Ya gotta love the wild-eyed manic expression on her face though. Maybe it will be news when she gets committed or goes postal. One or the other will have to happen someday.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I'm leaning towards going postal.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Read the end of the quotes from her.
So....YOU should be the voice of gays? Because of your wonderful way with people, right?
She makes me gag.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Don't pay her any attention. She's a troll.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Holy frijoles. That is a bad picture of her.
I halfway can't wait for the astounding revelation of meth smoking / anorexia / nervous breakdown tied to how terrible she's looked recently.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Um.
Man, I need the ability to get offended more easily. Even if I don't agree with Ann Coulter's politics, I find her pretty funny sometimes.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Speaking of non-news--this was a headline in our local county paper:
Legislators work to get bills passed
Tee-hee.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Uprooted: Speaking of non-news--this was a headline in our local county paper:
Legislators work to get bills passed
Tee-hee.
You should send that to Jay Leno for "Headlines".
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
It was on the front page, too!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
aaaaah yes I forsee a very different furniture arrangemnts in the white House come 2008.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Man, I need the ability to get offended more easily. Even if I don't agree with Ann Coulter's politics, I find her pretty funny sometimes.
I guess it's true. Implying that someone is a faggot is pretty much universally funny?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is more than one way to interpret "find her pretty funny", Samprimary.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Edwards' campaign posted the video on their Web site, and asked readers to help them "raise $100,000 in 'Coulter Cash' this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry."
Well, at least instead of merely arguing about it we've turned it into money. Gotta love the American way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Man, I need the ability to get offended more easily."
I'm not at all offended by what she said. It takes a great deal to offend me, and a snarky comment aimed at the ignorant won't cut it.
I am, however, bothered that people who make such comments also sell thousands of books, have millions of regular readers, and might in some way reflect what many people are actually thinking whether they know enough not to say it out loud or not. That bothers me a hell of a lot.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
We can take comfort from the reaction on the right to her words, which is more or less, "yecch."
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Well, I'd say this is news. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Good.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Geez, her eyes really follow you in that picture. I half expect her to crawl out of my computer screen a la <i>The Ring</i>.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, she hasn't been in the news for a while, so she had to say SOMETHING to get attention.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We can take comfort from the reaction on the right to her words, which is more or less, "yecch."
quote:"I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm - so, kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards, so I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions," said Coulter, whose comment was followed by applause.
This was far from the worst thing Coulter has ever said and her fans, of which there are enough so that every book she writes becomes a best seller, love her for it. It is exactly that she says these things that they love her for.
edit: That Catherine Coulter says something offensive is neither news nor something to be concerned about. People's reaction to this, much of which was approval, and her popularity built on saying things like this, however, is.
[ March 06, 2007, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Yeah, that's just a grade-school level insult. What satirical purpose does that serve?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Catherine Coulter?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: "Well, you know, screw you! I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against."
She added, "I don't know why all gays aren't Republican.
Ummmm Duh.
It's crap like this that makes it harder and harder for me to vote republican even though I know they're the right choice for other reasons.
They keep spewing this poisonous biggotry, which is horrible enough, but then they shrug their shoulders and say "But I'm not a bigot."
Who do they think they're fooling?
They're not fooling gay people, moderates, liberals, and they're for sure not fooling other conservatives who wink and nod and agree "Oh ya, you're not anti-gay" as they kick another queer and see how many votes come flying out.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Catherine Coulter?
Yeah, I hate that novel writing biddy.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
It's like she's the spokesperson for a club where everyone secretly acknowledges their hate for other groups, but outwardly pretends to be all compassionate and understanding.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: It's like she's the spokesperson for a club where everyone secretly acknowledges their hate for other groups, but outwardly pretends to be all compassionate and understanding.
Come again?
It seems like her open hatred for others would invalidate her as the spokesperson for any club that "pretends to be all compassionate and understanding."
I imagine you meant, "It's like she's the spokesperson for a club of people who hate other groups openly and outwardly, without any pretense to meaningful or constructive political dialogue." And I think it's a very small club.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
pix said:
quote:They keep spewing this poisonous biggotry, which is horrible enough, but then they shrug their shoulders and say "But I'm not a bigot."
Who do they think they're fooling?
They're not fooling gay people, moderates, liberals, and they're for sure not fooling other conservatives who wink and nod and agree "Oh ya, you're not anti-gay" as they kick another queer and see how many votes come flying out.
pix,
I think you'll be glad to hear that some fairly heavy-hitters in the conservative sphere are hitting this head on - not trying to trivialize it or "spin" it away.
This piece, by the editor of Accuracy In Media (a conservative media watchdog group), tackles it head on and expresses distress over the very real elements in the conservative umbrella that Coulter represents:
quote:The Fox News Channel did a segment on Monday asking why Ann Coulter's comments about John Edwards being a faggot have gotten more media attention than Bill Maher's remark that more people would be alive if Vice President Cheney were dead. The answer is that Coulter made her comments at a national conference of conservatives, which included Cheney, former Ambassador John Bolton, several Senators, several presidential candidates, and was sponsored by most major conservative groups. By contrast, Maher made his remarks on a little-watched cable show. Plus, Coulter's remarks were aired on C-SPAN.
***
On the other hand, I have received some interesting emails from Coulter defenders. One was upset that John Edwards is exploiting Coulter's attack to raise money for his presidential campaign. Edwards "is trying to raise $100,000 from other faggots for his faggot campaign," he said. Another said, "It's time we started upping the rhetoric against this [liberal] lobby." Still another said: "The only thing giving conservatism a bad name is cowards afraid to use terms like 'faggot.'" Finally, there was this one: "Ann shows more testosterone than you."
I pray that these comments do not reflect the future of the conservative movement. Otherwise, there won't be much of a conservative movement, at least in the sense that I understand the term.
The irony of Ann Coulter is that there are few who damage her cause more than herself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The Fox News Channel did a segment on Monday asking why Ann Coulter's comments about John Edwards being a faggot have gotten more media attention than Bill Maher's remark that more people would be alive if Vice President Cheney were dead.
Paul Campos is a professor of law hereabouts, and a sharp political mind. Today, he used the latest Coulter incident to demonstrate an interesting idea:
quote:As young Democratic activists, it's important to appreciate that you're playing a game that's in significant ways rigged against you. Republicans have engaged in several decades of nonstop whining about "liberal media bias," to the point where, ironically enough, the media let Republicans get away with things that would instantly destroy any Democrat.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If Bill Maher had been speaking at a major Democratic function, instead of on his relatively minor TV show, there would have been more of an outcry. Coulter has said much worse in her own columns, in fact, but her statements at public events and televised interviews always get much more press.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am always surprised that the "liberal media" is (at least the news and the political shows) is mostly paid for by investment firms and pharmaceutical companies.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
When it comes to Bill Maher, he really doesn't belong with the "left," anyway. He's primarily a libertarian. His views on taxes, poverty and other "traditional" are pretty in line with conservatives. It's the "social conservative" part of the package that he doesn't like.
I don't really care for Maher much - but like I said, he's really not on the "left" like Al Franken. He's more like a really obnoxious version of Andrew Sullivan.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Is John Edwards known for being outspoken in support of gay rights? If not, then her insult is even more unnecessary.
Of course, media businesses pay people like Ann Coulter to be outrageous, so it's not surprising that they step over the line.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Hrm... interesting... and ironic, as Coulter has always struck me as being pretty "butch" herself, heh.
What an idiot, really.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What an idiot, really.
I know. How stupid she must be, what with her making millions of dollars and having a profound political influence on certain segments of the population like she does.
She's a smart person. She may not be a good person, but she's not dumb. The people who agree with her, now that's another story.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Did anyone see William Kristol's essay in Time magazine the other week? The one where he argued that the US was too reluctant to use force?
[RHETORICAL QUESTION] How do these people get published? [/RHETORICAL QUESTION]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Squicky, idiot does not equal stupid, nor does making millions of dollar (or for that matter having profound political influence) equal brilliance.
That said, she's is definitely advanced in the areas of IQ and propagandism... so was Hitler.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Squicky, idiot does not equal stupid
It doesn't? In what sense are you using it then?
As I can see it, she's doing a very good job of acheiving her goals. I don't see how that merits calling her an idiot by any definition of the word I know.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, he could mean that she's an idiot in the sense that she says stupid things, which I think all can agree she does, on a regular basis.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Rakeesh,
I don't think we all agree that she says "stupid" things. The things she says are calculated and planned - if saying "stupid" things didn't win her applause from conservative audiences, she wouldn't be saying them at all.
The same with Rush Limbaugh - if his ratings dropped because conservatives actually abandoned him in favor of more thoughtful people, he'd turn into whatever he needed to be to turn his ratings around overnight.
That's not "stupid" - at least not by my definition of the term.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They are entertainers. They are not policy makers and they are not think tanks. They get rewarded by the number of ears and eyeballs their words and antics attract - not by the effectiveness of their recommendations. Listening to either side's jesters for serious solutions is like listening to Ryan Seacrest.
I think they know it, too. That's why the Governator and Franken are willing to trade in the money of the entertainment world for the chance for a (relatively) low-paying government job - it is the people we ELECT who actually matter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Listening to either side's jesters for serious solutions is like listening to Ryan Seacrest.
Who's talking about listening to them for solutions? What we're concerned about is that this is the type of person and the type of thinking that a large section of the populace looks up to and agrees with.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You missed the point of my post, Squick.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, I just think it's not at all accurate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think I disagree with the point of your post, Katie. I'm not sure that the people we elect aren't swayed by the people we listen to, or indirectly by the fact that we're swayed by the people we listen to and are thus more likely to elect people who appear to share those opinions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think we all agree that she says "stupid" things. The things she says are calculated and planned - if saying "stupid" things didn't win her applause from conservative audiences, she wouldn't be saying them at all.
If you equate stupid with ineffective, certainly we can't agree. However, an idea can be stupid and still be effective and believed, can't it?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, I think that they have influence on people the same way that Ryan Seacrest has influence on his own little elections.
If Squicky would clean his glasses, he could see that my post was just as indictive of people who listen to these partisan jesters as his own.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I'd like to repeat my request that you attempt to post respectfully.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Just keeping you on your toes.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
"idiot"= "foolish person"
Calling Edwards a "f@gg*t" was pretty darn foolish, imho.
[edit for foolish name conflation]
[ March 07, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could you define foolish for me, then? Because I also don't define that word in a way that makes your statement make sense to me.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:fool·ish /ˈfulɪʃ/ –adjective 1. resulting from or showing a lack of sense; ill-considered; unwise: a foolish action, a foolish speech. 2. lacking forethought or caution. 3. trifling, insignificant, or paltry.
All definitions of the word seem to describe Coulter's using such a choice epithet to refer to Edwards in front of a large group of people.
[edited to fix foolish name conflation]
[ March 07, 2007, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*cough*
It wasn't *Kerry* she referred to.
It was *Edwards*.
And I'd argue that none of those definitions fit.
Kerry's blown joke was foolish.
Bush's comments after 911 about being in a "crusade" were foolish.
But I think Coulter is too much of a word-crafter for the first definition to apply. Or the second.
And the setting - at a high-powered event with Cheney and the leading Republican presidential contenders in attendance - pretty much tears the third definition.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
David:
Maybe the Squickster has the hots for blond female political commentators who make foolish statements. There is also Molly Ivans, Sqickster.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Krankster... knowing Squickenheimmer, I doubt that's what he's getting at, heh.
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
...surely his goal is just to irritate you...
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I'm sure that is the primary motivation of most people who know me, heh. But I suspect he wants to say that Coulter has very cleverly appealed to the homophobe religious right at a grassroots level to get them hyped up against the libs....
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I suspect that he wants to say that Coulter is in the business of drawing attention and money to Coulter, and that the attention that she is receiving from this speech is exactly what she was hoping for. Or at least, that's what I would say.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They are entertainers. They are not policy makers and they are not think tanks. They get rewarded by the number of ears and eyeballs their words and antics attract - not by the effectiveness of their recommendations. Listening to either side's jesters for serious solutions is like listening to Ryan Seacrest.
I think they know it, too. That's why the Governator and Franken are willing to trade in the money of the entertainment world for the chance for a (relatively) low-paying government job - it is the people we ELECT who actually matter.
Maybe it's just the way you're wording it, but that strikes me as a somewhat naive position to take. All the things you've just mentioned, the lines between them have blurred considerably. Entertainers effect changes in policy these days. People who don't get elected throw money at the people who do get elected, and as a result their words can become law. You don't have to get elected to play a role in the process, or to have your hand in the pot at the end of that process.
Franken has enough money and name recognition that he can run without worrying that strings will be attached. The Governator can do nearly likewise. I think he's still a bit beholden to some people, but he's rich enough and well known enough to not really need their donations so much. He can afford to run on principles. The majority of our elected officials don't have that luxury.
Saying entertainers don't have a say in policy I think is wrong. Coulter plays a role. Colbert and Stewart play a role. They might not be writing laws and voting in the Capitol, but they are influencing the process, and helping to decide who gets in their to actually make those decisions.
Noeman -
Agreed. But I think it could go further than that, depending on how much credit you give Coulter. This is free publicity for her. But not just for her. She gets to rack up some more frequent bitchy miles, but all Republican candidates get a lot of free air time to denounce and repudiate her. They get a free chance to play up their more accepting qualities. It's free publicity for the Republicans, because no one needs to ask the Democrats how they feel on the matter. It fires up the people that agree with Coulter, gets her more screen time and also gets a bunch of free time on CNN and the like for the Republicans. It's quite clever. She lobbed them a softball.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I just watched the clip, and I think it's sad how after she says what she says the audience goes, "Oooooh," as if she said something particularly incisive. I think it's pretty mild compared with some of the things Ann Coulter has said; it's just completely without satirical value.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)