Ann Who?
You can make sure that Ann Coulter’s book sales are experiencing a recent spike. She did what she always does, this time calling John Edwards a “faggot,” and all of a sudden she starts nudging Anna Nicole’s corpse out of the news.
As usual, way too many folks who ought to know better have played right into Coulter’s sweaty little hands and are jumping up and down demanding she apologize. Apologize? Hell, Howard Dean and the DNC ought to be subsidizing her speaking tour, praying she will hit every campus in America as a surrogate for the ’08 Republican presidential nominee.
When someone makes such an obvious ass of herself as the loathsome Coulter has, the very best remedy is to simply ignore her.
But no way. Too many trained seals have flapped back at her, feigning indignation and offense when their most effective response ought to be “Ann who?”
Not surprisingly, some of the most cogent reaction to the latest installment of Coultergate comes from pal Jack Shafer. He marvels at the way Coulter continues to play the media (and now the Democrats) like a Stradivarius:
It’s probably unfair to Ramsey Clark to call Coulter his right-wing analogue, but there you are. He defends the indefensible, she attacks the undefended. Neither have any shame. Both regard negative publicity as good publicity. Both color their hair.
The press marginalized Clark for his nuttism long ago, but every odious phrase turned by Coulter only makes her a bigger star. Perhaps the newspapers, TV news, the blogs, and the politicians feel obliged to censure her publicly for her transgressions because, unlike Ramsey, she makes them in acceptable or semiacceptable settings such as at a CPAC conference or on a TV show and not at Saddam Hussein’s trial in Baghdad. The press and the pols are also afraid that silence in the face of new Coulterisms will be interpreted as sanction, so they huff and puff at her scuzzy comments, as they did this week, to prove their own enlightenment. All that does is advertise Coulter’s ideas to still-greater audiences, which translates into additional book sales and TV appearances, which drive still more book sales. She couldn’t be happier.
Shafer goes on to say that in this regard Coulter has completely outclassed other conservative ding-a-lings, like Dinesh D’Souza. He’s made statements ever more outrageous than those of Miss Ann. His big problem is that he wants to be taken seriously as a pundit-intellectual while Coulter is more than delighted to play the clown. Too bad she has such an accomodating audience.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:35 am
You call this ignoring her? Guess it’s all relative.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:51 am
Well, Einstein [sic], no. Obviously not.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:23 am
She’s good with the old one-two punch, you must admit. She softened her remark about how the NY Times should have been terror bombed by suggesting that she’d first evacuate all staff not associated with writing, editing and publishing. With this one, she insisted it was obviously just a joke — beause she’d never seriously insult gays by comparing them with John Edwards.
Ha ha. Oh c’mon, where’s your sense of humor? Oops, I forgot, you don’t have one — you’re a liberal.
See? It’s easy to be as funny as Ann Coulter.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:04 am
Marc’s right that it’s a big waste of time to respond to Coulter’s transgressive derision.
It was disappointing to receive a fund-raising appeal from the Edwards campaign based on Coulter’s clown act. Nothing wrong with faggots, is there?
It is wrong, however, to believe that Coulter is a failure politically, just because her magnificently small-minded taunts kill any chance she has at persuasion. Coulter isn’t trying to persuade. Her job, rather, is to edify: to grease the slide of impressionable right-wing conservatives a little further right and/or to immunize the Republican’s lizard-brain base against any political appeal to its chronically unserved economic interests.
The class and religious resentments of Coulter Republicans are insatiable. They take politics personally, and calling an opponent a faggot is a just fine because, anything, anything at all, that takes a liberal down a peg, is welcome balm for the permanently chafed ego.
While it’s a waste of time to respond to Coulter it’s not necessarily bad politics for liberals to do so.
She’s not about to give up her slot on Fox News Channel and wash up over at Pajamas Media or something. She’s too essential to the Rove strategy. Confronting her at least keeps moderates informed about what the standards are at Fox.
March 6th, 2007 at 4:32 am
The right wing in America desperately needs people like Ann Coulter, because the days when conservatives could claim to be operating on an intellectual or rational basis are long gone. The neocons have messed up Iraq big time, and all the right is left with is willful ignorance and vicious invective. Coulter gives them that and makes them feel good about themselves.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Michael Balter, people like you, who are left-wingers, need Ann Coulter–not us. You cannot come up with intelligent, logical answers to our intellectual and rational questions, so you have to focus on someone like Ann Coulter to claim a very phony high ground and avoid honest debate. If Iraq is messed up, then your side is just as responsible for approving it and allowing it to continue. Maybe Ann Coulter lets you feel good about yourself.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:42 am
“If Iraq is messed up, then your side is just as responsible”
Gotta love this. Nothing like people desperate to spread the blame for their failures.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:22 am
reg, perhaps you mean “nothing like people desperate to run away from their responsibilities and previous positions.”
Did not the Democrats approve of us going into Iraq (and don’t give me that nonsense that they were deceived unless you want me to re-run that video of Democrats talking about Hussein’s threat, when they were in control.) Have not the Democrats had plenty of time since winning Congress to reveal their secret plan for Iraq and to take action to get us out, even if it means cutting the funding, as they have threatened?
They’re like the kids in grammar school who are cutting up with the rest of the class but get quiet when the teacher comes in and so start pointing fingers at the others. The Democrats still rely on what they learned in grammar school and never grew up.
And, as far as Coulter goes, they go around whinning that “she called me a bad name.” How pathetic for them to do that and pathetic for you not to see or admit it.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:43 am
I was reading James Wolcott’s (essential) blog and he writes that some right wing bloggers like “Atlas Shrugs” are claiming to have uncovered information that Edwards really is a trial lawyer.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Ann plus Mickey Kaus? Its all just so stupid and funny. She used to do Grateful Dead tour and I’ve talked to some people who knew here back when, as I was a Deadhead – she liked her party favors.
March 6th, 2007 at 7:55 am
For some screwball whiner who complained all of the bad things people say about Bush, and whined about Stephen Colbert being “rude” to President Bush at a comedy roast, I’m amazed at Woody’s lame complaint that there’s something wrong with people pointing to the degenerates whoopin it up at a Conservative Political Action Convention.
As for the “Democrats approved of us going into Iraq” – give it up Woody. This shit is hanging around the GOPers neck and will for the forseeable future. The Democrats were split even over the ’02 resolution. You really would do yourself a favor if you read something other than the Warblogger’s talking points. You guys succeeded in spinning the rationales for war. There’s no question about that – we’ve got the dead bodies to prove it, and not much else. But you won’t succeed spinning the failures. Take it like a man.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:06 am
“The Democrats were split even over the ‘02 resolution” -MOST CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT WHILE THE GOP WAS NEAR UNANIMOUS PRO – and it was apparent at the time many Democrats who voted Bush authorization didn’t want him to rush into war – they were, foolishly, giving him a bargaining chip (or were too chickenshit and intimidated by the hysterical crap the administration was promoting.) Not a pretty picture, but hardly the chief villains of this narrative. As for ending the war immediately, try pulling the country out of the mud when you’re in waist deep and you’ve got an administration that’s commited to keeping you in no matter what. But don’t say the Democrats don’t have a plan – there are a number of alternative plans to Bush’s ongoing disaster. They’re a legislative body without concentrated executive power. Your taunting them for not ending the war over night is just rhetoric to shift blame.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Bunker:”The class and religious resentments of Coulter Republicans are insatiable. They take politics personally….”
It is so amusing how the political extremes at both ends of the right and left cannot see the color of their own pot?
March 6th, 2007 at 8:31 am
I know the color of Ann’s pot.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
jc – that Atlas thing on Edwards, via Wolcott, is hilarious. Pajamas Media used to feature her videos, where she was overcaffeinated and undermedicated and completely nuts. I hope they put some more of them up – it’s not really any crazier than Victor Davis Hanson’s columns, but it’s a hell of a lot funnier.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Balter:”The neocons have messed up Iraq big time, and all the right is left with is willful ignorance and vicious invective.”
And the left is left with? The hope of defeat of their own country in a noble effort? How ignorant and vicious can a patriot get. Oh, it slipped my mind for a second, it is the man-without-a-country again….until he really needs it of course, then it will be kissy time.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:45 am
Damn, that was good JC. I’m impressed. There is a human inside that nutjob facade.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Btw, I know the color of Ann’s pot first hand. You’s love to see the change in color when in full spring bloom……..or not?
I gotta go to work.
March 6th, 2007 at 8:56 am
“The hope of defeat of their own country in a noble effort? How ignorant and vicious can a patriot get.”
Nearly 100 have just been killed in suicide bombings in Hilla. A noble effort would have included thinking through the likely consequences of invading Iraq before doing it, which the Bush administration was warned about by everyone who knew anything about the country (and by some who just had good sense, Obama being one of them.) An ignorant effort would have consisted of going in like gangbusters without any concern for what the consequences might be. That is what we got.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:00 am
btw, the US lost the war in Vietnam and it bought us nearly 30 years of knowing better than to go stumbling and bumbling into a country we know little about. The US has already lost Iraq. If that has a similar effect, I can only rejoice.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Didn’t Coulter star in “Showgirls?”
March 6th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Scooter: guilty, guilty, guilty.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:23 am
The human cost of the war for which Libby and Bush supporters like Woody and Jim R are responsible. Those of us who opposed the war from the very beginning are not responsible.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456995/html/default.stm
March 6th, 2007 at 10:37 am
“Didn’t Coulter star in ‘Showgirls?’ ”
No, that was “Debbie Duz The Dittoheads”…
March 6th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Re: the last thread, TPM points out that Hillary’s lame southern accent was actually a quotation and not her playing good ole boy.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:50 am
I would love to ignore Coulter Marc. Problem is the folks at CNN, MSNBC and FOX won’t let me. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that a right wing wacko can say that will get him or her banned from the airwaves. I give you Jerry Falwell, Michelle Malkin, Pat Robertson, and on and on . . .
(and let’s not forget Newt Gingerich who now blames the people of New Orleans for “Being too stupid to get out of the way of a hurricane”!)
Of course this is, as our military friends say, “Asymmetrical Warfare” – Left Wing Wackos need not apply. See much of Ramsey Clark on Tim Russert? Maybe that’s a plus but do you think that people watching this start wondering if maybe – just maybe – these people have a point. I mean look at the word “Liberalism”. Thanks to people like Coulter and D’Souza its the political philosophy that dare not speak its name.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:04 am
We interrupt this post for a breaking news announcement:
LIBBY GUILTY ON FOUR OF FIVE COUNTS!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
“btw, the US lost the war in Vietnam”
Well not really. We just decided the effort it would take wasn’t worth it, and the South Vietnamese weren’t really as into it as they should have been. Sounds even more familiar now doesn’t it? Real losing means they take the south and the Chinese army lands in San Francisco.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Did they ever nail Al Capone’s accountant for tax evasion ?
March 6th, 2007 at 11:12 am
rlo, don’t you read my posts anymore? I broke that news here first!
Boyle/York: What did the US fail to do in Vietnam? Drop enough bombs? (more than in WW II.) Not enough troops? 500,000. Not kill enough Commies? (several million, plus or minus a million noncombatants.) Not sacrifice enough soldiers? 50,000. Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Missed it MB. I’m the Matt Drudge of this blog!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:34 am
And I was too busy Carbon-dating the first WH threat to US Attorneys. Our next big scandal.
Henry Waxman is right. The big problem in ivestigating this administration is figuring out which outrage to start with!
March 6th, 2007 at 11:42 am
Actually, I forgot a guilty, so your breaking news was more accurate. I was appealing to Watergate/Doonesbury nostalgia, for those old enough to remember.
March 6th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
See my post today on “AttorneyGate.” I think Nixon and Harding – not to mention Grant – are pikers compared to these guys.
And we haven’t even begun to looks at the graft!
March 6th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
“don’t you read my posts anymore?”
Nah…too depressing, with all the dead bodies.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Andrew Sullivan has a good post up on Coulter and the context of this remark.
March 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
“Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.”
You know Balter this really is beneath you. Ask a Nam vet what he thinks about it. Life is never as black.white as you paint it. Of course it suits your bias to just call it losing so you do.
From what I read here your head has never emerged from your posterior. Perhaps a revisit to the liberation of Paris is in order. That one took a few bombs to fix, but at some point one needs to know when to holdem and when to fold em but one constant one note samba is tiresome.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
reg:
Dems in the SENATE voting for = 25, voting against 21. Yep, MOST voted ag’in it for sure!
reg:
Yep, they got umpty-eleben of ‘em and can’t seem to agree on any except the two or three or four they already ran away from.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Have you ever heard of Congress ? Check it out…
And keep scraping.
March 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Roper – the thing that’s grating about your hypocritical bullshit trying to pin the war on the Dems is that when you “smelled victory” it was all because of Bush’s genius. Now the war is “bi-partisan”.
Also you seeme to totally miss the point about Congress trying to micromanage a war – I basically agree that it’s impossible.
But hey, keep on “supporting the troops”. You’re doin’ a great job, Brownie.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Since the vote in the House (what I referred to as “congress”) was, I think 80-somethng to 120-something and it was split closer in the Senate with a slight edge voting pro, I should have said a majority, not “most”. We end up with somethiing like 110 combined House/Senate votes pro and something like 140 voting against. That’s a clear majority of Democrats against the war, with a rather overwhelming majority in the most representarive body.
So when Woody makes a statement that “the Democrats” voted for the war and are simply backpedaling, it’s a lie. Really nothing more nor less. Individuals are, of course, backpedaling, with almost all Democrats wanting to draw down. And if having voted for the 2003 resolution makes you someone who was “for the war”, I’m having trouble fitting Chuck Hagel into the mold, despite his yay vote.
There’s this thing called not trying to force your delusional thinking on others as fact. Your delusions are “opinion” and there’s nothing wrong with that. But don’t try to simply make things up because they’re convenient.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Our Host’s inclantion and suggestion to ignore Coulter is all well and good (would that he had such an inclantion conserning Coulter and her like circa 96) but he neglets to remember the other people who don’t ignore Coulter, like Time maganzine (cover) and his buddy Chris Matthews, who has declared her one of the major political writers of our time.
John Edwards is a big boy and shouldn’t be harmed by such taunts, though it’s hard to begrudge him for using it fund rasing. It’s not exactly the bottem of the barrel as these things go.
Coulter’s comments conserning her the 9-11 widows should have, and in a sane world would have, put a finish to her. But since it didn’t, her enablers should be shamed with those words even as She is rightfully ignored.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
This would seem the perfect time to ask AC about the Adam’s apple…
March 6th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I have mixed feelings about Marc’s post. On the one hand, I am personally predisposed not to give a shit about blathering idiots like Anne Coulter. I can ignore her nonsense as easily as I can ingore the endless coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and Britney Spears. On the other hand, a lot of the blogosphere insists that the media’s unequal treatment left wing idiots versus right wing idiots has some greater significance in the world of politics. I wish I could test that hypothesis instead of hearing it over and over.
I think Glen Greenwald has the best iteration of that point: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/06/cult/index.html
He argues that it’s not the media attention that drives her popularity (though it’s part of the process), but instead that it comes from her crass articulation of common conservative themes. A nastier Michael Moore whose nastiness is part of her appeal. If we look, as Jack Shafer does, as Clark as a left wing analogue, we see a stark contrast in popularity that we can either attribute to media exposure or the resonance of the message. Marc and Jack Shafer seem to think it’s the former. I’m not convinced.
March 6th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Well, Mavis, ignore Britney Spears at your peril.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“But don’t try to simply make things up because they’re convenient.”
What else would he be left with? The truth is always inconvenient for that crowd, so they deny it, run, and point fingers. You know the same level of action found on the grade schoolyard at recess.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Mavis, you’re pityably stupid equasion of Moore and Coulter pretty much tells the tale. Just which major inacuracy in Moore’s work bothers you the most? Which bit of his biting humor do you find the rough equivalent of Coulter’s claim that the dissenting 9-11 widows where happy their husbands had been killed because it might give the chance to pose in Playboy? Pathetic.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“you’re pityably stupid equasion ”
too easy
March 6th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
“From what I read here your head has never emerged from your posterior. Perhaps a revisit to the liberation of Paris is in order. That one took a few bombs to fix, but at some point one needs to know when to holdem and when to fold em but one constant one note samba is tiresome.”
Boyle/Yorkster is no longer even coherant. Michael was making a very important point; that we were humbled ass a nation by our defeat in Vietnam, that we became a better and wiser nation for it. There are hopeful signs that the Iraq war with have the same effect, although you wouldn’t know from listening to Hillary but I digress. Realist foreign policy ideas are resonating now (Walt/Mearsheimer and Fukuyama who defected) because the utopian ideas that drove the war are so frightening and demoralizing.
March 6th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Thanks Ahmed. Ten years from now people like York will be telling us that we “lost” Iraq because we lacked the “will” to stay the course.
March 7th, 2007 at 1:57 am
Coulter a Deadhead? I’ll bite.
[Google]
OMG, it’s true! I’m gonna need some killer bong hits to get over this.
http://www.jambands.com/Features/content_2006_06_23.06.phtml
You have to admit, she gives PJ O’Rourke a run for his money with this one. Which makes the rest of her commentary sound like a sad waste of a sharp wit, like even more of a pathetic sellout than it already is.
O’Rourke can get nasty, of course, but it’s not the core of his schtick. He’s an old school conservative humorist (“life is sad, so let’s laugh at it”) not a partisan attack dog (“liberals are sad, so let’s laugh at them, except when we’re taking ourselves so seriously that it’s no longer a laughing matter.”) In O’Rourke, many echoes of Mark Twain, Ambrose Bierce, H.L. Mencken, Will Rogers, W.C. Fields — riffs not borrowed, but rather brazenly stolen, in the style of all great artists. Coulter? Half the time she sounds like Nixon on a bender, except that she doesn’t say “cocksucker” nearly as often (I guess because “liberal” is scathing enough for her audience.)
Compare:
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/p/p_j_orourke.html
March 7th, 2007 at 5:47 am
“… it’s not the media attention that drives her popularity (though it’s part of the process), but instead that it comes from her crass articulation of common conservative themes.”
I’ll buy that. Coulter often backs off from a particularly repellent remark by insisting that she’s only joking. The problem is, much of the time, she isn’t. Much of the time, she’s in “education” mode.
Out of some morbid curiosity, I took a look at her site, and the most recent diatribe against liberals consists of pounding home the point that liberals (who are all pampered and well-to-do in her caricature) just want to kill everybody, by denying them the fruits of industrial civilization. Which might be OK in an over-the-top rant where she’s self-consciously making herself look ridiculous, as a good humorist might do, but then she says things like this: a wind turbine can’t make enough energy to make another wind turbine.
Well, you look around just a little and you find out that wind turbines have always been assessed as being able to produce more energy than their manufacture and maintenance consume, the ratio has gone from 2x to about 20x in the last couple decades, and that more recently, wind turbines can return the energy invested in under 6 months. They’ll probably never be a good deal compared to coal, at least until coal starts to become scarce, but that’s not the point: analyses that look at all of the externalized costs (and subsidies) for coal make wind turbines look fairly good.
But if you love Ann, are you going to look around, check her “facts” when they are apparently offered in all seriousness? Of course not. She’s your energy expert. You don’t take it as a joke.
March 7th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Mavis, Hillary used the fake Southern accent in her talk besides the quote. I provided a link of her audio which includes that. Also, when did O’Bama get his ebonics accent that he pulled out?
—-
reg, the Democrats in the Senate, who are the major players in that party, voted for the war. Many of the House Democrats voted not against the war but against President Bush in a symbolic vote, since they knew that the resolution would pass anyway.
What’s funny is that the Democrats came down very heavily on President George H. W. Bush for “not finishing the job” in Iraq when he had the chance. So, it’s clear that even the Democrats didn’t recognize the difficulties that would come after the military victory. Why don’t they decide what we should do and stick with it rather than saying that whatever Republicans do is wrong, even it means that the Democrats flip-flop all over the place?
March 7th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Jesus Christ, MT – it gets even worse. Coulter’s either an idiot or a liar – probably both. I read her interview that you linked where she talks extensively about the Grateful Dead and she makes the insane claim that the Dead invented “rap” with their 1977 song, Fire On The Mountain. Rap-style banter is as old as “the dozens” and has analogs in blues, Jamaican “toasting” and such. And rapping DJs were active in NYC in the early ’70s. To be precise, rap evolved from various influences. It wasn’t “invented”, but even if we’re looking at the “overground” emergence of this kind of insistent rhythmic rhyme in commercial music, hasn’t Coulter ever heard Dylan’s Subterranean Homesick Blues? Maybe she was “joking”. But how does anyone this misinformed get treated like some kind of oracle by the press and the right-wing ? I’m shocked. Shocked !!!!
March 7th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Thanks Woody for pulling more speculation from the netherworld on why the majority of Democrats voted against the war resolution out of your ass. I always appreciate it.
Democrats were also heavily critical of the way the war was being conducted, based on the concerns of General Shinseki over troop strength. This, in your rectally-sourced opinion, is also some sort of indictment.
Truth is, Woody, you’ve been spouting blather on the war since Day One. Anyone with any honesty, integrity or a modicum of grace would look in the mirror and begin asking themselves why they have to project their own failures of judgement and misplaced faith in this administration onto their betters – the people who’ve expressed serious concerns on central issues from the very beginning. But not to worry – we’ve come not to expect any such depth or reflective thought from your direction.
Keep up the good work.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:17 am
“Thanks Ahmed. Ten years from now people like York will be telling us that we “lost†Iraq because we lacked the “will†to stay the course.”
No Balter, I’m the guy why said don’t so it in the first place so don’t put quotes in my mouth. Any journalist worth his salt doesn’t go there. Take that with a grain…
If you talk to Viet Nam vets, many thought they could win if given the chance. Other didn’t but you don’t like them either so…
March 7th, 2007 at 8:21 am
As for Obama’s cadenced speech, he learned it by attending a black church for decades, like most people who can pull it off. As for “ebonics”, I don’t accept the characterization, but I’m sure his years working amongst the urban poor on the south side of Chicago gave him enough exposure to “street vernacular” that he’s as “bilingual” as he needs to be to suit any occasion, be it at Harvard or in Harlem.
Now about your “good ol’ boy” in the cowboy hat and driving a pickup truck, GWB…
March 7th, 2007 at 8:24 am
reg writes: “But how does anyone this misinformed get treated like some kind of oracle by the press and the right-wing ? I’m shocked. Shocked !!!!”
A few bong hits and you’ll be fine, reg. Works for me.
March 7th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Its a right wing campaign to make the Dead seem like they invented rap.
What the Dead DID do is pioneer the use of sampling in live performances, far before hip-hop, Brent and Jerry were using MIDI, emulators, etc.
As I said, through the “family” I know people who have hung with Ann…total “prep school hippie” as the prhase goes, or newer “trustafarian” – but really loved her lysergic fun.
March 7th, 2007 at 9:40 am
reg, did I say “majority of Democrats?” Nope. That’s your phrase. And, yes, there were discussions on the news about some voting against Iraq for political reasons rather than reasons of national security. Can you imagine that? A Democrat putting politics ahead of his country?!
Also, Idiot, I never have been a war “supporter,” and you know it. I always stated that, under our system of a republic, that I was trusting our leaders to use secret information and collective analysis to come to the right decisions. Should I have just relied on ol’ unelected reg, instead?
I don’t care where O’Bama got his phony dialect. It was phony. When I’ve been in New York, I didn’t try to talk like I was from there. Likewise, I don’t try to talk like a good ol’ boy when I’m in south Georgia. When Hillary and O’Bama spoke to the Jewish group, did they throw in a little Yiddish?
March 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Congratulations, Woody, for not having been a war supporter, but merely a Bush supporter. That proves you’re even more pathetic.
March 7th, 2007 at 11:45 am
During times of war, I support the President of the United States and our armed forces–no matter what party is in charge. For some reason, I trust them more than a bunch of professors or actors or journalists, who think that they know what is best.
Is this the guy that Ann Coulter insulted by insinuating that he was a “pretty boy”?
March 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I can honestly say that despite being an independent with progressive leanings, I think that The Grateful Dead is like the worst band in the history of recorded sound. When I was in college, their fans were smelly, ugly, and crusty; their male fans were no picnic either. Not surprising then that the Scary Blonde Pundit is a fan of theirs. Everytime I have to listen to a blurb from her or Limburger, I feel like I need a shower.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Reg re: Rap: “Talking Dust Bowl Blues” – Woody Guthrie.
March 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Guthrie – of course.
David – I have a good friend who’s a total Deadhead. Has probably been to well over a hundred shows over the years. He says, without equivocation, that the worst rock and roll shows he’s ever seen were Dead shows. Of course he also says that the best rock and roll shows hes ever seen were also Dead shows.
March 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Jerry Garcia’s greatest contribution to popular culture came in the form of ice cream.
March 7th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
No it came from a large body of great music, and boundless talent, which alas went down with heroin all too soon.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Marc Cooper, by the way, is sort of spouting nonsense here by calling for people to ignore Coulter…AND YET Cooper ridiculed Democratic activists some time ago on this blog for not opposing the decision of the Nevada Democratic Party to sponsore their Democratic Presidential Primary.
Coulter practically lives at FOX News…and frankly, nearly everyone who works at FOX News is little more than a right wing hack.
There is no way that Cooper, progressives, or anyone can pretend to ignore Coulter by simply saying, “Ann Who?”, and yet legitimize Faux News. Yet another puzzling contradiction by Marc Cooper.
But now some good news: John Edwards is boycotting the Nevada Debates until they kick Faux News to the curb. Good for him.
March 8th, 2007 at 5:45 am
that paragraph should be, “opposing the decision of the Nev. Dem. Party……”
March 8th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Boortz linked this today:
Ann Coulter makes an impassioned plea in her latest column for the pardon of Scooter Libby. She points out that Democrats have gotten away with far worse and she draws the conclusion that it is now illegal to be a Republican.
SHOOTING ELEPHANTS IN A BARREL
So, what’s wrong with what she writes here?
March 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I can honestly say that despite being an independent with progressive leanings, I think that The Grateful Dead is like the worst band in the history of recorded sound.
Amen. It’s the drugs, nothing more.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
What did one concert deadhead say to the other after the weed ran out? “Man, this music sucks”.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
“But now some good news: John Edwards is boycotting the Nevada Debates until they kick Faux News to the curb. Good for him.”
And good for the opposition. Here’s more good news from Coulter’s fav candidate: John Edwards
is reported to be lamenting the greed in American culture, from the balcony of one of three of his multi-million dollar homes, paid for out of the funds his class action suit clients were to receive.
Go John! Mitt thanks you, Rudy thanks you,……and I thank you.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
There ‘are’ two Americas, and John is already getting confused which one he lives in.
Kinda like the other John in the last campaign getting confused which side he was living on in the war.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
The difference would be John can still remember the other America. A Bush never knew it. Climb out of the one.
Hey Woody, how do handle the tough news that it was Libby who represented the oft-mentioned Clinton pardon of Marc Rich? All the more reason to convict him. Coulter is a vile trustfund whacko. What’s wrong with it is total clueless callousness for anyone not on her team.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“Amen. It’s the drugs, nothing more.”
They’re more talented than any Mariachi band that’s for sure. Now that, takes some real drugs that hopefully induce deafness.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“But Scooter Libby is facing real prison time for forgetting who told him about some bozo’s wife.”
Sorry Charlie, deliberate lying and obstruction of justice are crimes. I mean it was for a blowjob so…are the stakes higher here? How many died? Reasonable people would say outing a CIA agent, sans the bifurcation fallacy has greater weight. The “some bozo” isn’t accurate even though in wingerworld he’s been discredited according to John “I didn’t graduate from college” Fund. Right. We’ve seen winger standards. They’re myopic and in the basement.
April 5th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Excuse, and what you think concerning forthcoming elections?
April 9th, 2007 at 2:44 am
cool blog!
December 13th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
[...] Marc Cooper » Blog Archive » Ann Who? Tags: bush administration, campaigns, cows, farming, hell [...]