[Lando Lincoln]

I, for one, think that Ann Coulter should tone it down. She is too bright to rely on invective and rhetoric.

Lando

[Peach]

Ditto about Ann Coulter. She loses the moderates who would benefit from her often brilliany alliteration.

[facedown]

...Bill Moyers, once a judicious man,...

When was that?

[AngrySpud]

Ann is kinda like Rush: 99% of the time I agree with both. But occasionally they both say something that makes me wince. It's calculated to draw attention, I'm sure, but sometimes I think they diminish their own arguments.

Now, a little closer to home ... what about my tagline? Is it perhaps a little "over the top"?

[Batrachian]

What if she's right? Doesn't it seem odd to you that Democrats always take the position most beneficial to our enemies? How about those Democrats that went to Baghdad and stated that they trusted Saddam Hussein more than our own President? Or those Democrats that built nuclear reactors in North Korea, and they took the Uranium and are building nuclear bombs with it to point at us?

What you have to remember is that we're the good guys and our enemies, including Democrats, are the bad guys and it's the simple truth to say so.

Ann Coulter tells the truth. Democrat's retoric is a pack of lies. There's no moral equivalency there.

[meyer]

I, for one, think that Ann Coulter should tone it down. She is too bright to rely on invective and rhetoric.

The problem is, Ann Coulter is correct and has the data to back up her statements. Most of democrat core are traitors.

[Libloather]

Veteran PBS star Bill Moyers, once a judicious man, recently said that Republicans are planning "the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America."

He's almost right - destruction of the Perjury Party is the goal.

It's time for PBS to go...

[Dog Anchor]

Bush-is-a-Nazi rhetoric...

A simple observation:

Who sport close cropped hair in greater numbers?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who sport black leather jackets in greater numbers?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who sports more tatoos?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who spouts more invective and hatred?
Repuplicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who is marching in media and political lock-step?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Who are rabid Jew haters?
Republicans or Socialist Democrats?

Now, once again, who are the Fascists?

[Hannity4prez]

I agree with his overall premise. The big difference is that the conservative rhetoric is based in facts. Whats really over the top is rhetoric based on lies, or to be politically correct, untruths. Therein is where the real damage lies. Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Ajnin]

I understand your point Lando, but I think Ann should keep it up. I think we need people that are vicious in the way they attack the liberals. If we want to pull people to our side then we have people like you that can do it. When idiots like Clark say they will beat the sh*t out of anybody that questions their integrity or patriotism, I would like to see a conservative in the national spotlight step forward and publicly smack them across the face.

[Qwinn]

"She is smart and funny, but calling opponents traitors is way over the line."

No, it really isn't. Read my profile for my view on this subject.

While I can understand criticism of Ann's style, the claim that she "has taken partisan commentary about as far as it can go" is proved patently false by the next two or three dozen quotes that he cites. And he's missed a million of them. I mean, does even the NY Times quote, if you took it in the worst possible light, come close to Molly Ivins approvingly quoting someone who said "The only thing wrong with Texas Baptists is that they aren't held under the water long enough"?

Ann plays rough according to the standard REPUBLICANS have held themselves to, sure, but she's a complete softie compared to the people she's arguing with.

Qwinn

[First_Salute]

Five decades have gone by, of leftists' monopolizing every adjective in the Thesarus, with which they have painted for the public eye, the misconception that Republicans are "Pigs!" and "meanspirited" monsterous NAZI's in pin-striped suits.

Now comes an article which tries to argue for "toning down the rhetoric" as if in all this time, it has equally come from both left and right sides of the isle.

It has not.

All political expression is not "equal" on the basis of the number of categories of political views.

Political expression is instead measured on the basis of the number of the people in each category of such political views.

Fifty people may equally be citizens, but one may be a tyrant.

The tyrant's view, because it is different than the 49 other rule of law-minded citizenry, has no "right" to being, nor do we have any duty to make it, "equally presentable" in the public eye for consideration, on the basis of it's being one view and the other peoples' is the second view, and therefore there are two views, and therefore both should be presented equally.

That argument is typically a tool used by leftist tyrants-in-waiting, to miscast and EXCLUDE from free speech, the people who are against such tyrants.

Speech and public expression against tyranny are to be championed.

The above author, as much as I may agree with him on the point that it would be nice to not engage in "the politics of personal destruction," has incorrectly observed and incorrectly measured and incorrectly argued for imbalance.

The national news media, academia, and the rhetoric for socialist overthrow of our foundations of liberty in the United States, has been overwhelmingly leftists and anti-American, to be blunt, for all this time; and lately, that bias has gotten worse.

For the author to so erringly miscast the stage by presenting the very few instances --- when observed in contrast to the history and context of the last 50 or more years --- is not only illogical, but unfortunately pro-typically socialist in how it furthers the cause of, to put it mildly, "the liberal media."

[stevem]

Ann Coulter is the first conservative, to the best of my knowledge, that gives back "in kind" what liberals have been doing for at least 40 years. Plus, she supports most of what she says with facts. When liberals do it, it just "stands to reason."

I've noticed when conservatives argue using any liberal tool things are suddenly "uncivil." Why hasn't it been uncivil when liberals have done it for the last 40 years. I think conservatives [using these liberal methods of] arguing is long overdue. It will be nice when we can someday get back to purely issue oriented discussions. That won't happen though, until liberals (that want to destroy every western institution)get their necks so severly stomped that they retreat to their holes and only venture forth with hats in hands asking for permission to speak. Then they only speak in whispers.

Maybe I don't know just what a traitor is, but a working definition seems to me to be a person that wants to destroy his own in favor of an enemy when such person works actively in that direction. Sounds like modern day liberalism to me.

[feedback doctor]

I, for one, think that Ann Coulter should tone it down. She is too bright to rely on invective and rhetoric.

The problem I have with Ann is what she doesn't say. She doesn't say she wants my phone number!

[thoughtomator]

First of all, Ann Coulter is correct according to the facts and the meaning of the language when she says that many on the Left are traitors. Second, AC did not create a bitter environment out of nothingness - it already existed for many years, created entirely by the attack dogs of the Clinton Administration (do you really need to be reminded how low they went?), and AC is a conservative response to it. And a quite successful one at that.

Citing AC as an example of over-the-top rhetoric is disingenuous. The finger needs to be pointing at James Carville and Paul Begala, for starters.

[M1911A1]

I like John Leo, and I also enjoy Ann Coulter. It is tempting to say that we should engage in the same tactics that our opponents have indulged in, but I agree that care should be taken here.

War is a time of extremes, yet there has to be something to return to. If winning the war on terror means turning the US into a country where political opponents are murdered, then we lose. Bringing up that idea, even for the shock value, is repulsive, no matter who does it.

[nobdysfool]

Veteran PBS star Bill Moyers, once a judicious man, recently said that Republicans are planning "the deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America."

Often, when one plans to do something like this, it is expedient to blame the truth of what is planned on one's enemies, in order to mask one's true intentions. It should be obvious that it is the Left, who intends the intentional destruction of the USA. How do they mask that? By accusing the Conservatives (ne: Republicans) of that very thing, to encourage the undecided and easily swayed to run to the Left to "protect" them from such evil, when it is the Left who plans to do that very thing. Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors.....

[woofie]

Leo is a hippopotumus

[Brian Allen]

<< Veteran PBS "star," Bill Moyers, once a judicious man .... >>

Really?

Could have fooled me that Moyers -- who once ran the Lyndon Baines Johnson "administration's" plumbers gang that both served as the inspiration for the "Nixon plumbers" and made the latter seem by comparison to be more like a girl scout outfit -- was ever, then and/or now, other than a bloody ruthless activist Goebbelsian totalitarian.