Anyone for Ann Coulter as #1 on the list?

[Inglewood Bob]

This being a holiday, I can take a break from smuggling illegal immigrants across the border to revisit my friends WOMI and JmThms at last.

I’ll begin with Jm, who asks, apparently amazed, “Do you really believe that Mr. Goldberg goes through a list of people and thinks ‘so and so simply does not agree with my point of view, so he is on the list?’” My answer would be, “Well … duh!” Just look at the list; with a few apparently token exceptions, screw-ups are people who disagree with Mr. Goldberg. If there are other criteria, they are far less evident, which is why I’ve invited Mr. Goldberg to submit a list with people with whom he disagrees who are nonetheless not screwing up America. He is, of course, a busy man, so I don’t expect him to take me up on the offer, but thus far attempts by his minions to act on his behalf are less than convincing.

As for the less succinct WOMI, first, a minor but annoying point: I appreciate his admiration for my little verbal coda toward the top of my previous message, but I have to insist that merely repeating it in a rejoinder only diminishes its effect as well as my expectations of any hope for comparable cleverness on his part. At the very least, WOMI, you could have modified it with a deft capitalization – “You know I’m Right.”

The “Please see above” response to my comment on Coulter’s absence from the book seems intentionally non-responsive to the point I’ve been trying to make, which is that incivility is at least as corrosive an agent in the screwing up of America as disagreement with Bernard Goldberg. The persistent refusal of conservatives to take responsibility for those on their side who drag dialog into the partisan muck has persuaded me that they have an interest in continuing to make their cases through bumper-sticker simplicities (going back, if you will, to “love it or leave it”) and high-five inducing bytes concerning the sexuality, patriotism, wealth (a plus if you stand to the right, an outrage if you stand among liberal successes at business), etc. (And here’s a shout-out to Jeffreydan for effortlessly meeting WOMI’s challenge on Coulter.)

A good example of demonizing the left is evident as WOMI attempts, not quite slyly enough, to imply that I said something I did not: “Would you muzzle all dissent?” The answer is no … and I have to add, at long last, Senator, have you no sense of decency? I am in favor of free speech, for the record. And I don’t beat my wife, while we’re at it, in case you’re thinking about asking. I’m guilty only of regretting that we no longer have the kind of dialog through, for instance, talk radio, that we once did. And since we’re throwing challenges around, can you provide a quote from a liberal – not a crackpot fringe character, but someone who might represent mainstream left/center policy – who advocates actually “shutting down Fox News”? Remember, that’s “shut down,” as in cops padlocking doors, hauling Rush Limbaugh off to Siberia, etc., none of which I noticed happening during the tyranny of the Fairness Doctrine.

Point taken on “tax cut and spend.” Obviously Republicans have it right: Democrats spend money only that they have on hand, but the GOP maintains fiscal responsibility by spending money that isn’t there.

By writing “nice duck of the issue,” WOMI ducks the responsibility of dealing with my answer to his challenge to offer “examples of ‘abuses of liberty’.” I did exactly that, by mentioning the Bush innovation of National Security Letters, though perhaps in a context too ironic for WOMI to decipher. The Alice in Wonderland conundrum is that the very existence of these letters is an abuse of civil liberties, if only through throwing the weight of government against U.S. citizens while denying them the fundamental right to legal counsel or free speech in discussing the matter. That alone should answer WOMI’s question, but it has also gone beyond this:

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cf ... tID=128508

I will agree that NPR is left-of-center and I share conservative exasperation with its pretenses not to be. It is true that every day we hear reports of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists – it’s more or less at the top of every hour in the network’s news updates – without hearing about any progress being made. On the other hand, this chaos is apparently spreading, and they and other news sources provide a service by reporting it rather than sweeping it under the rug. We need to hear both sides of the story – which is what I’ve said, repeatedly, above and in previous posts.

As far as I know, Franken hasn’t turned hissy about satire aimed at his direction. Again, if WOMI can provide evidence that he has, then his insinuation might bear some weight rather than further erode WOMI’s credibility.

And with that, this being Labor Day, I’m off to celebrate the proletarian revolution. I’ll be checking in on weekends mostly.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

As for the less succinct WOMI, first, a minor but annoying point: I appreciate his admiration for my little verbal coda toward the top of my previous message, but I have to insist that merely repeating it in a rejoinder only diminishes its effect as well as my expectations of any hope for comparable cleverness on his part. At the very least, WOMI, you could have modified it with a deft capitalization – “You know I’m Right.”

Kinda hurts a bit when your very own nonsequitur is turned against you, doesn't it?

I mean as a Liberal you are quite used to not being challenged in any meaningful way byt your lapdogs and fanboins in the MSM...but maybe you havne't noticed that I'm not part of the MSM and so prepare to be challenged.

The “Please see above” response to my comment on Coulter’s absence from the book seems intentionally non-responsive to the point I’ve been trying to make, which is that incivility is at least as corrosive an agent in the screwing up of America as disagreement with Bernard Goldberg. The persistent refusal of conservatives to take responsibility for those on their side who drag dialog into the partisan muck has persuaded me that they have an interest in continuing to make their cases through bumper-sticker simplicities (going back, if you will, to “love it or leave it”) and high-five inducing bytes concerning the sexuality, patriotism, wealth (a plus if you stand to the right, an outrage if you stand among liberal successes at business), etc. (And here’s a shout-out to Jeffreydan for effortlessly meeting WOMI’s challenge on Coulter.)

Perhaps you didn't notice that Bernie took Counter to task for her comments about the Jersey Girls. Sorry to have the truth upset your template.

The persistent refusal to hold moonbats accountable for their words is almost entirely a province of the Left, not the Right. Again, sorry to have the truth upset your template.

A good example of demonizing the left is evident as WOMI attempts, not quite slyly enough, to imply that I said something I did not: “Would you muzzle all dissent?” The answer is no … and I have to add, at long last, Senator, have you no sense of decency? I am in favor of free speech, for the record. And I don’t beat my wife, while we’re at it, in case you’re thinking about asking. I’m guilty only of regretting that we no longer have the kind of dialog through, for instance, talk radio, that we once did. And since we’re throwing challenges around, can you provide a quote from a liberal – not a crackpot fringe character, but someone who might represent mainstream left/center policy – who advocates actually “shutting down Fox News”? Remember, that’s “shut down,” as in cops padlocking doors, hauling Rush Limbaugh off to Siberia, etc., none of which I noticed happening during the tyranny of the Fairness Doctrine.

If you can provide a single instance of someone on the Right calling for Keith Olbermann or Bill Moyers to be shut up, I'll concede the point.

I can, however, provide numerous instances of the Left trying to shut down talk radio. Sen. Dianne Feinstein admitted that she was "looking at" re-introducing the Fairness Doctrine should Democrats win the WH and a larger majority in the 2008 elections. Odd that the target of the Fairness Doctrine is exclusively talk radio, isn't it? And I'm sure that its merest coincidence that talk radio is the one medium which has a rightward tilt to it.

By writing “nice duck of the issue,” WOMI ducks the responsibility of dealing with my answer to his challenge to offer “examples of ‘abuses of liberty’.” I did exactly that, by mentioning the Bush innovation of National Security Letters, though perhaps in a context too ironic for WOMI to decipher. The Alice in Wonderland conundrum is that the very existence of these letters is an abuse of civil liberties, if only through throwing the weight of government against U.S. citizens while denying them the fundamental right to legal counsel or free speech in discussing the matter. That alone should answer WOMI’s question, but it has also gone beyond this:

http://www.ala.org/al_onlineTemplate.cf ... tID=128508

And in the 1930s we had war plans that covered pretty much all contingencies including fighting Canada, Spain and Iceland (they were called the "Rainbow Plans" because each had a color as its code name).

So far as I know, we never acted on the plan to fight Iceland.

Having a plan to deal with a given contingency is prudent, even if acting upon the plan is unthinkable.

Besides, I'm sure that your side would castigate the President if he didn't have such plans in place and we were hit by terrorsits again....forgetting in the process that it was YOUR SIDE who fought the implementation of such contingency plans tooth and nail.

I will agree that NPR is left-of-center and I share conservative exasperation with its pretenses not to be. It is true that every day we hear reports of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed by terrorists – it’s more or less at the top of every hour in the network’s news updates – without hearing about any progress being made. On the other hand, this chaos is apparently spreading, and they and other news sources provide a service by reporting it rather than sweeping it under the rug. We need to hear both sides of the story – which is what I’ve said, repeatedly, above and in previous posts.

Then you should treasure the alternative media because, if they didn't exist, you'd never hear any contrasting viewpoints. You'd have a repeat of Cronkite telling us that the Tet Offensive was an NVA victory when it most definitely was not, thus swaying public opinion to embrace defeat- a media-created defeat.

As far as I know, Franken hasn’t turned hissy about satire aimed at his direction. Again, if WOMI can provide evidence that he has, then his insinuation might bear some weight rather than further erode WOMI’s credibility.

Embarassingly easily done.

All you have to do is to Google the 'confrontation' between Bill O'Reilly and Al Franken at the Minnesota (think that was the location) Book Fair. O'Reilly gives a talk on his book, Franken gives a talk on how O'Reilly is a liar...but only after O'Reilly has given his talk- the hallmark of a true coward.

Or, even easier, just read any of his books. Franken would earn the high praise of Josef Goebbles himself as a propagandist that doesn't let the truth get in the way of a good lie-filled ad hominem attack.

But then that's true of roughly 99% of the Liberal pundits out there, so I suppose that, in a way, it really isn't fair to single out Stuart Smalley. He's waht passes for a mainstream liberal these days.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Wepp, I'm sure you were asking DD, but I can recall a couple of instances where Ann was quite indirectly (and obviously facetiously) doing so: A) after the Edwards gay slur reactions, she said next time she'd just wish for him to get killed (citing Maher and the libs' silence on his words) and B) referring to Murtha as the poster boy for fragging in a column.

Jeffrey-

Which is exactly why I asked that the full context of Ann's words be quoted. Thank you for doing so.

And it begs the question, Why is what Ann said so reprehensible when she was merely quoting, with proper context, what Liberals had said towards Conservatives? Either both are wrong or neither are.

Liberals are fine when Maher says that it would have been better if Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack or when Murtha accuses his fellow Marines of being murderers- and no, there's no way you can spin either of those statements any other way- but let Coulter turn the words right back at them and they have a collective nervous breakdown and cry 'FOUL!" just as our friend Inglewood Bob did towards me.

I recognize the existance of a dishonest double standard but I'll be damned if I accept it.

I personally don't have a problem with these two examples; in context they're mild, sarcastic jabs. The gay slur itself, as well as her choice of words on the Jersey widows, got my dander up.

I thought the gay reference was a bit out of left field (no pun intended), especially when you couple it with her comments towards Gore and Clinton. But she probably had to use the 'f-word' because 95% of the American public have no idea what "effeminate" means.

As for the Jersey Girls, it was their welcome to political life...and a harsh one at that. The Left set them up with the aura of moral certitude, just like they did Mother Sheehan, with the idea that, due to their life experience, no one should challenge their words. They should have an absolute moral rightness of their opinions.

What Coulter did was to bust that particular pinata wide open. If you allow Liberal to put forth examples that are not allowed to be debated, you might as well become a Liberal yourself- how do you win the ideological war if you can't debate the points? Coulter might have been a bit heavy-handed in her choice of verbiage, but I understood her goal and agree with it 110%.

[Inglewood Bob]

Regarding “You know I’m right” – nice dodge of my point regarding originality, by labeling it (incorrectly) a non-sequitur. And that’s very Clinton of you to feel my pain.

I haven’t any fanboins, sad to say. I’m not even sure of what one is, despite a Google search that yielded mostly cryptic passages in various Cyrillic scripts. However, I do have two lapdogs, my Chihuahuas Frankie and Sammy. And I once had a Maltese named Bork, which I thought you’d appreciate.

I did not notice Mr. Goldberg’s scolding of Coulter, whose offense was apparently nonetheless not egregious enough to contribute to the screwing up of America. However, it’s interesting to me that you equate acquiring information with having one’s template upset. This is apparently a critical difference between us: You regard the receipt of contrary information to be “upsetting.” I consider it, on the other hand, to be enlightening. As I’ve noted previously, I have always been open to other points of view, which is precisely why I mourn the demise of the Fairness Doctrine; in these brave new times, conservatives have been freed from worry about getting their templates upset through exchanges of views on talk radio. We are all, I believe, the worse for it.

(One quick example: Years ago, while living near San Francisco, I supported an initiative to ban smoking in restaurants … until a conservative caller to KGO made the point to liberal host Ronn Owens that restaurant owners should have the right to allow smoking and risk the loss of non-smoking clientele; it’s their choice. I immediately pushed that paradigm further and decided that if I were ever to get into the restaurant business, the best move I could make would be to open a place specifically for smokers. No non-smokers would be forced to enter; other entrepreneurs could provide for them. The lesson is that one learns by listening to others, an opportunity that conservative interests in the radio biz are too willing to sacrifice in order to cater to the complacent majority.)

Nice dodge by name-checking Olbermann and Moyers and then equating Feinstein’s support of the F.D. with, apparently, burning books at Hitler Youth rallies. I’ll say it slowly: The Fairness Doctrine is not about banning conservative speech. I heard plenty of Limbaugh, early Savage, Jim Eason, and other Right thinkers back in the Bay Area when the F.D. was in effect. So this bogus outrage continues to seem more about silencing, or denying access to the major media to, the left than any real chance of the Right being purged.

If having Rainbow Plans in the ‘30s means it’s okay to gut fundamental rights today, then I would ask you to be honest, in your heart of hearts, about whether you would have gone ballistic over a Democratic administration adopting precisely the same approach to imposing a Federal presence in private lives. What if Clinton had unveiled the Patriot Act instead of Bush? You wouldn’t have been just a teentsy bit annoyed? Come on … you know I’m right.

Finally, I’m quite aware of the Franken/O’Reilly confrontation, which very obviously exposed O’Reilly as a bellowing blowhard. (“Bill, this isn’t your show,” Franken pleaded, while being drowned out by O’Reilly’s tirade.) And if Franken would earn praise from Goebbels for his propagandistic skills, then surely the Clubfooted One would have given valedictorian honors to Rove, Coulter, et al.

Happy Labor Day.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Regarding “You know I’m right” – nice dodge of my point regarding originality, by labeling it (incorrectly) a non-sequitur. And that’s very Clinton of you to feel my pain.

Yet another less than artful dodge on your part. My theory about Democrats favoring illegal immigration so as to increase their voter base is every bit as plausible as your ceontention that Republicans do so for the purpose of artifically decreasing wages.

You KNOW I'm right.

I haven’t any fanboins, sad to say. I’m not even sure of what one is, despite a Google search that yielded mostly cryptic passages in various Cyrillic scripts. However, I do have two lapdogs, my Chihuahuas Frankie and Sammy. And I once had a Maltese named Bork, which I thought you’d appreciate.

The fanbois weren't yours; they are the MSM who are lapdogs and fanbois of the Democrat Party. If you can't see the sycophantic relationship between the pundits (most of them) in the MSM and Democrat politicians, there really is no point in continuing this discussion, as you are far deeper in denail than I already think you to be.

I did not notice Mr. Goldberg’s scolding of Coulter, whose offense was apparently nonetheless not egregious enough to contribute to the screwing up of America.

Honest overlook or selective amnesia?

However, it’s interesting to me that you equate acquiring information with having one’s template upset. This is apparently a critical difference between us: You regard the receipt of contrary information to be “upsetting.” I consider it, on the other hand, to be enlightening. As I’ve noted previously, I have always been open to other points of view, which is precisely why I mourn the demise of the Fairness Doctrine; in these brave new times, conservatives have been freed from worry about getting their templates upset through exchanges of views on talk radio. We are all, I believe, the worse for it.

The difference between us is that YOU want to shut the Right up while I absolutely LOVE to hear the rantings of the Left. Every time Olbermann or Matthews opens their mouths, anotehr campaign contribution is made to the GoP and another independent voter is compelled to vote GoP. By all means...rant on, sir, rant on!

You cannot support the Fariness Doctrine and also support Free Speech. The two are mutually exclusive.

You on the Left already control 90% of the media. And yet you're STILL not satisfied? Not exactly tolerant of dissenting opinion, are you?

(One quick example: Years ago, while living near San Francisco, I supported an initiative to ban smoking in restaurants … until a conservative caller to KGO made the point to liberal host Ronn Owens that restaurant owners should have the right to allow smoking and risk the loss of non-smoking clientele; it’s their choice. I immediately pushed that paradigm further and decided that if I were ever to get into the restaurant business, the best move I could make would be to open a place specifically for smokers. No non-smokers would be forced to enter; other entrepreneurs could provide for them. The lesson is that one learns by listening to others, an opportunity that conservative interests in the radio biz are too willing to sacrifice in order to cater to the complacent majority.)

Welcome to the Free Market.

Nice dodge by name-checking Olbermann and Moyers and then equating Feinstein’s support of the F.D. with, apparently, burning books at Hitler Youth rallies. I’ll say it slowly: The Fairness Doctrine is not about banning conservative speech. I heard plenty of Limbaugh, early Savage, Jim Eason, and other Right thinkers back in the Bay Area when the F.D. was in effect. So this bogus outrage continues to seem more about silencing, or denying access to the major media to, the left than any real chance of the Right being purged.

Uhhh...no, you didn't. Unless you were able to pick up his local show in California that is.

The Fairness Doctrine was allowed to expire in 1987; Rush started in 1989 (national syndication- he was a local host well before that in Sacramento).

The explosion of conservative talk radio on a national basis did not begin until the expiration of the Fairness Doctrine.

And it's not my fault that Liberal talk radio absolutely blows chunks. Free Market, right?

If having Rainbow Plans in the ‘30s means it’s okay to gut fundamental rights today, then I would ask you to be honest, in your heart of hearts, about whether you would have gone ballistic over a Democratic administration adopting precisely the same approach to imposing a Federal presence in private lives. What if Clinton had unveiled the Patriot Act instead of Bush? You wouldn’t have been just a teentsy bit annoyed? Come on … you know I’m right.

Wrong again.

In fact, had Clinton actually done his job, there might well be 3000 less dead on 9/11 and many thousands more in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

One of the reasons why I dismiss crackpot theories such as Bush wants to shred the Constitution is that, whatever laws he gets thru Congress will be part of the Executive Branch powers of whoever the next Democrat President happens to be. Bush has to filter whatever powers he thinks are necessary thru due consideration of what President Hillary Rodham Clinton would do with those same powers. Hillary has demonstrated herself to be quite...selective as to what laws she will and will not obey.

Google "Carnivore". That was Clinton's brainchild. It is far more invasive than anything Bush has even thought about.

Finally, I’m quite aware of the Franken/O’Reilly confrontation, which very obviously exposed O’Reilly as a bellowing blowhard. (“Bill, this isn’t your show,” Franken pleaded, while being drowned out by O’Reilly’s tirade.) And if Franken would earn praise from Goebbels for his propagandistic skills, then surely the Clubfooted One would have given valedictorian honors to Rove, Coulter, et al.

You're completely right, of course.

How dare Bill O'Reilly get his dander up when he is ambushed by Smalley, who uses a series of lies and distortions in the process? Good little Conservatives are just supposed to bend over and grab ankles when confronted by Libs.

To quote that great philosopher Damon Wayans, "Homey don't play dat."

Happy Labor Day.

To you as well.

[Jeffreydan]

I did not notice Mr. Goldberg’s scolding of Coulter, whose offense was apparently nonetheless not egregious enough to contribute to the screwing up of America.

Bernie never really had a problem with Ann for a long time, including when he wrote 100/110 People. Ann's knock on the JGirls came out afterward, and Bernie took rightful umbrage in Crazies/Wimps.

Nice dodge by name-checking Olbermann and Moyers and then equating Feinstein’s support of the F.D. with, apparently, burning books at Hitler Youth rallies. I’ll say it slowly: The Fairness Doctrine is not about banning conservative speech. I heard plenty of Limbaugh, early Savage, Jim Eason, and other Right thinkers back in the Bay Area when the F.D. was in effect. So this bogus outrage continues to seem more about silencing, or denying access to the major media to, the left than any real chance of the Right being purged.

The FD itself, indeed, is not about banning conservative speech. But the liberals cite the likes of Limbaugh when they talk about bringing it back, don't they?
The FD is, first and foremeost, not necessary. There is nothing (save for the market and the need for ratings) preventing liberals from legally getting their message out over radio airwaves. Air America didn't face any roadblocks, and BTW they also didn't balance the on-air viewpoints. And it seems a little 1st Amendment-challenged for a government entity to mandate what viewpoints must be aired and for how long.
Conservatives got annoyed by the liberals' MSM monopoly; they put forth Limbaugh, and years later FSN, and both became hugely successful.
Liberals got annoyed that their monopoly was suddenly debated and exposed by a relative minority which revealed the REST of the information; their reaction was to call for government intervention. See any difference? And, did Feinscam mention any plan to assign the same FD rules to Newsweek, Time, the Big Three, etc.?

Finally, I’m quite aware of the Franken/O’Reilly confrontation, which very obviously exposed O’Reilly as a bellowing blowhard. (“Bill, this isn’t your show,” Franken pleaded, while being drowned out by O’Reilly’s tirade.) And if Franken would earn praise from Goebbels for his propagandistic skills, then surely the Clubfooted One would have given valedictorian honors to Rove, Coulter, et al.

What REALLY happened was Franken blatantly lied about Bill (and others) in his book, and Bill tried to set the record straight. Franken rudely tried to stop Bill's exposure of him with interruptions, prompting Bill to loudly point out that Franken's allotted speaking time was done (which it was), and it was now his turn.
Like him or not, Bill O'Reilly is a lot more credible than Al Franken.

[Jeffreydan]

Wepp, I'm sure you were asking DD, but I can recall a couple of instances where Ann was quite indirectly (and obviously facetiously) doing so: A) after the Edwards gay slur reactions, she said next time she'd just wish for him to get killed (citing Maher and the libs' silence on his words) and B) referring to Murtha as the poster boy for fragging in a column.

Jeffrey-

Which is exactly why I asked that the full context of Ann's words be quoted. Thank you for doing so.

And it begs the question, Why is what Ann said so reprehensible when she was merely quoting, with proper context, what Liberals had said towards Conservatives? Either both are wrong or neither are.

Liberals are fine when Maher says that it would have been better if Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack or when Murtha accuses his fellow Marines of being murderers- and no, there's no way you can spin either of those statements any other way- but let Coulter turn the words right back at them and they have a collective nervous breakdown and cry 'FOUL!" just as our friend Inglewood Bob did towards me.

I recognize the existance of a dishonest double standard but I'll be damned if I accept it.

I personally don't have a problem with these two examples; in context they're mild, sarcastic jabs. The gay slur itself, as well as her choice of words on the Jersey widows, got my dander up.

I thought the gay reference was a bit out of left field (no pun intended), especially when you couple it with her comments towards Gore and Clinton. But she probably had to use the 'f-word' because 95% of the American public have no idea what "effeminate" means.

As for the Jersey Girls, it was their welcome to political life...and a harsh one at that. The Left set them up with the aura of moral certitude, just like they did Mother Sheehan, with the idea that, due to their life experience, no one should challenge their words. They should have an absolute moral rightness of their opinions.

What Coulter did was to bust that particular pinata wide open. If you allow Liberal to put forth examples that are not allowed to be debated, you might as well become a Liberal yourself- how do you win the ideological war if you can't debate the points? Coulter might have been a bit heavy-handed in her choice of verbiage, but I understood her goal and agree with it 110%.

First, it's "Jeff" to you, my friend.

Second, I'm 100% in agreement with Ann on the subject of the JGirls. Their status as grieving widows got a little sullied by their apparent political opportunism, and no tragedy should excuse an ad hominem attacker.
I just get annoyed by her choice of words sometimes. That huge, educated vocabulary of hers could put forth a convincing, acerbic point in exposing liberal tripe, but she gets nasty instead. Liberals have an easy enough time avoiding the point, and it's even easier when it's accompanied by such incivility.

And if the JGirls' and Sheehan's experiences exempt them from debate, then Coulter's expertise on Constitutional law demands agreement with her stance on Bill Clinton's impeachment.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

First, it's "Jeff" to you, my friend.

Danke.

Second, I'm 100% in agreement with Ann on the subject of the JGirls. Their status as grieving widows got a little sullied by their apparent political opportunism, and no tragedy should excuse an ad hominem attacker.

Politics is not a game for the mild-mannered.

I just get annoyed by her choice of words sometimes. That huge, educated vocabulary of hers could put forth a convincing, acerbic point in exposing liberal tripe, but she gets nasty instead. Liberals have an easy enough time avoiding the point, and it's even easier when it's accompanied by such incivility.

Point taken.

But you have to remember who she's arguning against. Small words and concepts are about all they can handle- and the more vulgar, the better.

Besides...you know how I feel about Republicans and Conservatives needing to stay "above the fray".

And if the JGirls' and Sheehan's experiences exempt them from debate, then Coulter's expertise on Constitutional law demands agreement with her stance on Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I suspect you'll like this one.

About three weeks back, the local cat box liner published am op/ed written by an Alabama solider who had done two tours in Iraq and decided to write about what he'd seen.

He spared little in critiquing Rumsfeld and the President as regards strategery and tactics, saying that they had clung far too long to a warplan that just was not working.

However, he went on to say that things were really NEVER as bad as the media reported it to be and is now, directly as a result of the surge, far better than the media reports it to be in most, though not all, places.

About ten days went by and the newspaper published an op/ed written by a reader in rebuttal to this soldier.

The reader claimed that we should not pay any attention to the solider because the soldier was- get this- "too close" to the subject!

In other words, this writer felt that we should not place any additional credence to the opinion of someone with great experience as regards a particular instance.

My initial reponse was, I wonder if she thought the same thing about Mother Sheehan. I suspect not. Consistency is hardly the hallmark of the Left.

[Liberal Founding Father]

Coulter owes much of her success to the fact that - let's be a real here - she's a hot-looking babe, if not a bit anorexic. Without her looks, she would never have become the broadcast media darling/whore that she is. Even right-wing Fox succumbs to the same "Hollywood" values it so frequently skewers and as such, doesn't book physically plain women as habitual guests.

[MrSinatra]

hot?

not.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Personally, Mr. S, I think she's gorgeous.

Brains and beauty are quite a combination. Toss in wit and....

>sigh<

[MrSinatra]

ann coulter:



dude from phantasm:



or do i have that backwards? i can't tell.

[az_conserv]

Yea Ann is a bit nasty, she is digusted with politics and the lefties. I dont always agree with her comments, but she does have 1st ammendment rights. Those same rights that the left wants to stranglehold; those that they dont agree with.

Dave

[Astral]

Anne is HANDS DOWN #1. And the funniest thing about that?? The supposedly "fair and balanced" Fox network and especially the O'Reilly factor will sit and slam Jeremiah Wright 24/7 and then 2 minutes later, allow that hateful #$%^% to come on the show and call Obama "Hitler", John Edwards a "faggot" etc etc. And Bill touts how "fair" he is, but on his list of dumbest statements of the year, he has ALL Democrats or left leaners like Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary, Chris Matthews etc, but did not feature even ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN or right wing psycho!! How can you call yourself fair and balanced and leave Coulter out of that list? O'Reilly and Mr. Goldberg are misrepresenting themselves and we shouldn't put up with it. There is PLENTY to criticize the right about too gentlemen. Stop focusing all of your criticism in one direction.

[Astral]

Yea Ann is a bit nasty, she is digusted with politics and the lefties. I dont always agree with her comments, but she does have 1st ammendment rights. Those same rights that the left wants to stranglehold; those that they dont agree with.

Sorry man, but I think you got that a bit backwards. The Conservatives are trying far harder than anyone else to be "thought police". If they had it their way, they'd be able to regulate what was on the internet.

Example: The whole deal with those postings on HuffingtonPost.com. Even if some found the posts about Nancy Reagan offensive, freedom of speech should still allow for it. I'm not condoning those statements, but I'm just making the point that I see the right trying to control what people say or think FAR more than the liberals.