She may be the embodiment of pure evil, but does she have a point?
Ann Coulter exploded back on the scene last week with her despicable comments about anti-war 9/11 widows. She said, amongst other awful things, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."…
Article comments
26 - NotAConservativeThankGod
Well, I guess our friend Arch Conservative has officially run out of ideas.
27 - Richard Brodie
Somehow I think when he said "cut it off" he was referring to something other than the discussion :)
28 - Arch Conservative
Run out of ideas? Are you freaking shittin me?
I got ideas coming out of places you don't even have NOTAcons......
Pete ..that article may not say it but the legislators did actually call the bookstores. Now you know if a gop state senator was calling theatres to tell them they shouldn't play a michael moore movie the left would be up in arms calling it censorship.
Liberal hypocrisy rears it's ugly head again. Gee that doesn't happen to often does it now. Probably only happens as often as the average person blinks.
29 - Andy Marsh
You know what I'd like to know? Pete tells Al to read the article...Hey Pete...did you read the book?
I'd almost bet the answer is no...so now...who really should shut up?
30 - Pete Blackwell
Arch, please source your assertion. I'm not going to just take your word for it. Also, you make a straw man agrument about some fictional showdown between GOP senators and a Michael Moore movie, assume you know how people would react, and then extrapolate liberal hypocrisy from a scenario totally invented in your own brain. Sorry, but that doesn't fly and it's entirely beside the point. We're not talking about Michael Moore, we're talking about Ann Coulter. Why the rush to change the subject?
31 - Pete Blackwell
Andy, first of all, it's extremely impolite to tell people to "shut up." Abusive language in a debate is the first sign that you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed, as it were.
No, I have not read Coulter's book. Nor do I claim to have. Nor do I write about anything other than what Ms. Coulter herself has been talking about in an effort to promote this book. She has, on a number of occasions in interviews, backed up and reiterated what she has written about the widows. Her public owning of the lines everyone is talking about, with no claims of being taken out of context, makes them fair game and I am not required to read her book to comment upon them.
I find it richly ironic that you would hurl invective at me for challenging Ann Coulter's ideas. You may be aware that this is exactly the thing she accuses liberals of doing when she dares to challenge the terror wives. The fact that you seem incapable of engaging in actual debate"preferring abusiveness instead"makes me wonder if you and Ann are cut from the same cloth.
32 - Andy Marsh
I never TOLD you to do anything! I made a suggestion...can you read?
33 - Andy Marsh
I watched the interviews...and she told assholes like Lauer the same thing I SUGGESTED you do...read the book instead of taking one or two lines out of context...
How can you challenge something you haven't read? You base your opinions of Coulters book on interviews that touch on one or two lines in her book...therefore...you have no basis for your challenge other than other peoples opinions of something they may or may not have read.
34 - Andy Marsh
and now after reading your commetn 31 I'd bet you haven't even seen the interviews!
35 - Andy Marsh
P.S. a book is more than the sum of some peoples opinions that never read it.
36 - IgnatiusReilly
Actually you stated a question, Andy. Suggestions don't end with question marks. Can you read English?
37 - sr
LET ME VOMIT PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESE.
38 - Andy Marsh
Ok...it was a question! I still never TOLD him to do anything!
39 - Andy Marsh
Look, I haven't read the book either...but it's just like people bad mouthing the da Vinci code or something else without reading it or seeing the movie...I never said anything bad about F911 because I never saw it! I read and heard everyone else screaming about it but you just don't do that! Same thing with brokeback mountain or anything else...you shouldn't critisize something based on other peoples opinions or little sound bites...it's wrong...plain and simple!
40 - Pete Blackwell
Your question"who really should shut up?"was a rhetorical one. You were telling me to shut up. You must have an extremely low opinion of Blogcritics readers if you think anyone believes you meant otherwise. Stand up to what you said. Don't be both rude and a coward, too.
You may notice I didn't write a book review. I was commenting on Coulter's public statements. As soon as someone takes the public stage and starts making political arguments"say, to promote a new book"they're fair game for criticism. Isn't that exactly the argument Coulter is making about the widows? (That's a rhetorical question, too. The answer is "yes".)
For the record, she did not complain to Lauer that she was being taken out of context. He read lines from her book and she agreed with them and defended what she wrote. And yes, I have seen that interview multiple times. Are you arguing that she did not mean what she wrote about the 9/11 widows (despite the fact that Coulter is on the record multiple times saying she really did mean it"and every word)? If so, then what did she mean? If not, then what possible problem could you have with me or anyone else responding to her on these points?
Is it just that a debate about actual issues instead of name-calling makes you uncomfortable? That's a real question.
41 - Pete Blackwell
You're correct that you're not in a position to criticize the Da Vinci Code if you haven't read it. I have and it's terrible. Not for ideological reasons, but for lines like this:
A silhouette cannot, by definition, stare, or have red eyes. Jeesh.But, had Dan Brown gone on a national book tour and given interviews in which he said Jesus was married and"worse"French, then you'd be perfectly within you right to take issue with those statements, not having read the book.
You'd also be well within you rights to make fun of the passage I quoted above, not having read the rest of the book. Even if it's not representative of the book as a whole (it is), it's still a glaring error worthy of censure in its own right. As are Coulter's comments about the terror wives.
42 - NotAConservativeThankGod
I guess the cons in this conversation assume that somehow Coulter's rants will make sense once you put them in context. So, from now on, I suggest that, at a minimum, when they cite a "fact" like the alleged Jersey censorship, they will take a few seconds to find some source beyond Coulter or Newsmax. I'm sure that guy who sells the Video Professor CDs could them how to operate a new technology we call Google.
43 - RJ Elliott
"BTW, the Republican Party basically invented the whole "victim's family" approach to criminal justice, so don't tell us that only the left wing appeals to pathos in political argument."
Well, you have a point here.
Generally, liberals oppose "victim impact statements" during the sentencing phase of trials that have led to the conviction of murderers, child molesters, rapists, and other bad people, while conservatives usually support them. These statements are a relatively recent development that arose out the of "victims' rights movement" which was/is largely comprised of conservatives.
But it's worth pointing out that these are criminal trials in which a person has already been found guilty of a heinous crime. So it's not purely a political thing; it's a criminal justice thing.
44 - RJ Elliott
"Abusive language in a debate is the first sign that you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed, as it were."
How about clichés? ;-)
45 - RJ Elliott
"Her public owning of the lines everyone is talking about, with no claims of being taken out of context"
Actually, in a recent interview/debate/scream-fest on Hannity and Colmes, she DID state that the left and the media were taking her out of context...
46 - juspassinthru
What Coulter did was blaze a wide trail for others to follow.
The 'others' won't have to be as 'enthusiastic' as Coulter was, but will have plenty room under the bar Coulter has set to make their point.
47 - Pete Blackwell
A few words on context: First, she didn't claim she was being taken out of context on the Today show. What she did was defend everything she had written. If she was being taken out of context in some meaningful way, she would be arguing that the sentences everyone is quoting don't mean what they appear to mean. She is not arguing that.
Probably what she means is that people are focusing on the horrible attacks she made and not on her "argument" that widows should not be sacrosanct simply because of their personal loss. As I'm sure you're aware, my article does address that point, and I agree.
What I have an issue with is the awful animus of her personal attacks against these women. That's what the whole blow up is about. The only meaningful context that could change the force of those words is if she was quoting someone else, which she was not, or if she preceded her comments with a "this is just a joke in bad taste" disclaimer, which she did not. Her public, and vehement, avowal of her words in the aftermath proves that she does in fact mean what she says.
When it comes to the personal attack angle, the "out of context" argument is a canard, pure and simple.
RJ, that was not a cliché. You're just jealous ;)
48 - Arch Conservative
Pete I have already condemned the things Coulter has said from where I sit... on the right.......
my point in talking about the NJ senate and michael more was not to change the subject but to expose the hypocrisy of the left.
the left will only critisize poeple on the right when they say things which are over the line
here's a little test......
waard churchill, the liberal CU professor called the 911 victims "little eichmans"
now pete........... don't you think that is just as bad as what coulter said if not worse?
49 - Pete Blackwell
It's certainly on the same level. Here's an article I wrote about the use of Nazi comparisons in politics that mentions Churchill and the awful Ted Rall (who's a better comparison because of his terrible cartoons about "Terror Wives").
I'm not sure what the point of the argument is, though. Showing that the other side is bad doesn't make your side any better if it's doing the exact same things. For my part, I don't really have a side. I dislike all intellectually vacant political hacks. That includes both Coulter and Michael Moore.
50 - Arch Conservative
You're right two wrongs don't make a right Pete. It's just the case that the left is often incapable of critisizing their own when they make inappropriate over the line remarks. That is the point I was trying to make.
Kudos to you for being condemning Churchill as well as Coulter.
Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it.
I mean let's not split hairs........neither side is as pure as the driven snow no matter hwat theyd like to tell us. It's just that left pretends to be holier than thou and ignore any such behavior when it occursther are numerous examples, here are just a few......
the ward churchill remark
the cindy sheehan cross at camp casey incident
so called tolerant "liberal" bloggers referring to leuitenant governor of maryland michael steele as little black sambo and other racils slurs for no other reason than he is a republican
the same so called "liberal" bloggers calling michelle malkin a "slanty eyed gook" because she's conservative
michael moore misrepresenting the sentiments of soldiers he interviewed in his movies and making money off of the iraq war....
the attempts of democratic senators to smear the character of sam alito, john roberts, and robert bork with baseless accusations intended to paint these men as racist and sexist and keep them off of the supreme court for no other reason than the fact that they don't hold liberal views
the general leftist strategy of using certain labels designed to stigmatize to label anyone who doesn't agree with them (racist, bigot, homophobe etc etc etc)
yup the right sure is evil and we have ann coulter (who most of us have recently condemned for her remarks) but the left never crosses the line of decency......
51 - Pete Blackwell
I think very, very few people would argue that the Left never crosses the line of decency. I'm certainly not one of them.
As for some of the more troubling remarks you listed (ie. the racist ones), were they said by people as prominent as Coulter? I don't think they were.
52 - NotAConservativeThankGod
Arch.... Thanks for making our point.
The "little Eichman's" line was roundly criticized by thinking people on both sides of the aisle. BUT, Churchill has no following. Coulter, on the other hand, is the darling of many on right and very vew established Republicans care to rebuke her. Why? Likely because GOPers who think like Coulter are an important segment of the party, and because Coulter helps whip up base.
Churchill has no place in the Democratic game plan; Coulter -- who thinks thinks the Bill of Rights goes too far and that Timothy McVeigh did not go far enough -- is important to the Republican Party.
Now THAT is scary!
53 - Arch Conservative
Well what about Robert Byrd.....having a former KKK member as a senator in your party is not scary?
I have said that coulter was wrong and am not a follower.......... i agree with alot of the things she says but sometimes she goes too far and says things that i find over the line like her most recent remarks. How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office? how is she part of the gameplan?
I think hillary is a far more detestable creature than coulter and she is very much part of the dem gameplan. One can not even count the people that the clintons have stepped on, mistreated, used, had sent to jail for things the clintons did, and even had killed in thier quest for power.
54 - fos
Just received my copy of Decusting Photo Magizine today. If interested check page 36 and 37. Naked pictures of Senator's nancy pussyiosi and Senator hildabeast. YUM.
55 - RJ Elliott
"Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it."
I agree. And leftists are more likely to get a free pass from the media and political elite when they do it.
Let's use Ann Coulter and Michael Moore as examples, because both are hard-core partisans who are rich and successful, but utterly despised by their ideological opponents.
Ann Coulter is a right-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, she has been fired from the conservative National Review, and widely denounced in the media and political circles for being cruel and hateful. The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004.
Michael Moore is a left-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, he has won an Oscar and been largely praised in the MSM. The USA Today hired him (and did NOT fire him) to cover the GOP National Convention in 2004, despite the fact that he was a guest of honor at the Democrat National Convention, seated with former Democrat President Jimmy Carter.
Doesn't seem that their treatment is all that equal, at least to me...
56 - NotAConservativeThankGod
Arch.... C'mon.... As you say yourself, Byrd is a FORMER member of the Klan. That's in his past. I'm still waiting for Coulter's apology about the McVeigh statement.
And, yeah, I'm sure the Clintons aren't too happy that Kenneth Starr was jailing some of their associates.
Oh, and if Coulter doesn't fit the game plan, I'm sure we'll see Frist et al. denouncing her sometime tomorrow afternoon.
When GOPers drop their anti-American schtick, they will be a little easier to stomach.
57 - RJ Elliott
"How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office?"
There was talk a few years ago of Coulter running for a Congressional seat in Connecticut...
58 - Arch Conservative
Ok well when Ted Kennedy, liberal superhero, apologizes for drwoning Mary Jo Kapechne maybe Ann Coulter will apologize for what she said.
Oh and as far as the anti-american schtick... we wouldn't use it if it weren't appropriate in some cases such as like cindy sheehan saying america is nothing but an imperialist bully bullying other nations and spreading violence?
what term would you use to describe that if not antiamerican?
59 - Pete Blackwell
Arch, pointing out a "sin" from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn't a defense, it's moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against.
60 - Pete Blackwell
"relativism", I mean
61 - zingzing
oh pete, they're also against hypocrisy, but that also goes out the window as soon as they are the guilty party.
plus, if bing ever gets through a comment thread without ever mentioning a)t.k., or b)pedophilia, i will kill my girlfriend and rape her little sister. not really. but. you know.
62 - RogerMDillon
"The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004."
That's because the article was poorly written and not on topic. Some places have quality standards. She was replaced by Jonah Goldberg.
63 - NotAConservativeThankGod
Ummmm.... Arch... I was saying that the right-wing conservatives are anti-American. Not un-American, but outright Anti. They simply don't like the moderate, tolerant mainstream of American life. That's why, going back to Nixon, a large segment of the GOP uses the rhetoric of revolution. That's why Coulter's rhetoric fits so well with Republican strategy, and that why Republicans don't denounce her.
I mean, could you imagine an Eisenhower, Rockefeller, or Ford lobbing the bombs that Coulter, DeLay, Gingrich, Lott, and the rest toss around? Of course, not. They were conservatives. But in recent years the GOP has adopted a range of extreme positions and even tried to impeach a president and (arguably) stealing a couple presidential elections. Simply put, there is little concern about mainstream politics because the objective is quasi-revolutionary change.
As for me, I like the United States. I'm not ashamed that we grant rights to minorities, that we really don't care what happens in someone's bedroom, that we have an open market hemmed in by (on the whole) reasonable rules and regulations. The other side, well...
64 - Arch Conservative
"Arch, pointing out a "sin" from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn't a defense, it's moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against."
Yes Pete but I condemned Coulter's sin which was far less a sin by the way... I ddin't keep electing her to congress for forty years.
65 - NotAConservativeThankGod
So, Arch, you are ready to support those who condone terrorism, so long as other things they say are accurate?