Ann Coulter at it again

[jdobbin]

http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2.../26/236510.aspx

Edwards: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue.

Coulter: That's now three years ago --

Edwards: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language.

Coulter: Yeah why isn't John Edwards making this call?

Matthews: Well do you want to respond and we'll end this conversation?

Edwards: I haven't talked to John about this call.

Coulter remains a hero of the right wing though. She really is a pretty nasty type.

[geoffrey]

Coulter remains a hero of the right wing though. She really is a pretty nasty type.

I'm not the biggest Coulture fan, but I do enjoy how none on the left debate her substance, they just attack her style.

[Guest coot]

What substance?

[jdobbin]

I'm not the biggest Coulture fan, but I do enjoy how none on the left debate her substance, they just attack her style.

It is hard to see her substance when she calls people gay for no apparent reason.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is hard to see her substance when she calls people gay for no apparent reason.

So what? Is being "gay" a bad thing? Is it far better to call people "warmongers"? Mr. Edwards attempted to slur Mary Cheney for being gay. Ms. Coulter is a wonderful counter for the same extremes exhibited by her left wing opposition, starting with the near defunct Air America crowd.

[ScottSA]

This is a case in point. Not one criticism of her position, just mock aghastness over her style.

[geoffrey]

It is hard to see her substance when she calls people gay for no apparent reason.

I have the ability to see through rhetoric and listen to substance, apparently that's not a common quality in North Americans. Apparently why people like Bush get elected.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have the ability to see through rhetoric and listen to substance, apparently that's not a common quality in North Americans. Apparently why people like Bush get elected.

No, it's why he got re-elected. "Substance" is way overrated.

[gc1765]

I'm not the biggest Coulture fan, but I do enjoy how none on the left debate her substance, they just attack her style.

Kind of like how Coulter tends to attack people rather than debate the issue...

[kimmy]

This is a case in point. Not one criticism of her position, just mock aghastness over her style.

Again, what substance is it that we're supposed to debate? That she called John Edwards a fag? Is that the "substance" that makes Ann Coulter such a popular media figure?

It is hard to see her substance when she calls people gay for no apparent reason.

So what? Is being "gay" a bad thing?

In Coulter's mind it, and the mind of many of her fans, it certainly is. She often mocks her adversaries by characterizing them as effeminate, so reaching for "faggot" is probably her heavy artillery.

Mr. Edwards attempted to slur Mary Cheney for being gay.

That's not true. While he mentioned Mary Cheney during the debate, it was not an attempt to slur her or her family. The only people who would interpret his mention of her as a slur are people who think gays are ruining the country, or that gay children are created by bad parents.

If I recall correctly, John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney as an example of a gay person who *wasn't* a result of bad parenting or weak values, in fact.

The person who slurred Mary Cheney was Alan Keyes, you'll recall.

Is it far better to call people "warmongers"? Ms. Coulter is a wonderful counter for the same extremes exhibited by her left wing opposition, starting with the near defunct Air America crowd.

While I partly agree with you-- Coulter's rhetoric is actually fairly tame compared to some of the bile that comes out of the mouths of the shrieking left-- I don't think there's anything wonderful about it.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

That's not true. While he mentioned Mary Cheney during the debate, it was not an attempt to slur her or her family. The only people who would interpret his mention of her as a slur are people who think gays are ruining the country, or that gay children are created by bad parents.

If I recall correctly, John Edwards mentioned Mary Cheney as an example of a gay person who *wasn't* a result of bad parenting or weak values, in fact.

Both Kerry and Edwards sought to gain political advantage with references to Mary Cheney's sexual orientation....i.e. "lesbian". The American voting public rejected this blatant "gay" baiting tactic. Ms. Coulter is not running for federal office, but she is trying to sell books. She is very successful at this!

[kimmy]

Both Kerry and Edwards sought to gain political advantage with references to Mary Cheney's sexual orientation....i.e. "lesbian".

Sure. But that wasn't what you said. You said that Edwards attempted to "slur" her. How so?

Ms. Coulter is not running for federal office, but she is trying to sell books. She is very successful at this!

Yeah, and lots of people bought Britney Spears records, too. Doesn't mean Britney Spears is any good.

Once you look past the showmanship and look at the substance, as her supporters here have been challenging people to do, you find that there isn't actually any substance. Nobody is happier than Ann Coulter that her adversaries focus on her showmanship and stage persona. It distracts people from noticing that when it comes to ideas, there's not actually much worth talking about.

She's a lot like Britney Spears in that respect: she's great at keeping people talking about her, despite the fact that she doesn't actually produce much worth talking about.

-k

[Topaz]

Anne does ALL of what she says and does for ONE reason only...MONEY!! She says things that she knows will have her in the middle of the press reports. She writes books about the left and the right buy them and makes her a multi-millionaire. ONLY in America, can one use a trash-mouth and become rich. She has her act down pat but people are catching on and soon she will be a has been!

[buffycat]

Just a little reminder:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011

Coulter is simply a mouthpiece - no substance - a 'female' shock jock. (If she is a she???)

Here's another gem full of 'substance' (the question is what is the substance?)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs

[B. Max]

Just a little reminder:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200412010011

Coulter is simply a mouthpiece - no substance - a 'female' shock jock. (If she is a she???)

Here's another gem full of 'substance' (the question is what is the substance?)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs

She is right. The US could crush the banana republic to her north. The Canadian government never sent troops to Vietnam but at least thirty thousand Canadians did serve there, and Canada did however supply plenty of ammo to the US which was used in vietnam.

[Shakeyhands]

enjoy.

[guyser]

Coulter has good company , Rachel Marsden. The two deserve each other.

[M.Dancer]

This is a case in point. Not one criticism of her position, just mock aghastness over her style.

Having a position is fine but it doesn't mean anyone will take yoiu seriously. Sort of like saying why don't you debate that crazy hateful scarecrow, you won't becasue she';'s a conservative....

No, conservatives are engaged all the time, it just that engaging crazy hateful scarecrows is a waste of energy.....

[M.Dancer]

She is right. The US could crush the banana republic to her north. The Canadian government never sent troops to Vietnam but at least thirty thousand Canadians did serve there, and Canada did however supply plenty of ammo to the US which was used in vietnam.

Have you thought of becoming Coulter's fact checker? Her record of accuracy would continue......

30,000 Canadians did not serve "there" ...if there is vietnam......

Canadian veterans

During the Vietnam era, more than 30,000 Canadians served in the US armed forces. Fred Graffen, military historian with the Canadian War Museum, estimated in Vietnam Magazine (Perspectives) that approximately 12,000 of these personnel actually served in Vietnam. Most of these were natives of Canada who lived in the United States. The military of Canada did not officially participate in the war effort, as it was appointed to the UN truce commissions and thus had to remain officially neutral in the conflict.

110 Canadians died in Vietnam and seven are listed as missing in action.

The numbers of draft US conscientious objectors, draft dodgers and deserters that went to Canada is estimated to be between 30,000 and 70,000 by most authorities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_veter...nadian_veterans

[B. Max]

Have you thought of becoming Coulter's fact checker? Her record of accuracy would continue......

30,000 Canadians did not serve "there" ...if there is vietnam......

The estimates range all the way from 1500 to as many as 50'000. They are all estimates because nobody knows for sure and most estimates are based from 1967 to about 1975 based on these known figures.

(a) The number who took out US citizenship

( The number of known KIA's and MIA's

© Documented service statistics on 166 personal, living and dead

[stignasty]

While I partly agree with you-- Coulter's rhetoric is actually fairly tame compared to some of the bile that comes out of the mouths of the shrieking left-- I don't think there's anything wonderful about it.

I have a couple of questions here.

Who are the members of the "shrieking left?"

What have they said that make statements like the following "tame?"

"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building. "

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. "

"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html

[kimmy]

While I partly agree with you-- Coulter's rhetoric is actually fairly tame compared to some of the bile that comes out of the mouths of the shrieking left-- I don't think there's anything wonderful about it.

I have a couple of questions here.

Who are the members of the "shrieking left?"

What have they said that make statements like the following "tame?"

The shrieking left? Spend a few minutes at Rabble/Babble and you'll get the picture. What kind of statements? Comparing whichever politician they're against at the moment to Hitler, that sort of thing. Comparison of the treatment of the poor to apartheid, or equating opposition to Bill C-250 with support for gay bashing. That sort of thing. It's not hard to find left-wing stuff that's as over the top as Coulter. They're certainly out there, and I'm sure you've seen them. I guess the main difference is that the "shrieking left" don't have newspaper columns, TV appearances, and books to sell.

-k

[stignasty]

The shrieking left? Spend a few minutes at Rabble/Babble and you'll get the picture. What kind of statements? Comparing whichever politician they're against at the moment to Hitler, that sort of thing. Comparison of the treatment of the poor to apartheid, or equating opposition to Bill C-250 with support for gay bashing. That sort of thing. It's not hard to find left-wing stuff that's as over the top as Coulter. They're certainly out there, and I'm sure you've seen them. I guess the main difference is that the "shrieking left" don't have newspaper columns, TV appearances, and books to sell.

I assumed that you were talking about similar public figures. I guess that's where the difference is. I think most people recognize the rabble/babblers for what they are. In any event, they don't make up a serious portion of the public. Someone who is in the public eye like Ann Coulter is much more easily confused for the mainstream conservative.

[Liam]

I'm not the biggest Coulture fan, but I do enjoy how none on the left debate her substance, they just attack her style.

Coulter has no substance. The sad thing is she is very intelligent and could probably produce some insightful stuff, but has the woman ever published or said anything substantive or sober or though-provoking? When did she last publish an intelligent article about tax policy or immigration or the judicial system or foreign relations that was free of insults or character attacks? Everything I have ever read by her descends into the "Ted Kennedy is a fat drunkard and a woman killer" school of political commentary.

She is a molotov cocktail thrower. She is not substantive in the slightest, so saying the left attacks her style and not her substance is wrong. All she is is style.

[Guest coot]

There is a certain degree of substance to her approach, not in what she says, but how she represents the the tone and strategy of contemporary mainstream american conservativism. Unfortunately this approach is unlikely to expand its base any further--I think it winds up alienating rather than motivating people, and is a sign that the conservative movement is well on its way to complete collapse.

Which is unfortunate.