Posted on 02/11/2006 1:56:55 PM PST by george76
Ann Coulter...was definitely Friday’s biggest draw at CPAC 2006.
From the get-go the conservative columnist had the crowd cheering and was frequently interrupted by applause.
Many of Coulter’s talking points came from recent news events -- such as “the great Danish cartoon caper” and President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees.
“Muslims are the only group who kill because people call them violent,” she said of Islam’s rage over the printing of Muhammad cartoons.
Speaking about the nation's highest court, Coulter not only expressed elation at Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation, she also shared her feelings on Chief Justice John Roberts ...
She had fun impersonating Sen. Hillary Clinton, mocking Clinton’s MLK Day remarks on “the slave plantation” in the House of Representatives, adding: “And you know what I’m talkin’ about, girlfriend.”
“I can say that by the way,” Coulter said. “My party freed the slaves.”
Democrats have three major planks, she explained: “Abortion on demand, gay marriage and banning the Boy Scouts.
Someday they’ll find a way to combine them all and figure out how to abort all future Boy Scouts.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humaneventsonline.com ...
correct
""For us, it is a fundamental First Amendment case," John Roberts, executive director of the Massachusetts branch of the ACLU, told Boston Globe Wednesday."
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/index.html
"ACLU staff attempts to censor expression and later assaults political demonstrators and attempts to destroy a framed work of art! ACLU tries to suppress distribution of educational leaflets at fundraising meeting in San Francisco -- on the 200th anniverary of the passing of the Bill of Rights! Read the leaflet the ACLU did not want anyone to see!"
Appears to me that John Roberts speaks with forked tongue.
"However when the message you're trying to get across is made by simplistic points that sound more nationalistic than patriotic on foreign affairs and more partisan than conservative on domestic affairs, in the long run I don't see exactly how that can help the conservative cause. All you've created is an army of blind that pull down the R lever without thinking. As if they're voting more against the Democrats than voting for the Republicans."
I agree that blind party-line voting is unthinking and long-run unproductive, but I disagree with your argument that her "simplistic points" are not good in the long run for the conservative cause. Assuming she is purely "simplistic," remember that Rush Limbaugh does the "simplistic points" spiel for the GOP, and it has helped educate people, as a basic rote education is necessary to progress to higher thinking. We agree, I'm sure, that conservatives are dangerously absent and far undereducating the young, abdicating that responsibility to public schools rife with liberal bias. While Limbaugh educates and reinforces those newly spouted into the daily grind, workers who would otherwise be prey to the left, Coulter does much to win us supporters on the worst battleground of all, the collegiate world.
I think she's also educating for the folks watching Limbaugh, Hannity, and that blowhard O'Reilly, who need shown there are not just Republican party hacks but conservatives out there. Her next-step commentary, if repetitive, at least makes those skulls full of Limbaugh-fed mush into not blind loyalists at all, but people willing to question the Constitutionality of government action regardless of which party runs it.
I would also contend that nationalism IS generally patriotic at least on foreign affairs, though I think we may reasonably disagree as to where the line is drawn between nationalism and patriotism, and I think we probably do agree as to nationalism in the unitary sense inside the U.S. having been being a Constitutional error of the highest order. As to 'voting against' Democrats, while she has been a stalwart supporter of the GOP, she has done so visibly on the basis of conservative causes alone. Her public cheerleading of the GOP when conservative and just as public spanking of the GOP where it is not would tend to drive conservatives into the GOP flock and RINOs out. It would, to my mind, not push people into the no-Rats mindset, but into viewing the GOP as a home for conservatives and moving the party in that direction as well. This is the ideal result we all hope for, is it not, a Constitutionalist party with big name recognition and ballot access?
Here is the meat of your statement, which is the same as those generally supporting Roberts:
Roberts will prove to be a very good conservative justice in the mold of the man he replaced.
Why should we have had to wait for him to evidence that 'good conservative' nature on the SCOTUS? What was preventing the nomination of an already proven conservative jurist instead of a stealth nominee? Ann was making that point, and every comment you excise is to that effect or not a personal attack on Roberts at all.
Ann said "Bush decided to disappoint all the groups"--President Bush DID disappoint those Hispanics, women, and blacks with Roberts' nomination that had expected an affirmative action nominee. Are you disagreeing?
Ann called Roberts a "blank slate"--Roberts IS a judicial blank slate, albeit a skillful and articulate one, and the Chief Justice to boot. Are you demonstrating otherwise with the statement that he will prove himself? No, you're showing that she's right!
Ann compared Roberts credentials to those of "Larry Flynt's attorney"--this is a false summation; she said "We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney." There is no 'comparison' in the sense that she is saying Roberts is scum, as you imply--she is making the point that having argued cases before the Supreme Court does not make Roberts conservative.
"Ann said, 'Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.'"--She has not been demonstrated wrong. As you admit, we are left with waiting for Roberts to 'prove' himself.
"Ann made an analogy of Roberts to Johnnie Cochran."--The same sort of inaccurate paraphrase as above. She did so in the context of refuting the contention that since Roberts argued against Roe means he also would rule against it, even in light of his dissociation from those cases--a dissociation she feels should be incredibly disappointing to conservatives in light of the subject matter (which is where the Cochran 'comparison' comes in). She said nothing about how Roberts is a scumball LIKE Cochran, which is what you imply.
"Ann said compared calling Roberts a conservative the equivalent of calling Souter a reliable conservative."--And? Show in the record where his federal rulings demonstrate otherwise! You're the one now saying he will 'prove' himself.
"Ann equated Roberts to a 'welfare queen'." Now you're just being silly. Not even close to what she actually did. Ann pointed out that the RNC was touting Roberts' work in Barry v. Little, which was argued by Roberts before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients. Her comments were not to liken ROBERTS to a welfare queen, but to ask why the RNC would consider work by Roberts FOR welfare queens demonstrated his conservative credentials--her quote was "now apparently Republicans want to pretend we're the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too."
"Ann called Roberts nomination a 'Rorschach blot.'"--OMIGOD! A Rorschach blot!?!?! Just call her an elitist and sexist and get it over with, I'm with you now! /blistering sarc
Look, there was plenty of time to demonstrate Roberts' credentials prior to the nomination and the RNC couldn't do so, so it attacked and continues to attack any doubters personally. The same thing happened with Miers, though Roberts in contrast was extremely well-credentialed and personally magnetic enough in hearings to convince the public and conservatives to give him a chance. But we should not have had to be convinced, should not be rooked into giving him a chance--when, having provided the bulk of Bush's votes as the Republican activist core, he should be loyal to US. We should KNOW that a nominee is conservative and be as certain as can be about the rulings to come before appointing a man for life to a seat on the new Imperium, and that's the point Ann makes. Any other characterization of her comments is unfair and false.
As to the Freeper bet, it might have been me. I offered a bet but I thought nobody took me up on it, as I recall. I'll have to check.
"But Ann, you previously claimed the slavery-luvin' Dems of the 1860s were the "true conservatives" and being "driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism", and that whole little skirmish from Lincoln and Grant had NOTHING to do with slavery. Now you call yourself a proud Republican and say "our party" freed the slaves. Can you PLEASE make up your mind on this issue? (And what's with someone allegedly "from Connecticut" described union Republicans as "crass yankee capitalism". Something wrong with capitalism or yankees, Ms. Coulter?)"
When did she say this? Could you post a link to such?
I have a number of conservative friends who started doing this well before I wised up. No more $$ to RINO Central (RNC). The same friends tell me this is trending up.
"Geez, you all need to get over yourselves."
Actually, we all need to get over the GOP Big Tent, and we are doing so in increasing numbers.
But look at the positive side. There ought to be much more room in the Big Tent for you party-above-principles types, what with the exodus of 30%+ of your base--so you'll be able to fit a lot more RINOs into that tent now.
Good luck...
Well, we seem to be doing just fine without you.
Perhaps, but this is from Fox News as posted on another thread today: "...many conservatives in attendance [at CPAC] told FOXNews.com that policy differences with the White House, particularly over illegal immigration and federal spending, are major concerns siphoning off the GOP's electoral base."
I wish I could bring you happier news, I really do. The storm signals have been around for some time now. Unfortunately for the Big Tent troops, the White House, the RNC, and Congressional funds solicitation committees remain locked into a firm state of denial. They have only themselves to blame.
And many DID NOT.
It was an accurate summation. You conviently left out the 'credentials'. Ann did in fact compare credentials. And it is Ann who is making the association to Larry Flint's attorneys. I accurately summed up what Ann said. If there is any implication, it was from Ann.
I really don't care to refute every point, but I will say I am confident that Roberts will be a great conservative Supreme Court judge and Ann's assult on Roberts will be proven wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. Roberts credentials at the time of his nominations were sufficent enough, IMHO. 30-years of work supporting almost exclusively conservative causes including time in the Reagan White House and time with Rehnquist convinved me. The couple of cases where Roberts was on the liberal side were cases where he was doing a favor for a collegue. These cases were unfairly used against Roberts when the circumstances behind them were revealed.
In the case of Miers, I agreed that she was not qualified and did not have enough conservative credentials to be nominated. I was very critical of Bush on that. Alito was a strong comeback.
As to the Freeper bet, it might have been me. I offered a bet but I thought nobody took me up on it, as I recall. I'll have to check.
No, it was with anti-guv. If I had seen your bet, I would have taken it up. I initiated and made the bet.
I wouldn't bet the ranch on that because it is not a static issue. The trend seems to be an increasing one. The only thing that could pssibly change it would be for the usual suspects to reverse the engines and apply hard right rudder. Whether there is enough time in which to bring about such a miraculous recovery is doubtful but not impossible. For all our sake, I hope they come to their senses quickly.
So you're going with the "We're doomed" theory?
Good to know.
I can agree with that. For some reason Coulter just annoys me. But I can also see your point
There are many such examples. Here's an exact quote from a Feb. 2000 Ann Coulter column:
"It [the confederacy] stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism, which was better at manufacturing weapons than using them, and that shortly thereafter gave us the Grant administration and the Gilded Age.
It stands for a proud military heritage shared by both blacks and whites in the South. The reverence for tradition and pride in historical antecedents are precisely what make Southerners, black and white, such stalwart patriots.
If the Confederacy can be tagged as a tribute to slavery, how is it that the American flag has gotten a pass so far? Slavery existed far longer under Old Glory than under the Stars and Bars.
This is from the SAME women who said she wouldn't call herself part of the "religous right" because conservatives from New England didn't identify "with that kind of culture". Odd that she identifies with "confederate hertiage" so much then. One would think she just panderign to readers south of the Mason-Dixon line. Many black conservatives have pointed out Ann "I'm from Connecticut" Coulter's bizaree statements.. Here's one such article from conservative Gregory Kane.
Commentary: Coulter’s Take on Berry’s ‘Mau-Mauing’ Reveals Her Own Insecurities
Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2005
By: Gregory Kane, BlackAmericaWeb.com
In those rare moments where I’m actually embarrassed, I have a standard quip that eases the burden: “I’m used to being embarrassed. I’m a black conservative.”
Well, it’s pull-the-paper-bag-down-over-my-head time again, courtesy of Ann Coulter, who for the purposes of this column is Miss Ann Coulter, and I give not a tinker’s dam whether she pardons the pun.
Coulter is the conservative author and columnist who can match wits and words with the best of them. She’s fairly good-looking, but she’s no Halle Berry (More on that later.)
I pondered whether I should pick up Coulter’s latest work — How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) — when I saw it in a local bookstore recently. I’ll have to admit, I hesitated. As a black conservative, I do indeed have trouble talking to liberals. It’s almost as vexing as talking to white conservatives who are totally clueless on the matter of race.
In How To Talk To A Liberal, Coulter unleashes her inner clueless white girl, and lets her run buck wild for well over 300 pages. Oh, it’s not all bad. Her pieces on the 2000 presidential election, and how the U.S. Supreme Court got it right while the Florida Supreme Court got it wrong, are classic. So much for President George W. Bush “stealing” that election. But on matters of race, Coulter couldn’t get a clue if it pimp slapped her.
“(Halle) Berry successfully mau-maued her way to a Best Actress Award … ” Coulter wrote of Berry’s winning the Oscar in 2002 for Monster’s Ball. Then, after that gratuitous bit of race-baiting, Coulter accused Berry of some race-baiting of her own to win the Oscar when the sultry actress pointed out — correctly — that black actors and actresses still have trouble getting some roles.
You see what’s going on here, don’t you? Coulter had no problem with Denzel Washington winning an Oscar the same year. His was “deserved,” according to Coulter. It was Berry — despite a near unanimous consensus that she did indeed turn in the best performance by an actress that year — who “mau-maued” her way to an Academy Award.
This is nothing but catty hater-ation. What bothers Coulter is not Berry’s “mau-mauing,” but the knowledge that she’ll never even come close to being as fine as Berry is. Memo to Miss Ann: put your claws back in, dear.
Coulter really got buck wild on the issue of the Confederate battle flag, which still bugs a lot of black folks. It doesn’t bug me as much. I’m more concerned that Coulter all but accused Berry of terrorism, probably the better to increase her street cred with the David Duke wing of American conservatives (How this slight escaped those black folks who vigilantly ferret out every offense to the race is beyond me.). But Coulter said enough things wrong in defending the Confederate battle flag that are worthy of correction.
“Man for man,” Coulter wrote, “the Confederate army was the greatest army the world had ever seen”
That would actually be the Zulus under Shaka, and any military historian worthy of being called one would tell Coulter that.
Southerners fly the Confederate battle flag, Coulter contended, to commemorate their glorious military heritage, not because of racism. But then she slipped and let in a little truth.
“The Ku Klux Klan did not begin using the Confederate flag until the fifties,” Coulter wrote. That’s true, but the total truth is that it wasn’t just the KKK. Southern state legislatures, schools and plenty of non-KKK folks found new love for the Confederate battle flag in the 1950s. If Coulter wanted to be honest, she could have given the precise date.
May 17, 1954.
Yes, the Confederate battle flag flew highly and proudly after the Supreme Court ruled segregated schools unconstitutional. Wherever the forces of integration clashed with those of segregation there were good ol’ Bubbas waving the Confederate flag and yelling about how they’d die before they let nigger boys into their schools and rub up against white gals like, well, like Ann Coulter, for example. THAT was the battle the neo-Confederates wanted to wage when their precious flag made its reappearance in the 1950s. It would be refreshingly honest if they — and Coulter — would simply admit that.
Links to Ann's original quotes and people's take on them can be found here:
www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/kane127
www.stopanncoulter.com/20050322.html
www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter021500.asp
Actually, Ann came out strong against BOTH Miers and Roberts. Ann was 1 for 2.
Your words, not mine.
Realism would point to very little being done to return to a conservative direction. Bad news for the conservative base but good news for the party-above-principles GOP Big Tenters.
Your hyperbole renders you impotent.
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.