posted
Guys, go back and read both my post and Hewitt's.
Fugu, read my final sentance.
Samprimary, read Hewitt's post.
The point is she's NOT invited to the types of serious discussions that Hewitt is, where dialogue takes place that is actually meant to get somewhere, instead of just shock or titilate or "entertain."
And even for those who want more "entertaining" conservative women, Hewitt gives alternatives those groups can look to in the future.
There's a world of difference between the Dennis Pragers and Hugh Hewitts of the conservative media and the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
WARREN RED CLOUD: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, b**ch, you knew I was a snake."
posted
Cactus Jack: she's been saying things like this for quite some time. I'm not sure why this would change things, but I hope it does.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point is she's NOT invited to the types of serious discussions that Hewitt is, where dialogue takes place that is actually meant to get somewhere, instead of just shock or titilate or "entertain."
You're right. She's only invited to events where she is supposed to represent conservatives as an influential spokesperson of the movement.
And she's only had this terrible record under her belt for years now.
Look, in all seriousness, I don't think anyone's making her out to be a regular at the Roundtable or the Lehrer News Hour. Everyone's well aware that she's a one-trick firebrand with a level of political discourse best reserved for middle school. What we are noting is that conservatives keep giving her positions of honor and representation, and keep giving her an audience. And, by all means, if they don't want to be in any way represented by her, they should not.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, how many appearences does she do a year compared with Hewitt or Prager? How many people read her column vs the number who read Hewitt's column or blog? Or listen to his radio show, for that matter?
And what percentage of those who read Coulter actually agree with her, and how many are reading out of sheer morbid curiosity?
I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon. I think she got a little bit of noterity for being controversial, and from there, the media started playing her up because she was a good reinforcement of the idea that consevatives are bigoted and homophobic.
In the meantime, guys like Hewitt and Prager, who reached (and influenced) far more people on a daily basis, were quietly ignored by the media, because they were just making intelligent, valid points.
But, because she was getting so much media play, her name recognition went up, and because her name recognition was up, she started getting more media play and more speaking gigs and more book deals.
In other words, her popularity is based on the media putting her forth as a spokesperson for conservatism far more than it is about conservatives lifting her up on their shoulders.
Rather, actual conservatives seem to cycle past her, picking her up for a while, but then, realizing what she is, setting her back down again.
Sure, there's a few who stick with her, just like there are a few who stick by Moore or Franken, but she's hardly the great spokeswoman of the conservative movement.
The media just wants you to think she is.
And some people, on both sides, believe it.
I hope the average American Democrat will realize that she's not as fast as most of us average American Republicans have.
Because I really have no hope that the media is going to stop getting their soundbites from her and start getting them Hewitt, no matter how many of us listen to him.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will tell you this, though--after what she just did to Romney, getting his name attached to a controversial statement like this--she will never again get any type of endorsement or recognition or even aknowledgement from another candidate during this entire campaign.
He was trying to latch on to her "popularity" and name recongition, and got burned for it. No one else will make the same mistake.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
This is contrary to my experience. Conservatives made her popular; once she was popular, the media made her a celebrity. But conservatives took her seriously first, and continued to listen to her even after she became a desperate cartoon.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Michael Moore quotes: "I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants." "These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control." Al Franken quotes: "Over the weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man in Texas. Asked why he shot the man, the Vice President said, "Just to watch him die."" ""And so basically, what it looks like is going to happen is that Libby and Karl Rove are going to be executed” because “outing a CIA agent is treason,” left-wing author and radio talk show host Al Franken asserted Friday night, to audience laughter, on CBS’s Late Show with David Letterman. Franken qualified his hard-edged satire: "Yeah. And I don't know how I feel about it because I'm basically against the death penalty, but they are going to be executed it looks like." Franken later suggested that President Bush is at risk of receiving the same punishment, since Karl Rove likely told him what he did, but he added a caveat: “I think, by the way, that we should never ever, ever, ever execute a sitting President." "
This is only an issue because Ann Coulter, a conservative, said it. Many people have said more outrageous things that are barely covered because they are liberal or given a pass like Michael Moore has in this very thread. He has won many awards for his documentaries. They were not considered entertainment, they are considered documentaries. If you are liberal and bash or name call a conservative, that's ok because you were just making a joke, being satirical, or everyone can see the humor. No apology necessary.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
or how about Hillary Clinton "in 2004 saying that Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The amusing thing, DK, is that you seem completely deaf to the deliberate tone of knowing self-parody in the quotes above. Nor do you seem to understand why insulting Bush by calling him a "pants-pooper" is different from insulting Bush by calling him a "faggot."
Do you understand why the latter actually insults a whole different category of people in a very different way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Al Franken is a comedian, what do you really expect? Coulter is portrayed (by herself and her party as well as her opposition) as a conservative icon, you think they should have the same level of scrutiny?
Moore, before he became the smug schmuck he is today, really did have good things to say. Bowling For Columbine, I thought, was a great documentary with important things to say about America. F911 was a Bush bash fest, but again, there were important things in there to be said, though for that movie, I took it with a fairly large grain of salt. I don't see anyone in this thread giving Moore a pass. In fact, most of what I've seen in this thread chastises Moore pretty good.
And the "Coulter might be bad, but so are these guys" defense is the same thing as admitting you're wrong. You're just trying to take the other guy down with you.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The more amusing thing, TD, is that you are doing exactly what I said in my post. You completely overlook a comment like "the Vice President said "Just to watch him die" and latched on to one small phrase and made that your whole point. I think the complete lack of understanding is on your part. I post how many lines of insults and you take part of one phrase and dismiss the rest. Do you see how you completely fit into the post I made? I suppose you don't though. I suppose reducing Mahatma Gandhi to a gas station attendent is not at all insulting to millions and millions of people?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
L - You are again making the mistake TD did. How about the Clinton comment? That was not my defense, as a matter of fact I have not defended Ann Coulter at all. I simply pointed out that this is a news story because she is a conservative
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a news story because she's conservative, and popular, and attractive, and keeps getting invited to events where she can make her very public and deliberately provocative statements. Note that her written columns, which are often much worse than this, rarely get media coverage. It's when she stands up in front of the cameras that the media bothers to pay attention, and she's in front of the camera more than the other bloviating bloggers, especially around book-selling time. You're right, though: her style is most definitely not restricted to either political view (Paterico is making a list of leftist versions). And it's certainly not new. As much as people decry the state of current American politics, you need to go back and read newspapers from Lincoln's time to see some serious hate speech.
I say dump 'em all.
You want me to take your newspaper, your organization, your candidacy seriously? Stick with guests and columnists and speakers who do not sink to that level. Stick with satirical or ironic humor and let the scornful bitterness die a quiet death.
I don't read Coulter or Malkin. I don't listen to Rush or Franken. I have never seen any of Moore's documentaries. Attacks reveal a lot more about the person attacking than the person being attacked, and frankly I don't want to know that much about these people.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't read Coulter or Malkin. I don't listen to Rush or Franken. I have never seen any of Moore's documentaries. Attacks reveal a lot more about the person attacking than the person being attacked, and frankly I don't want to know that much about these people.
posted
Actually, I think the "gas station attendant" is the one truly offensive quote you provided, DK. The others are clearly meant to be exaggerated jokes in a way that "John Edwards is a faggot" is not.
Coulter acknowledges that calling someone a "faggot" is out of line -- which is essential to the whole self-parodying, excessive joke bit, you'll notice; it's why all the other, funnier comics do the same thing in their quotes -- but doesn't do so with aplomb. She does so in a way that implies that calling someone a "faggot" should not be out of line, that it is in fact a shame that people who say the word "faggot" are scorned, and then attempts to get away with calling someone a "faggot" anyway.
That's entirely the wrong way to make that joke. It's almost a textbook way to turn an audience against you. I haven't done stand-up in a long, long time, but the trick to that sort of thing is to make it clear that you as the performer are aware of the excesses of the character you're portraying. The trick is to make it clear that you realize your character, by insulting someone in a repugnant way, is in fact worse than the person you're insulting. Coulter doesn't do that; if she's playing an odious character, she doesn't make it obvious but rather attempts to defend her character's odious behavior. That's a highly unpopular way to pull off offensive material, if indeed it's material; Sasha Cohen and Andy Kaufman walked that road most memorably, and they were better at it.
If she's not playing a character, then there's even less excuse; she's just a boor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do, because they sometimes have things to say that rise about name calling.
Then again, I listen to their opposite number for the same reason, too. I listen to Michael Savage, for instance, and he's about as nutty as you can get.
Now, admittedly, sometimes this isn't much more than a few minutes, because sometimes you can tell the particular tune that they're singing and there's no need to stick around to hear the refrain a million times.
Like I said, though, Coulter is pretty much in a league of her own, though Savage comes pretty close. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, I think the "gas station attendant" is the one truly offensive quote you provided, DK. The others are clearly meant to be exaggerated jokes in a way that "John Edwards is a faggot" is not.
*nods
"shot a man ... just to watch him die" is a pop culture reference (Johnny Cash) often invoked in a satirical or exaggerated joke way.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Epictetus: And Romney seemed like such a nice guy
All I can say to this is that I was there long ago at one of the Romney/Kennedy debates for the MA senate. It was held in the forum of HCC where I got my Associate's. I don't remember most of the topics or the replies, but I do remember that Romney talked around the issue - whatever issue it was that was being debated. The way I describe his responses to questions is like this: (please understand that this is my way of explaining how the man responded not an actual question/response ) Moderator (M): Mr Romney is the shirt you are wearing blue? Romney (R): Well, what we need to do is form a focus group to decide whether it is feasible to fund a study to determine the answer to that question. As soon as they have an answer, the public should be made aware of the decision and then we can move forward to tackle the problem at hand. M : Yes, but is the shirt you are wearing blue? R : As I said, that conclusion must be made so that the State and the public can work together to come up with a solution. M :
This seemed to go on for the entire debate. I also understand that he has helped to bring MA out of the hole it was in in the "red", but I also remember that the first things he cut funding for were things like Fire Stations, police budgets, etc. The area my sister lived in in Springfield had it's fire station closed due to his budget cuts. Luckily the town I lived in has the "Big E" - a 6 state state fair that brings in hundreds of thousands of dollars to the town coffers every year, or we would have been in the same situation. I don't like the man or his politics, and I don't trust him as far as I can throw him...and since I have a bad back that would be not at all!
Posts: 325 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really don't believe it was conservatives who made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
That's not a very good premise to attach your analysis to, since conservatives made Coulter into a pop culture icon.
There's a big ol' chunk of wingnuts that just won't stop buying her books or taking her seriously, and she feeds off the negative attention and continues pulling herself into conservative circles.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: L - You are again making the mistake TD did. How about the Clinton comment? That was not my defense, as a matter of fact I have not defended Ann Coulter at all. I simply pointed out that this is a news story because she is a conservative
Here's the thing: Clinton made that joke, and then she said, and I quote, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century."
Ann Coulter is given an opportunity to clarify a remark like "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity", and she states that she meant exactly what she said.
Franken and Moore go after visible, powerful leaders. Coulter assaults women who lost their husbands to tragedy. Coulter states that she "only" wishes the Oklahoma City bombers had gone to the New York Times building. Coulter describes entire segments of the American public in terms that would make a propagandist trying to dehumanize enemies so soldiers wouldn't hesitate to kill them on the battlefield blush.
You think this is about her being conservative? You think she's equivalent to Moore or Franken? How can I put this? Your sense of scale is wildly out of whack.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reason Moore only goes after public figures is that he lies about them incessantly, and public figures can't sue for slander. Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
You may want to look up some of the criticism of Coulter's books. Or, heck, redefine your use of the word "claim," since "John Edwards is a faggot" would seem to count.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
Coulter's books are so full of bald factual errors and unsubstantiated claims that it makes this idea completely wrong. She makes plenty of claims about people without proof, and she likes to make insulting claims about people without proof. And just in case anyone would like to make the wayward claim that Coulter isn't just using blatantly homophobic vitriol, keep in mind that we're only months away from an incident in which she outright proclaimed that
1. Bill Clinton is obviously gay, and 2. Al Gore is, quote, a "total fag."
But I'll go ahead and reiterate the most important part of this post: Ann Coulter makes claims about people without proof.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: The reason Moore only goes after public figures is that he lies about them incessantly, and public figures can't sue for slander. Since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about that.
"'That's slander!' 'It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.'"-Spider Man
Public figures can and do sue for defamation. It's just usually not a good idea, since a) the publicity is likely to be damaging, and possibly bring the original allegations to a greater audience; b) the need to disprove the accuracy of claims may bring unpleasant truths and partial truths to light, and c) public figures are required to prove the defendent's claims are both untrue and malicious in nature.
posted
As I clearly said, I don't watch TV, so I can't speak to what she does there, except in this case.
We don't have to read criticism of her books to know if she documents her claims; why would we, when the books themselves are easily available? We have these methods for verifying whether she does this:
* read other people's opinions about her and believe them * make claims without evidence * post or icons * check it out for ourselves
Which option you pick says a lot!
Note that I'm not saying her conclusions are always right -- I don't think they are -- but that her facts are heavily documented.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
*Does Coulter read other people's opinions and believe them (and do other people read Coulter's opinions and believe them?) *Does Coulter make claims without evidence? *Does Coulter mock/belittle other people's points? *Does Coulter check things out for herself?
Some of those answers might be yes, some might be no. But I think there's some irony in here somewhere.....
By the way, the argument that one has to have read her books to form a legitimate opinion about her positions is ridiculous. But I know you know that.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions without reading her books. I didn't endorse her opinions, either. What I *did* say is "since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about [slander lawsuits]" -- and suggested that the reliable way to know if I'm right is to, well, find out. That's all.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions without reading her books.
You seemed to imply so with:
quote:We don't have to read criticism of her books to know if she documents her claims; why would we, when the books themselves are easily available?
You said (by implication -- just like Coulter only implied that Edwards is a faggot) a bit more than "since Coulter doesn't make claims about people without proof (at least not in her books -- I don't watch TV), she doesn't have to worry about [slander lawsuits]".
But I don't want to play revisionist games about what you said, or meant, or meant to say, so I'll just drop it here and beg you, next time, to just say what you mean to say.
It's all very well and good to refrain from endorsing something -- but that ain't a position. I'm sure you can see how that kind of thing can lead to misinterpretations. And I hope you will forgive me for imagining that there might be some kind of meaning behind your words.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did say what I meant to say, precisely. I didn't say you couldn't have a valid opinion about her positions w/o reading her book, but that you can't have a valid opinion about whether the facts in her book are documented without checking. Being right and having your facts documented are different things.
For example: is the drop in crime rate in the US because of increased prison population? You can have a valid position on this without ever having heard of Ann Coulter -- of course! Why not? This isn't an opinion about Coulter, but about crime.
But if you want to know if she documented the facts she used in the book Godless on this issue, the way to know is to check the book.
And, in fact, I disagree strongly with her conclusion on that issue. I can't dispute the facts she draws on; they're too well documented, but I disagree with the reasoning.
And if her conclusions about an issue are wrong, but her facts are documented, she's safe from slander lawsuits.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note that I'm not saying her conclusions are always right -- I don't think they are -- but that her facts are heavily documented.
Heh, yeah. With what she says passes for 'footnotes.'
Her facts are not actually very studiously documented at all. She will do things like purposefully overload lexnex searches and use it as a claim of specific liberal ignorances in the media.
She misrepresents and distorts statements of her sources, she engages in egregiously incorrect paraphrase, she omits information in sources that refute claims that she places in her books, she misrepresents news coverage to allege bias, the relies upon outdated and unreliable sources, and she invents facts.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
But I'm sure I should go read the lengthy threads condemning Bill Maher for suggesting that the murder of the VP would have been a good thing. Or perhaps the threads condemning him for calling Bush a rube, a dolt, a vain half-wit, a "Gilligan who cannot find his c**k with two hands", and so on.
Oh, but of course, none of them ever used the daunting "F" word. So maybe I'll have to look realy hard to find the condemnation. But I'm sure I will.....
Or the threads condemning Al Franken
Posts: 25 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe those who disagree with the moron who called for the assisination of the vice president are AWARE that the speaker is an idiot and does not give them the attention they were craving with the comment in the first place.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: * make claims without evidence
Like "public figures can't sue for slander?"
Alright, cheap shot.
However, as numerous people are gently implying, "documentation" is not remotely the same thing as "proof". "Dude, Where's My Country" has 26 pages of notes and sources. So?
Neither Moore nor Coulter are the subject of a lot of lawsuits by the people they defame. But it's for exactly the same reasons. And documentation has very little to do with it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by Epictetus: And Romney seemed like such a nice guy
I was actually trying to be a little sarcastic. The blatant fact of the matter is I don't know that much about Romney to begin with, other than he's Republican, Mormon and thus immensely popular in Utah. That being said, I didn't want to rule him out just because he was Republican. That debate story certainly informs my opinion of him a little more.
(There was going to be a really insightful paragraph here about Anne Coulter's sense of humor, or lack thereof, but I realize now that it's already been said.) Just thought I'd share
Anyway,
This particular incident just seems like a really vain attempt at humor done in extremely poor taste. If that's what politicians want to do to raise their popularity, fine, I'm not going to listen.
Posts: 681 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read somewhere recently that Mrs. Romney came under some fire in the recent past for making a comment something to the effect of "My husband is the only man running who has only had one wife."
The comment was a jab at the fact that both McCain and Giuliani have been divorced and remarried, and a joke because of the common perception of Mormons and polygamy. It might have been a bit mean spirited, but frankly, I thought it was funny and clever.
Wasn't sure which of the many Romney threads to put that in, but I thought it was worth mentioning, since his wife isn't getting any attention.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mitt and Ann Romney have known each other since elementary school and have been together since high school. Also, she has MS.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah I forgot to mention that too, actually I didn't know she had MS, but I knew they'd known each other since elementary school, which I thought was sweet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
or ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
