Posted on 06/07/2006 4:50:52 AM PDT by RonDog
She garnered sympathy for them. Wow. What a great thing. Not.
Ann has done an excellent job promoting conservatism and deftly pointing out the failures of liberalism and some Bush administration policies.
Those who disagree with her aren't used to the style of fighting the Left that no conservative has ever done before outside of Rush Limbaugh.
Has she really? Has she convinced anyone who was formerly liberal? She's a pet pit bull who only appeals to people who are already of like mind.
I never said "me good". And yes it might be nitpicking to choose four words to concentrate on, but I was commenting on a discussion of that exact point that was already going on.
I also never said "Ann bad", I confined my criticism to one statement she allegedly made in her book.
I have already purchased her book, like all of her previous books, and I look forward to reading it. That doesn't mean that I can't comment on whether I think that an opportunity was squandered with respect to the Jersey Girls. I think they need to be taken down a peg. I despise them as I have made clear.
I think the majority of us are able to make our own decisions about whether her rhetoric "blunts" her message.
You could say that about any topic of conversation on this forum, the idea is to discuss opinions, of course everyone can come to their own conclusions. What is your point?
As were/are most RINOs.. You can take the democrat out of the party but its hard to remove the democrat from the democrat.. i.e. Reagan was no small government republican.. Newt on the other was/is..
AMEN to that......Notice; everyone is talking about the content of her book......and Ann. We need people to wake up. If it takes Ann's writings. Great.
Unfortunately, you just contradicted yourself in your own statement above. Rhetoric and polemics are NOT "entertainment"; they are linguistic tools and techniques specifically designed and employed to penetrate the minds and get the attention of their audience, and PERSUADE them to accept or at least consider a certain point of view. It is a very deadly serious business.
However, it's not good politics in today's society...
This is also incorrect. The term "good" is vague and almost impossible to get an agreement on, but a more accurate term is "effective", and polemics are absolutely effective in today's society. In fact, it has been one of the principal means by which they Left has risen to its ascendancy. Decades of allowing them to define the terms of debate and get away with demonizing any who disagreed with them is what has brought us the politically correct insanity of "today's society".
They can pretend all they want that the mushy middle doesn't count, that soccer moms don't turn elections. Fine.
One of the intrinsic characteristics of that "mushy middle" is that their brains are so mushy that it's nearly impossible to get their attention and stimulate them to actually think. Polemics does that, by breaking through the wall of mental white noise generated by the MSM et al., and it does so to a degree that polite, dull, reasoned discussion a la William F. Buckley, etc. cannot match. After you get their attention, then it's time for the higher-level debate, but if you never get that attention you lose by default to the signal-strength of the white noise, which has been overwhelmingly Leftist for decades.
I've got seven words for them:
Pat Buchanan. "Religious War". President Bill Clinton.
A perfect example of my points above. Buchanan never said a word about "Religious War" - he said we were engaged in a "cultural war", which was and is the absolute truth. The difference is at that time the gatekeepers of the MSM totally controlled the debate, and any "polemicists" who might have been inclined to challenge the media-manufactured "backlash" against that speech did not have the internet and alternative media to give them a voice.
I'm not trying to beat-up on you; you have made some good points and have expressed yourself well and courteously. I'm simply making the case that we need to stop acting as if we only have one tool in the toolbox. I agree with you in the sense that I prefer calm, reasoned, logical discussion to bomb-throwing, but I also recognise that there are circumstances where more forceful tools must be employed.
Ask yourself "If you're trapped in a burning building and your door to escape is jammed, do you want the firemen on the other side to try picking the lock, or do you want them to take that fire-axe and break down that door?
Your fatuous rhetorical question doesn't make any sense. On the one hand AC saying nasty things won't sell books. On the other hand AC saying nasty things is meant only to sell books. So which is it?
Since she got a reported 3 mill for the advance, I'm guessing she's doing all right as a political commentator.
I haven't argued either way on whether it sells books.
I suppose some people will buy the book... But that doesn't mean she's reaching anyone other than the already angry conservative choir.
Barbara, Spielberg, the atheist groups, etc. Nope..no liberals there!
Fact of life. Most people have picked sides. If you want your side to get bigger and win more elections you have to persuade some of the other side to change their minds.
After you turn them into Republican moderates, you have to keep working on them to bring them further right.
Of course some people want to go the Torquemada route. We have to purge all these moderates.
Then after they purge the moderates, they will wonder why they lose the elections.
Maybe you think holding a coalition together to maintain the majority is way too much work.
It's a lot easier to be in the minority. You don't have to work at it. So it's always tempting.
But when you're in the minority nobody cares about your opinions, because they don't matter.
thanks, i agree...
Any relation to Franklin?
CA....
If that's true, and I think it may well be, that's my in a nut shell reason.
In your opinion then, why did they leave? Or aren't we allowed to generalize when Christians are not involved?
Most men are not liberal, so they so would not be targets. Most of them that are, melt in her presence.
Being interviewed, they sneak peeks, and forget the question they just asked, it's embarrassing. She's a big asset to the conservative cause. It's hard to understand why some FRs like to bash our effective front-liners, and that includes Gingrich, Rush and Buchanan.
Unadulterated Barbara Streisand.
>>These women that Ann Coulter so aptly and correctly refers to are mostly, if not all, American Jews. If they got their political wishes, they would be the first raped, abused and then beheaded by the Muslim terrorists that killed their husbands. And....all of this abetted and actively aided by the current Democrat "traitor/treason" Party, whom these morons support. Go figure what idiots these women are!!! Don't let up Ann Coulter, these women and the Democrat Party they support are nothing but pure scum and vermin!!! End of story!!!<<
I've tried to come up with any way to read that so it doesn't come off incredibly anti-semitic but I have failed.
Unfortunately, you just contradicted yourself in your own statement above. Rhetoric and polemics are not “entertainment”; they are linguistic tools and techniques specifically designed and employed to penetrate the minds and get the attention of their audience, and persuade them to accept or at least consider a certain point of view. It is a very deadly serious business.Let me tell you a story. I am a German living in Berlin, and I don't remember how I discovered Ann Coulter, but I remember that the first book of hers I bought was Slander (imported from Amazon USA). When I got it, I couldn't put it down and took it everywhere I went. So, one day I felt like having a big cheeseburger and went to the Hardrock Café (There's not much of a choice over here, short of McDonalds and Burger King). So, I sat there alone, eating my cheeseburger, drinking Kilkenny, and Ann's Slander was lying on the table. The waitress was a young American girl, and she immediately recognized Ann's face on the cover! At first, I thought I had made a mistake and that she was going to scold and deride me for reading such evil rightwing propaganda, but far from it: She curiously picked up the book and asked me what it was about: “Is it about her life? Or what?” We talked a bit, and she told me that she knew her from TV. It was quite apparent that she didn't even know what a liberal or a conservative is, but somehow, she admired Ann anyway: That cool woman, so pretty, so smart, making such a ruckus on TV, kicking everybody's ass![...]
One of the intrinsic characteristics of that “mushy middle” is that their brains are so mushy that it's nearly impossible to get their attention and stimulate them to actually think. Polemics does that, by breaking through the wall of mental white noise generated by the MSM et al., and it does so to a degree that polite, dull, reasoned discussion a la William F. Buckley, etc. cannot match. After you get their attention, then it's time for the higher-level debate, but if you never get that attention you lose by default to the signal-strength of the white noise, which has been overwhelmingly Leftist for decades.
Later I lent the book to several English speaking Germans (and one Brit), only one of them being a die-hard conservative (the Brit). Most of them don't know the first thing about American politics, but Ann's style got through to them, anyway: They all loved the book. Clearly, this woman had something important to say, and they all wanted to learn more about it :-)
So, yes: Her polemic does get through, and she actually doesn't repel every “soccer mom.”
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.