Father Coulter exorcising liberal demons.
. STOP !!! Oh puleeze STOP!.. it hurts SO MUCH....aieee ...it hurts..
Posted on 06/13/2006 8:43:55 AM PDT by Miami Vice
Ann Coulter wrote a book that may, or may not, contain a controversial statement that is being demonized by liberal politicians and the liberal media.
So what else is new?
Coulter is to liberals what Father Merrin was to Pazuzu in The Exorcist. She is the cultural equivalent of critical mass for liberals. She is their Pavlov's Bell.
However, liberals have selective recall. They need to be reminded of a few things.
Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never mentioned assassinating a Democrat president, something said by at least two prominent liberal pundits.
Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never said the wife of a liberal Supreme Court Justice should cook meals for him that will cause a stroke - something said by a famous liberal newspaper columnist about Justice Thomas.
Liberals need to be reminded that Coulter has never said that a liberal congressman should be stoned to death - as a renowned liberal actor did about Illinois Congressman Henry Hyde.
Liberals need reminding that Coulter never said that the best way to deal with the leader of a liberal advocacy group is to shoot him - as a well-known liberal moviemaker did about Charlton Heston.
So pardon me if I do not get so outraged by anything that Ann Coulter may have written in her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." I am so used to the vicious, hateful, mean-spirited, despicable, invective of Democrats and liberals that anything a conservative would say about liberals can only be considered reciprocity.
I understand why liberals are outraged and why they want the average American to be outraged. They feel they can politically exploit L' Affaire Coulter. (They cannot - the average person knows there is vitriol by both sides, just as they know both parties can be corrupt.)
While I am not shocked of the righteous indignation of Hillary Clinton, I am somewhat amused by the righteous indignation of some Republicans and conservatives. They have tripped over themselves running to the nearest microphone to distance themselves from Coulter.
Last night, I watched Coulter on Fox News Channel's National Heartland with John Kasich. Kasich, a former Republican congressman, soundly criticized her. The Richie Cunningham like, occasionally pious, Kasich began by chastising her about her alleged comments. He then informed Coulter that his wife said she, 'really likes Ann, but doesn't understand why she has to be so mean.'
What occurred next made Kasich look foolish. Coulter asked him if either he or his wife ever read her book.
Kasich admitted that neither of them have.
Ann then informed him that her critics often misquote or distort her remarks. She said that Kasich, and his wife, were not appalled by what she wrote; they were appalled by what the New York Daily News said she wrote.
Kasich is not alone though. Several other well-known Republicans and conservatives have done the same.
The question is why? Why do Republicans and conservatives feel the need to demonstrate that they will not condone vitriolic remarks about liberals or Democrats?
Are they doing it to show their gentility? Are they doing it because of principle? Are they doing it not to anger their political opponents?
If they do not want to anger their political opponents -forget about it. Democrats and liberals are always going to hate them.
If they are trying to demonstrate their gentility - there are other ways to do so.
If they are trying to demonstrate how principled they are, then they are doing the exact opposite. They are demonstrating, as a group, that they are extremely insecure.
This last analysis seems the most likely. Conservatives and Republicans always give the impression they are walking on eggs. After a decade of being the nation's majority political party, Republicans still act as if they need to explain themselves.
This is baffling. The fact that Republicans are the majority political party is an extraordinary accomplishment when one considers that the opinion forming institutions in this country - the news media, the entertainment industry, and the education establishment - are clearly liberal and sympathetic to Democrats.
This indicates that average Americans are center-right, at the very least, in their political beliefs. Why some Republicans - even in the liberal Northeast and West Coast - feel they cannot spout conservative ideas is inexplicable.
Reagan did, and the people voted for him - even in the Deep Blue states.
I have not read Coulter's book. I don't know what she wrote. As I said, it does not matter. It could never be worse than what liberals and Democrats have said about conservatives and Republicans.
I do know that conservatives and Republicans need not apologize for her. At least not until liberals and Democrats apologize for their own diatribes.
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the new novel Sense of Duty refer to http://www.geocities.com/ddc4010/
©The Evening Bulletin 2006
LOL! The more negative her critics go, the more Ann thrives.
Father Coulter exorcising liberal demons.
. STOP !!! Oh puleeze STOP!.. it hurts SO MUCH....aieee ...it hurts..
Well stated in your Post #10. So well that I sent it to a liberal friend to chew on.
....COULTEEER!!
funny how true this article is.
conservatives treat liberals the same way liberals want to treat the terrorists....by not saying anything bad to make things worse, and by trying to understand how they 'feel'
Liberals hate Ann because she sees them for exactly what they are. They hate her because she's not afraid to expose their true intent.
"Coulter is to liberals what Father Merrin was to Pazuzu in The Exorcist."
Tremoglie nails it perfectly in the above quote.
BUMP
"Well, yes she did. In High Crimes and Misdemeanors Coulter wondered if Clinton should be impeached or assassinated."
I have the book open in front of me.
What page?
Still waiting for your documentation, "Professor."
Kasich is an idiot. He should not be allowed on TV. He's a total simpleton.
I doubt you are either a professor or right-wing. More probably a troll.
In the paperback edition of High Crimes of Misdemeanors, top of page 107, Coulter wrote the following
In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate.
It's not as if this is an isolated incident. A few months ago, "We need somebody to put rat poison in Justice Stevens' creme brulee", then tried to laugh it off as a joke. In 2002, she said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.", and then regretted she had not added "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."
Here's a news flash for you and Coulter. We are a constitutional republic, not a banana republic. In this country, we may impeach presidents and judges; we don't assassinate or poison them. We don't kill journalists, not even New York Times journalists. If that's not to your liking, I believe there are still several countries in South America where those sorts of things go on. Maybe you and Coulter can take up residence down there.
I'll tell you something else. Sooner or later, some deranged nut is going to actually kill someone, and then claim they were inspired by Coulter or someone similar. And that will be worth 20 Congressional seats for the Dems in the next election. Clinton made mucho political capital, with far less foundation, by linking Terry McVeigh to Rush Limbaugh, and Rush has never, to my knowledge, said anything even remotely similar to the sort of stuff that Coulter seems to come up with routinely. It's sort of ironic that while people are defending Coulter on this site, some of Coulter's own statements would almost certainly be zotted if they were posted here. You can bet dollars to donuts that if a FReeper called for blowing up the NY Times building, the post and probably the poster would be zotted instantly.
One final thing. I'm not sure why you think it's cute to put scare quotes around 'professor'. My identity is not a secret. It seems to little foolish to complain about how academia is so far left, and then spend your time harassing the few academics who are conservative.
And let's not forget NYC's Alan Hevisi who said something so awful about our President that when I mentioned it on Free Republic, the thread got pulled.
Sam Hill (I'm not sure why) pinged you to a post directed at me. I am now pinging you to my reply.
You said:
"In High Crimes and Misdemeanors Coulter wondered if Clinton should be impeached or assassinated."
The actual book quote is:
"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he "did it," even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or assassinate."
Even a chemistry professor should have the literacy to see that those are radically different things. That latter is called "humor."
Even the most rabid Coulter hating sites (which I'm sure you frequent) don't cite this quote. Except the Soros paid stooge at Media Matters, David Brock. Who is being paid to try to discredit Coulter and block her from CNN and elsewhere.
BTW, I'm told the New Times Book Review has just decided that "High Crimes And Misdemeanors" was a "scholarly book."
I guess they didn't read it with your objectivity, Professor
(And only creeps with chips on their shoulders and inferiority complexes call themselves "professors" in my experience. But I'm not familiar with the high-flying world of teaching chemistry.)
"You can bet dollars to donuts that if a FReeper called for blowing up the NY Times building, the post and probably the poster would be zotted instantly."
You can only make your ridiculous claims if you ignore the fact that there is such a thing as humor in the world.
Though maybe not in your world.
If you think discussing the assassination of the president is a joke, I suspect you have a rather tense conversation with the Secret Service in your future. It wasn't funny. And it wasn't an accident. I've shown how she does it over and over and over again. And here's another clue; Jon Stewart does not footnote his 'humor' in a pseudo-academic fashion. Coulter claims what she writes is serious. She can't then try to evade responsibility by claiming it was just a joke.
Your attempts at smearing me as a leftist are pathetic.
The way you previously characterized her remarks and your comments on every thread shows exactly who and what you are to any person who bothers to read them.
I'll stipulate "mentioned" without checking, because the word is ambiguous enough to be meaningless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.