Coulter Won't Buy Into Lauer's Liberal Logic

Today Show/NewsBusters ^ | Mark Finkelstein

[governsleastgovernsbest]

by Mark Finkelstein

June 6, 2006

While considerable attention focuses on Ann Coulter's more superficial charms, from a conservative perspective Ann's real beauty is her absolute refusal to buy into liberal logic, no matter how pervasive. That independence of mind was on display this morning during her interview with Matt Lauer. Ann was on to tout her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, released today on . . . 6/6/6 - sign of the devil and all that.

The first example came in the the context of President Bush's current push for a constitutional amendment that would prohibit gay marriage. The liberal mantra on his initiative, as exemplified by Ann Curry's performance on yesterday's Today, is that this is a cynical political ploy and a waste of time when there are myriad 'real' issues out there to be addressed.

Right out of the box, Lauer invited her to buy into that logic. Lauer:

"David Gregory said if you ask people what they care abou they say Iraq and gas prices. Gay marriages are way down on the list, but that's what the president is talking about and what the Senate is taking up. Why?"

Coulter would have none of it:

"I don't know what people are talking about or how David Gregory knows that. But I do know that gay marriage amendments have been put on the ballots in about 20 states now and passed by far larger numbers than Bush won the election by."

Lauer then hit Ann with a classic bit of perceived liberal truth: "Here's how E.J. Dionne puts it in the Washington Post:'The Republican party thinks its base of social conservatives is a nest of dummies who have no memories and respond like bulls whenever red flags are waved in their faces.' Do you agree with that?

Coulter: "That the base are dummies or that Bush thinks that?"

Lauer: "That he can wave a red flag and they will run to the polls to respond to him?"

Coulter: "They don't need to respond to him. He's not running again."

Lauer: "They want the voters to turnout in the mid-term elections. They don't want to lose control of the congress."

Coulter: "Maybe they want to do what the voters want. Whatever you can say about whether or not Bush has a mandate, the mandate against gay marriage is pretty strong. It passed by like 85 percent in Mississippi. Even in Oregon, and that was the state that the groups supporting gay marriage fixated on and outspent their opponents by like 40:1, it passed even there. There is a mandate against gay marriage."

Lauer: "Do you think George Bush in his heart really cares strongly about that issue?"

Coulter: "I don't know what anybody cares in his heart."

Lauer: "Would you take a guess?"

Coulter: "I know what Americans think because they keep voting, over and over and over again overwhelmingly they reject gay marriage. So why is that a bad thing for politicians to respond to what is overwhelmingly a mandate?"

Ann's rejection of Lauer's liberal logic was again on stunning display a bit later in the interview. Lauer suggested that Pres. Bush's low approval ratings are attributable to Iraq. That in turn engendered the following exchange.

Coulter: "I don't think so. That's the one thing he is doing right and that the Democrats are incapable of doing. That is fighting the war on terror."

Lauer: "But I am talking about the war with Iraq, not the war on terror."

Coulter: "I consider them the same thing. We didn't invade Guatemala."

Cue the rim shot!

[ken5050]

MSM doesn't "think"

[subterfuge]

I never realized her neck was that skinny.

Neck? She has a neck?

[Redleg Duke]

Ah, the first of the "Nit-Pic-Pac" arrive to criticize!

What took you so long?

[subterfuge]

Liberal boy ditz vs. conservative girl ditz. Clash of the Titans!

Hey, your liberal slip is showing Professor.

[Red Badger]

Matt would wet his panties if he saw that!..........

[RonDog]

See also, from:

Book Review: Coulter Attacks the Cult of Liberalism
Human Events ^ | June 5, 2006 | Lisa De Pasquale
Posted on 06/05/2006 6:46:45 AM PDT by boryeulb

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," HUMAN EVENTS legal affairs correspondent Ann Coulter lays out one of the most original and perceptive philosophies on the cult of liberalism.

Get Yours FREE!

She states, "Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers' unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations ('Bush lied, kids died!'' 'Keep your laws off my body!' 'Arms for hostages!'). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through public schools where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math."

For years liberals have relied on a strategy of faking out the American public in order to win elections. Instead of accurately articulating their beliefs and engaging in an honest debate, they scour the nation for the perfect patsy. A hysterical mother who is willing to go on national television and call the President a "furor" and "evil maniac" is akin to seeing the stigmata. Liberals' ecstasy over Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, and the widows who made a spectacle of themselves in the midst of the 9/11 Commission epitomizes their secret weapon for winning back America -- a doctrine of infallibility in which victory goes to the most hysterical.

As Coulter writes:

Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to. That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering. Liberals haven't changed the message, just the messenger. All the most prominent liberal spokesmen are people with "absolute moral authority" -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, terminal illness, or as a last resort, being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela. Like Oprah during Sweeps Week, liberals have come to rely exclusively on people with sad stories...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[laotzu]

They'll be here shortly to denounce Ann...

That was damn good fight-trolling. Pity you have been proven completely wrong.

[Paine's Ghost]

If I were Bill Gates, I would buy her for my very own!!

[Redleg Duke]

"The range marshall is going to be pissed about this photo . ."

Yeah, no shooting glasses or navel showing!

[EDINVA]

GLGB: I admire your ability to watch and report on that show every day, but this interview on this day had to make it all worthwhile.

[Reactionary]

"David Gregory said if you ask people what they care about, they say Iraq and gas prices. Gay marriages are way down on the list..."

Begging the question, petitio principii. An appeal to authority. An appeal to the people. An unproven assertion.

"The Republican party thinks its base of social conservatives is a nest of dummies who have no memories and respond like bulls whenever red flags are waved in their faces."

Unproven assertion. Begging the question. Ad hominem attack.

Yeah, Lauer is some "journalist."

[subterfuge]

Weak, Ann. Very weak. The proper reply is "They are the same thing."

Bwaa haaa haaa! Weak? Oh man, that is rich. Hey Pet, ever heard of irony? If anything on this entire forum were weak, it is your reply at #39.

[LurkLongley]

The Most Impressive Thing About Ann Coulter.....ANN COULTER!

Seriously, this is a point that is not made often enough. Iraq is part of the WOT. Iraq is part of the WOT. Iraq is part of the WOT. Iraq is part of the WOT.

Rinse, lather, repeat.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks, Ed. Yes, days like today are very rewarding. It wasn't just idle, hostile sparring between the two. It was Ann absolutely routing Lauer with logic and principle. And I got to watch and report!

[Petronski]

How dare anyone criticize the great Ann!

And yet, you do not address the point of my post, you only claim it is wrong. Hmmm. Very interesting. If I were so wrong, even the likes of you could explain why "I consider them the same..." is rhetorically stronger than "They are the same..."

[subterfuge]

They're here laot. Reading comprehension problem?

[RonDog]

Human Events also says they're going to have an interview with Ann posted tomorrow.

See also THIS thread:

On The Seventh Day, God Rested And Liberals Schemed
(Godless Special Preview Alert)
Townhall.com ^ | 06/06/06 | Ann Coulter
Posted on 06/05/2006 10:06:45 PM PDT by goldstategop

GODLESS: The Church of Liberalism, Chapter One On the Seventh Day, God Rested and Liberal Schemed

They exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator. . . . Therefore, God gave them up to passions of dishonor; for their females exchanged the natural use for that which is contrary to nature.—Romans 1:25–26

Liberals love to boast that they are not “religious,” which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as “religion.”

Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers’ unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations (“Bush lied, kids died!” “Keep your laws off my body!” “Arms for hostages!”). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through the public schools, where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math.

Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah’s ark, but their belief system is taught as fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith, liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn’t Darwinism weeded out people who don’t reproduce? (For that, we need a theory of survival of the most fabulous.) And if gays can’t change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference. If they’re born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? Why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren’t we teaching children “safe littering”?

We aren’t allowed to ask...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[IronJack]

There are those who accuse Ann Coulter of being a lightweight (in any number of ways). While she has affected a facile, cavalier persona, her superiority to people like Matt Lauer is obvious. She has the kind of literal, logical mind that most lawyers only wish they had, and it serves her well in eviscerating her superficial opponents.

It's like watching an accomplished fencer toy with an enraged yeoman.

[octobersky]

Thanks for the link.

[EyeGuy]

"All too often the "conservative" guest buys into the premise and thereby distorts the argument."

Exactly.

And this is the key to refuting liberals' lies. You must reject their premise, which thanks to a cooperative mass media in the last two generations, has become accepted fact.

This fundamental disagreement with liberals at the root perception of the way the world works, is why I can no longer tolerate the company of the Left.