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!
That might be a stretch.
Man you have no idea who wrong you've got this. You are forgetting that the station has him wired with an ear piece to feed him answers and questions when they want to from people that are supposedly brilliant.
So this wasn't just Lauer talking, this was also the best the brain trust at NBC could throw at Ann and they were terribly lacking in trying to keep up with her.
Good luck Ann with the book and increasing your personal wealth while giving us good read and show!
Great report! Thanks, as always, for the ping.
Thanks, Lancey - glad you enjoyed it. Ann was truly in rare form this morning.
Luke tried to pick a fight by calling Bush supporters "bots", liberals, and open borders people. Then tying it into their supposed disdain for Coulter.
You two Bush supporters said you won't and haven't attacked Ann. Let me ask you this, are you liberals and are you for open borders? Cause that's what Luke also said about you (all Bush supporters).
As for me, I like Ann sometimes and sometimes not. She is powerful for our cause in her way, but sometimes I disagree with her approach and if so, I don't mind saying it.
I'm for a fence or wall on the border.
I'm prolife, pro second amendment, pro military and before Bush won the nomination in 2000 my candidates were going to be either Dan Quayle or Phil Gramm. I also proudly support and respect the current President...in general, if not in every detail on every issue. I don't know anyone I'm THAT in sync with.
I feel like Ann Coulter to Luke's Matt Lauer. What was that Luke said about liberal Bush bot open borders anti Coulter people? Never mind, it already isn't a fair fight and I'll stop right here.
Yeah....Bush seems hypocritical when he doesn't take strong action on illegals. He's fighting terror all over the world and yet is all for immigration to walk right over in our country without a second thought.
Coulter: "I consider them the same thing. We didn't invade Guatemala." ]
LoL..... only missing is the Duuuugh.. <<- but was implied...
I don't know anyone I'm THAT in sync with.
BINGO, I don't either. One thing I was a little dismayed with Ann about was when she was so strident against the Miers nom. It wasn't because I disgreed with her, but she was getting on my nerves screeching about it. She was right, though.
No worries, it was funny.
One might ask why the ludicrously named "Republican Majority for Choice" requests "festive attire" at their award ceremonies.
Yes the post did indicate just exactly that. That if you "trash" Ann you must be a lib, and that was aimed specifically at FReepers. But added to it was that it's pro Bush "libs" "trashing" her, plus these are the same ones who are for open borders.
My post showed clearly I'm no lib - pro life, pro gun, pro military (forgot to add pro tax cuts) and supported Quayle or Gramm before Bush in 2000. I support a fence on the border, exactly what Tom DeLay supports. I don't trash Ann...but like you, might disagree with her approach at times.
At the same time, I support this President! I don't know anyone I'm completely in sync with on all details of everything, and you say the same is true of you. We make sense!!!
I don't know. In that context the topic was having the courtesy, decency, (and I guess to some extent the balls), when you mention another poster to ping that poster to the comment. To mention a poster without pinging him/her to the comment is discourteous (and might also be interpreted as cowardly talking behind the person's back).
If you're not too busy being obtuse, review your post #161. Some people would regard that post as obscene, while others would just regard it as profane. Either way, you manage to make your opponent appear the intellectual superior in your argument.
Don't be embarrassed. It's not everyday that a typo makes you look like a rather cunning linguist.
Congratulations!
http://www.jaygaskill.com/liberalismasreligion.htm
WHY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PARTISAN “LIBERAL” LEFT ARE LIKE CONVERSATIONS WITH RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS:
For Them, Political Liberalism is a Secular Religion
An Irreverent Analysis
by
Jay B. Gaskill
Copyright © 2004 by Jay B. Gaskill
He is referring to me. If he was referring to Cindy Sheehan, I'd have to examine his brain and her eyes as well!
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.