I do believe she slapped a knot on Matt's head.
Posted on 06/06/2006 5:13:56 AM PDT by 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!
Well, that is your opinion.
The obscene part was when you said "Hey Petronski--blow it out your ass you loser."
Surely at that moment you scaled the heights of rhetorical excellence.
Careful, alnick. He's got all day to call you a loser and tell you to blow it out your ass.
Ginsburg is many things (traitor, subversive, radical, ugly, etc.), but I don't think she's a ditz. Perhaps you should look it up.
God bless the two of you. May you have a long and happy union.
Congratulations you two.
The professor pings people when he refers to them.
Yes, but of course, that is because you are so much better than the rest of us. /s
Thanks!
She didn't impress me much either.
LOLOLOLOL - Those were the days at SportsCenter!
Or at the very least, he has a bit more common courtesy than some do.
The very best example of personal animosity on this thread is "Hey Petronski--blow it out your ass you loser."
Just wow..
You're right, it's not the same thing. But as an analogy, it works well given the actions liberals have taken over the years to ensure its legality. Liberals can disagree on a lot of things, but to disagree on abortion is to surrender their ACLU membership card. I've believed for a long time the Democrat party should be renamed "The Abortion Party" to reflect what is most important to them.
I love ann coulter
it is not so much they way she slaps down the liberal arguements
anybody with half a brain and some common sense can do that
but the scorching way she points out the obvious while also pointing out the complete ignorance of the talking heads like lauer is what I really enjoy
David Horowitz complains because, over 50 years ago, there were democrats who still loved America.
Factually speaking, her book was written well after 1955. Her criticism should be taken in the context of Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - not JFK.
And while JFK was not a traitor, someone who takes mind altering drugs from 'Dr Feelgood' while POTUS isn't exactly a patriot, either!
She does write 'snarky' - but there is usually a solid line of reasoning underneath. Not always - but she takes on the liberals so often that she sometimes overextends herself.
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.