.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Does anyone know Coulter’s opinion on the movie “300”? I’m just curious.
Darrell
You mean unambigous that she was joking? given that she explicitly said it was a joke.
As I said above, nothing Coulter has said tops the terrorists are patriotic “minutemen” comment from Michael Moore IMO.
Darrell
Now that you’ve arrived, yeah.
Krista
Okey-dokey, then. We’ve agreed to disagree on this one. Anyway, I’m off to go play Pirates. That bastard Marquis Montalban kicked my ass and stole my Brig of War, so I’m off for revenge. (Plus I have laundry to fold.)
Richard 23
Sounds like you’re in for an exciting night! What’s the special occasion?
Krista
Sarcastic bugger, aren’t you? The special occasion is that I was tuckered out from work and from smacking various recalcitrant board members away from being loose cannons, communications-wise. So, a bit of high seas escapism was called for.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Ooh, sizzle! You schooled me, Darrel. Spartophile. Go lead a Boy Scout troop, jackoff.