I think Ann Coulter is either an incredible actress or the world’s biggest hypocrite. She may have some points about liberalism, but the fact that she says that liberals trot out victims as spokespeople because they think people won’t attack them (ignoring the fact that these people might *gasp* actually beleive what they are talking about) she then says that Conservatives would never do something like that. Cause its not like conservatives have ever used victims to score politcal points in speeches and at appearnces, nor do they use patriotism as the same sheild they accuse liberals of using victims as.
Bottom line, Coulter should be denounced by the right the same way Michael Moore shoudl be denounced by the left. The are the moutpieces of the extreme vocal parts of each party. Or thats what it seems like to me.
Liberals do accuse everybody of attacking their patriotism though, whenever they get an criticism on their foreign policy and homeland security positions. Or lack thereof.
And on Coulter, who is backing her? Only one I have heard that is coming out defending her is David Horowitz. Am I missing some others?
Lojo - have you fogotten so soon how the eeeeevil conservatives keep quoting the liberals own words, and the result is that the liberals feel that their patriotism is being attacked … ?
Whatever Alasdair, you yet again offer nothing substantial to the debate.
But since there is a debate going on in the house today I have a perfect example of what I am talking about:
“Is it al Qaeda or is it America? Let the voters take note of this debate,” said Republican Rep. Charles Norwood of Georgia, attacking war critics as defeatists who do not deserve re-election.
Thats right folks, if you don’t follow the Bush party line when it comes to the war in Iraq, you therefore support al Qaeda. Ignoring completely the fact that there were no 9/11 related al Qaeda and Iraq ties.
There you have it Alasdair, a relevant and fresh example of how the Neo-Cons “With us or against us” mantra is in essence questioning the Patriotism of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship at the feet of your almighty Bush.
If you couldn’t stand Ann Coulter before…
I work for NBC, more specifically I worked at the Tonight Show yesterday. Apparently, Ann Coulter’s fan club came out in mass (hence why there was more applause than boos for her, I think…also they specifically tell people not to boo guests, but anyway)…so apparently, someone from her fan club showed up early to get tickets for the show. Now, you’re only allowed to get two tickets/person, so in order to circumvent the system, a member of Ann Coulter’s fan club told people already in line that they needed tickets for a bunch of military people coming to see the show. Of course, these tickets weren’t really for military people, they were actually for Ann Coulter’s fan club. (Of course, we only found at they had done this after the show, b/c one of the women in the group told one of my coworkers what they did). That’s pretty dispicable, but what else would you expect from her fans.
Was the Honourable Rep Rep attacking “war critics” who were saying something along the lines of “This war would have been better prosecuted thus and so, and I have consistently voted for its vigorous prosecution !” ? Or was the “attack” against “war critics” who keep saying things like “I voted for the War before I voted against the War; and it’s a Quagmire; and we’re losing I tell you, losing ! We must instantly withdraw, and yield the ground to Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq ! ” ?
If it’s the former, you may well have a valid bone of contention … if the latter, then he’s basically calling a Speyed a Speyed, is he not ? And one can criticise the latter folk completely validly without having *any* appreciation for President Bush …
Alasdair, its specifically directed at house resolution being discussed, saying that anyone who votes against it no matter what reason, believes that the America should lose and supports Al Qaeda.
As for the for it/against it crap, if you are still hung up on THAT then you really are hopeless. Was John Kerry poor in articulating his point? Absolutely. But his flaw wasn’t the fact that based on new information he *gasp* changed his mind, its that he trusted what the White House was telling him in the first place, and that he and a majority of the rest of Congress have been and still are abbrogating their responsibility to act as a check and balance on the President.
But back to the main point i was making, yes this Representative along with many many others on the right have staked out a position that goes roughly as follows:
1) There is only ONE way to win this war, and its the Neo-Con way
2) Anyone who disagrees with that view for ANY reason wants America to lose and supporst the terrorists
As long as I keep hearing that position not just from the fringe right wing, but the main voice of the right wing especially Congressmen, then I am going to continue to say that the GOP are hypocrits of the highest order, who talk about defending freedom, but really want people to shut up and let them do whatever they want with their power.
David K: I don’t know if it’s a Manichean worldview so much as calling the Dems to account for what they say. The Dems are smart enough to know that Americans vote prospectively, that the argument over whether or not to invade Iraq was 2002’s argument–that the only argument now is how to fight, to win, to stabilize, to whatever. So the Dems have said what Bush should supposedly do: withdraw (or “redeploy,” in Murtha-speak) now, set a timetable, re-instate the draft, etc. Who could blame the GOP for responding, “You want to do X? Fine. Let’s put it to a vote tomorrow. Let’s see if you mean what you say.”
Quite clearly, the Dems want the mid-terms to be a referendum on Bush, more specficially on Bush and Iraq. (Though the Dems won’t admit it publicly, the “culture of corruption” is moribund, with Duke Cunningham’s seat locked up, DeLay and Scooter gone (their cases increasingly weaker–argument for another day), no bill on Rove, and with Jesse Jackson ready to parachute into the William Jefferson fray.) A few times the Dems have attempted to say, “We don’t need an agenda, we’re the opposition,” and they’ve been pounded for it. The GOP is going to ask just what the Dems would do differently, and when the Dems respond the GOP will be waiting. That’s plain old-fashioned politics.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:43:48 pm
Carlin used to be hilarious. He’s gotten quite odd lately.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:39:47 pm
Live-blogged here: Texasyank Big disappointment though.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:31:19 am
I think Ann Coulter is either an incredible actress or the world’s biggest hypocrite. She may have some points about liberalism, but the fact that she says that liberals trot out victims as spokespeople because they think people won’t attack them (ignoring the fact that these people might *gasp* actually beleive what they are talking about) she then says that Conservatives would never do something like that. Cause its not like conservatives have ever used victims to score politcal points in speeches and at appearnces, nor do they use patriotism as the same sheild they accuse liberals of using victims as.
Bottom line, Coulter should be denounced by the right the same way Michael Moore shoudl be denounced by the left. The are the moutpieces of the extreme vocal parts of each party. Or thats what it seems like to me.
June 15th, 2006 at 5:36:03 am
David -
Liberals do accuse everybody of attacking their patriotism though, whenever they get an criticism on their foreign policy and homeland security positions. Or lack thereof.
And on Coulter, who is backing her? Only one I have heard that is coming out defending her is David Horowitz. Am I missing some others?
June 15th, 2006 at 6:13:23 am
Colbert was on Letterman. Colbert was qucik and witty, while Letterman…well, Letterman’s a jerk.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:25:29 am
Um, Lojo, thats because the conservatives HAVE been attacking their patriotism, or have you not noticed that one?
June 15th, 2006 at 9:55:35 am
Lojo - have you fogotten so soon how the eeeeevil conservatives keep quoting the liberals own words, and the result is that the liberals feel that their patriotism is being attacked … ?
June 15th, 2006 at 10:50:59 am
Whatever Alasdair, you yet again offer nothing substantial to the debate.
But since there is a debate going on in the house today I have a perfect example of what I am talking about:
Thats right folks, if you don’t follow the Bush party line when it comes to the war in Iraq, you therefore support al Qaeda. Ignoring completely the fact that there were no 9/11 related al Qaeda and Iraq ties.
There you have it Alasdair, a relevant and fresh example of how the Neo-Cons “With us or against us” mantra is in essence questioning the Patriotism of anyone who doesn’t bow down and worship at the feet of your almighty Bush.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:20:34 am
If you couldn’t stand Ann Coulter before…
I work for NBC, more specifically I worked at the Tonight Show yesterday. Apparently, Ann Coulter’s fan club came out in mass (hence why there was more applause than boos for her, I think…also they specifically tell people not to boo guests, but anyway)…so apparently, someone from her fan club showed up early to get tickets for the show. Now, you’re only allowed to get two tickets/person, so in order to circumvent the system, a member of Ann Coulter’s fan club told people already in line that they needed tickets for a bunch of military people coming to see the show. Of course, these tickets weren’t really for military people, they were actually for Ann Coulter’s fan club. (Of course, we only found at they had done this after the show, b/c one of the women in the group told one of my coworkers what they did). That’s pretty dispicable, but what else would you expect from her fans.
June 15th, 2006 at 3:25:52 pm
David - a gedanken, if you will …
Was the Honourable Rep Rep attacking “war critics” who were saying something along the lines of “This war would have been better prosecuted thus and so, and I have consistently voted for its vigorous prosecution !” ? Or was the “attack” against “war critics” who keep saying things like “I voted for the War before I voted against the War; and it’s a Quagmire; and we’re losing I tell you, losing ! We must instantly withdraw, and yield the ground to Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq ! ” ?
If it’s the former, you may well have a valid bone of contention … if the latter, then he’s basically calling a Speyed a Speyed, is he not ? And one can criticise the latter folk completely validly without having *any* appreciation for President Bush …
June 15th, 2006 at 4:27:08 pm
Alasdair, its specifically directed at house resolution being discussed, saying that anyone who votes against it no matter what reason, believes that the America should lose and supports Al Qaeda.
As for the for it/against it crap, if you are still hung up on THAT then you really are hopeless. Was John Kerry poor in articulating his point? Absolutely. But his flaw wasn’t the fact that based on new information he *gasp* changed his mind, its that he trusted what the White House was telling him in the first place, and that he and a majority of the rest of Congress have been and still are abbrogating their responsibility to act as a check and balance on the President.
But back to the main point i was making, yes this Representative along with many many others on the right have staked out a position that goes roughly as follows:
1) There is only ONE way to win this war, and its the Neo-Con way
2) Anyone who disagrees with that view for ANY reason wants America to lose and supporst the terrorists
As long as I keep hearing that position not just from the fringe right wing, but the main voice of the right wing especially Congressmen, then I am going to continue to say that the GOP are hypocrits of the highest order, who talk about defending freedom, but really want people to shut up and let them do whatever they want with their power.
June 15th, 2006 at 9:59:56 pm
David K: I don’t know if it’s a Manichean worldview so much as calling the Dems to account for what they say. The Dems are smart enough to know that Americans vote prospectively, that the argument over whether or not to invade Iraq was 2002’s argument–that the only argument now is how to fight, to win, to stabilize, to whatever. So the Dems have said what Bush should supposedly do: withdraw (or “redeploy,” in Murtha-speak) now, set a timetable, re-instate the draft, etc. Who could blame the GOP for responding, “You want to do X? Fine. Let’s put it to a vote tomorrow. Let’s see if you mean what you say.”
Quite clearly, the Dems want the mid-terms to be a referendum on Bush, more specficially on Bush and Iraq. (Though the Dems won’t admit it publicly, the “culture of corruption” is moribund, with Duke Cunningham’s seat locked up, DeLay and Scooter gone (their cases increasingly weaker–argument for another day), no bill on Rove, and with Jesse Jackson ready to parachute into the William Jefferson fray.) A few times the Dems have attempted to say, “We don’t need an agenda, we’re the opposition,” and they’ve been pounded for it. The GOP is going to ask just what the Dems would do differently, and when the Dems respond the GOP will be waiting. That’s plain old-fashioned politics.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:02:01 pm
Cough. By which I mean, the cases against DeLay and Scooter increasingly weaker.
But: another argument for another day.