Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

[SpyroChiro]

Inciting hate and rage in her supporters doesn't count for something, I do't know what does.

[Cortese]

LOL, I don't know about number one but definitely a mention is in order.

[MrSinatra]

i think she's earned a place on the list.

[JmThms]

No. She's on the right side. Her civility quotient and tactics certainly can be criticized, and maybe warrant her a place on the list, but not anywhere #1. If she were a lib, she would no doubt deserve to be high on the list.

[Gadfly]

No. She's on the right side. Her civility quotient and tactics certainly can be criticized, and maybe warrant her a place on the list, but not anywhere #1. If she were a lib, she would no doubt deserve to be high on the list.

I agree, I've got nothing against Ann, but she CAN be a bit abrasive which is probably understandable given that she's fighting most of the news media.

[John Gilchrist Lodge]

No. She's on the right side. Her civility quotient and tactics certainly can be criticized, and maybe warrant her a place on the list, but not anywhere #1. If she were a lib, she would no doubt deserve to be high on the list.

JmThms nailed it.

[Charlotte]

If Ann Coulter's name isn't at the top of the list, then there is no justice! She should go along with (2) Dick Cheney, and (3) George W. Bush! Everyone else pales in comparison! - Charlotte Kennedy

[Inglewood Bob]

The question isn't who is on the right side, although Mr. Goldberg's almost total skew to the left in his selection of subjects suggests that, in his dictionary, "screwing up" is synonymous with "disagreeing with Bernard Goldberg." Colter, IMO even more than Michael Moore, lowers the tone of dialog, as for that matter do almost all of the right-wing radio hosts who walk in step with Savage in dehumanizing "screw-ups" (i.e., liberals).

I would invite Mr. Goldberg to submit to this list a selection of liberals, people with whose politics he disagrees, who are nonetheless not "screwing up America." By so doing, he might clarify his criteria for choosing who to include in this book, if there are any other than conservative zealotry. Presumably publication followed Colter's nasty comment re Edwards as well as her subsequent wimp-out evasions of responsibility, but it's not too late to correct errors.

Also, how about a substantive response to Franken's (and Joe Conanson's) critique of the "liberal bias" methodology behind "Bias"?

[Jeffreydan]

Colter, IMO even more than Michael Moore, lowers the tone of dialog, as for that matter do almost all of the right-wing radio hosts who walk in step with Savage in dehumanizing "screw-ups" (i.e., liberals).

You might want to think a bit about this. Yes, Ann Coulter has said some crass, insensitive things and embarrassed conservatives. But compare: Ann threw a gay slur at a soft, pretty-boy politician and very callously criticized a group of women who appeared to be using their 9/11 widow status for political advantage. Moore immediately followed the 9/11 attacks with statements characterizing America as a world oppressor and suggesting that the attackers, in picking the flights they did, mistakenly murdered liberal people instead of conservative people.
Moore wins the discourse-lowering contest.

I would invite Mr. Goldberg to submit to this list a selection of liberals, people with whose politics he disagrees, who are nonetheless not "screwing up America." By so doing, he might clarify his criteria for choosing who to include in this book, if there are any other than conservative zealotry. Presumably publication followed Colter's nasty comment re Edwards as well as her subsequent wimp-out evasions of responsibility, but it's not too late to correct errors.

That's a silly statement considering that Bernie clarified his criteria in great detail in the book's opening pages.

[Inglewood Bob]

An ad hominem dismissal of calling a reasonable request "silly" does little to encourage me to take JeffreyDan seriously. True, I admit to not reading the intro to this book -- I was in a busy aisle at Sam's Club, with only a minute to glean what I could from a quick skim. However, unless Mr. Goldberg does in fact list a selection of liberals whose views he rejects and yet who he would not charge with screwing up America, my challenge has yet to be addressed.

I will, at my soonest, try to spend more time with this book, in which case I may be proven wrong; perhaps there is a list of virtuous liberals already in place within its pages. However, assuming this to probably not be the case, I would ask that Mr. Goldberg specifically provide a list of ten prominent liberals and, in a sentence or two, explain why they, unlike the liberals who make up the huge majority of those covered in his book, are not screwing up our country.

More specifically, let's have ten liberals who are effective at what they're doing, as are Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Al Gore, et al. I suspect that persuasiveness at challenging his POV may also be a criterion for inclusion on this list.

Inglewood Bob

[JmThms]

The question isn't who is on the right side, although Mr. Goldberg's almost total skew to the left in his selection of subjects suggests that, in his dictionary, "screwing up" is synonymous with "disagreeing with Bernard Goldberg."

No. You're missing the point. I think the point with so many liberals being on the list is that modern liberalism is so dysfunctional and destructive to our country. Ann Coulter may lower the tone of dialog but she is on the right side.

[Inglewood Bob]

If the point is that liberals are wrong and therefore conservatives, being right, are entitled to say, for example, that the widows of the 911 tower disaster are enjoying the notoriety that derives from their husbands' deaths, then what is the point of dialog between people who disagree? For that matter, what reason would JmThms have for visiting and posting here at all, since he already knows what the truth is; it seems like a waste of his time.

If the discussion begins with "I'm right, you're wrong, and I have nothing I can learn from you," then why discuss at all? Mr. Goldberg, as soon as I see that list of ten liberals who are not screwing up America, I would therefore ask that you shut bernardgoldberg.com down entirely; apparently, there is no longer anything positive to be had from people sharing their views and picking up insights about others and themselves in the process.

Or, Mr. Goldberg, have you swung so far from the old-school ideal of objectivity in journalism that you've become a JmThms yourself?

[Jeffreydan]

Bob,
The point Bernie has made is that the percentage of high-profile libs who lower the discourse is WAY higher than the percentage of conservatives who do. I was expecting AC to be on the list, but I would have been VERY surprised if Ted Rall didn't make it. (AC doesn't come close to the level of meanness Rall does on her harshest day.)

It would take some effort to make a large list of modern, noteworthy liberals who set a good, decent tone for discussion. Alan Colmes comes to mind, as well as Bob Beckel.

I don't subscribe to the automatic idea that liberal=bad and conservative=good per se. But it is hard to deny that liberals have done more to cheapen our culture and lower the bar of civility than conservatives have. The likes of Ted Kennedy, Rall, Al Sharpton, and Howard Dean have given liberals (and liberalism in general) a very bad name. It isn't because they're liberal; it's because they're unapologetic, opposition-insulting little vipers.

Do you believe that there are anywhere near as many of those types in the world of high-profile conservatism? That's what I'm saying: Coulter is a relative blip, and she gets rightful disapproval from the right when she gets nasty. There seems to be a terrible lack of public disapproval when Dean and others spew such hatred.

[JmThms]

If the point is that liberals are wrong and therefore conservatives, being right, are entitled to say, for example, that the widows of the 911 tower disaster are enjoying the notoriety that derives from their husbands' deaths, then what is the point of dialog between people who disagree?

I am not claiming that what Coulter says is not crass. Nor am I saying that because Conservatives are more 'right' at this historical point (which i do believe) then they have a right to say crass things. I am simply saying that any list of people screwing up America that I (and those of similar mind) would include more liberals. This is not to shut down debate. If anything, it is the opposite. And being skewed toward including liberals is not based just on including anyone with whom we disagree. As I said, conservatives disagree among themselves. In my view, its not only the tone and tactics of the debate, but the destructiveness of ideology as well.

For that matter, what reason would JmThms have for visiting and posting here at all, since he already knows what the truth is; it seems like a waste of his time.

I am about as confident in the rightness of my worldview as Inglewood bob. I visit here to express my opinions, read those of others, look for inconsistencies in my arguments, weigh the arguments and make decisions.

If the discussion begins with "I'm right, you're wrong, and I have nothing I can learn from you," then why discuss at all?

I never said I had nothing to learn from you. You are free to express your opinions. I read your opinions to see if they may expose any possible inconsistencies in my views. But by the same token don't expect that I will agree with you.

Mr. Goldberg, as soon as I see that list of ten liberals who are not screwing up America, I would therefore ask that you shut bernardgoldberg.com down entirely; apparently, there is no longer anything positive to be had from people sharing their views and picking up insights about others and themselves in the process.

Again, in my opinion (which may not be quite the same as Mr. Goldbergs), the reason why you would not see a list of ten liberals who are not screwing up America is because there is not such a list!! Except maybe liberals who don't vote, don't express or act on their world views.

Or, Mr. Goldberg, have you swung so far from the old-school ideal of objectivity in journalism that you've become a JmThms yourself?

Good god. Any time I hear a liberal refer to "the old-school ideal of objectivity in journalism" I have to roll my eyes. Bernard Goldberg is no longer a reporter at CBS or CNN or ABC, etc. He wrote these books expressing his opinions.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

One thing that has long been lacking among Conservatives is a (verbal) bomb-thrower to compete with the legion of (verbal) bomb-throwers on the Left.

I've long held the view that Conservatives are, by and large, too damn nice. It's one of the reasons why the general public perception is that the Right has lost the battle of ideas. While that's not the case, the public's flawed perception make it much more difficult to begin to make headway because people won't listen. However, if you do manage to get their attention, Conservative ideas are winners.

And that's where Ann Coulter comes in, If nothing else, she DOES get your attention. She can toss the verbal bombs that break through the public's reticence to hear the Right and other Conservatives can explain/expound on Coulter's statements. While you can- and many do- dismiss Coulter out of hand, you WILL hear her and, if given the chance to explain what she meant by saying the outrageous things she does, chances are better than even money she'll cause you to think, if not be persuaded outright.

But the problem is that too many on the Left aren't really interested in the free and open exchange of ideas. That's a diversity they don't support. And one of the ways that they try to shut down debate is to attack their opponent personally so that they don't have to place themselves in the typically unenviable position of having to defend their viewpoints. Much easier to attack the messenger than debate the message. But why should the Left be ceded that tactic? A well-prepared debator brings every weapon he or she has to the debate and is not afraid to use them. If you cede to the Left venomous rhetoric, you've placed yourself at a disadvantage from the outset. I'm not prepared to do so any longer, as the stakes are just too high.

Personally, I'd not put her on the list. I can see why others would.