Coulter's Crudeness

Boston Globe ^ | 6/19/06 | Cathy Young

[soccermom]

Her message IS getting out. Now, when the media trots out Cindy (my son's coffin is my soapbox) Sheehan or Mike (Bush killed my son's killer and all I got was this lowsy attitude) Berg EVERYONE is saying, "look, they're doing just what Ann said they do."

LOL! "Now"? As opposed to before? It was already apparent to anyone with half a brain what the tactic was. Do you honestly think there are moms sipping coffee in their bunny slippers going, "Tsk, tsk -- I guess Ann was right, I never noticed that before!" The only thing they're talking about regarding Ann is the mean things she said. As for Sheehan ---- pssssst --- no one (other than the press) was taking her seriously before Coulter's book. No one even knew who the Jersey Girls were before Coulter's book. It is not the tactic that is being discussed -- it is the "poor" Jersey girls.

Do you remember the Wellstone memorial? Do you remember the avalanche of Republican victory mere days after that? Do you remember the Republican candidate won Wellstone's seat? The American people were onto the whole exploitation of the victim thing long before Coulter's book. The "victim" "strategerie" rarely works. The Jersey Girls didn't succeed in getting Kerry elected. No one was ever buying it. So, whoop dee doo! Coulter saw where the parade was heading and jumped in front of it. BIG DEAL!

[pissant]

So your thesis is that only rock ribbed conservatives buy Anns books, huh? That's funny. Then her publisher should just advertise in National Review, on Fox, and in other right leaning publications then. But that's not all they do. They get a display in the front of the bookstore, which sells thousands of extra copies. They advertise in "mainstream" publications like People and Time. They book interviews on the the Today Show and Good Morning America, which very, very few conservatives watch.

So no one in the mushy middle bought Michael Moores book, or Hillary's, because they received glowing reviews in the NY Times, or were recommended by Oprah Winfrey? It's nonsense. People gravitate to what's hot. Sure, the majority of Ann's sales come from conservatives, already pre-disposed to her point of view, but to have the staying power she has had, lots more people are buying them as well. Some just to find out what all the hullabaloo is about. That's why Hugh Hewitt is in the bargain bin and Ann is getting multi million dollar advances.

Are you arguing that Rush's books had no effect on the middle? That the millions of copies sold only went to conservatives? That's preposterous. And he was and is every bit as controversial as Ann is now. And hated by committed leftists the world over. But he is unfazed and he has had a massive impact on American politics. Massive, not fringe. Al Franken may have had a bestseller by jumping on the Limbaugh bandwagon and writing a book that made lefties feel better, but Air America is a total dud and he has had no influence on the direction of the country, unless it was to make idiots like Babs Boxer even more stupid than she was before.

And Rush has never said that the ONLY thing he has done is validate the feelings of the silent majority of conservatives and given them a voice that reflected their own thinking. I'm glad your thinking was validated. But he also flipped untold thousands of people from moderate or liberal to our side. That is a fact and he even talks about it from time to time. How many callers to his show have credited him with changing their outlook on politics. They are too numerous to keep track of.

If you have read Ann's books, then you will know that almost every topic she adresses she does so with research and humor and truth. Has she been wrong before on a particular subject? Yep, just like anyone who writes for a living is.

And something you do not realize, is that she is massively popular among college age kids. The brains full of mush are getting a hilarious, scathing shake up of the worldview that is dished out by pantywaist college professors and they are lapping it up. She packs every auditorium on campus she goes to, and no, its not a bunch of protestors. She is doing the dirty work of gutting the liberal establishment that these kids are immersed in; and she is far more influential than Cal Thomas, George Will, Fred Barnes, Jonah Goldberg, Mona Charen, etc, etc combined.

If this forum is an enabler of delusional people, then why are you here? Maybe David Gergen and Cathy Young and Arlen Specter will start an internet forum soon and be more to your liking with such reasoned, inoffensive blather.

If this is just a right wing equivalent to the DU, then that means that the overarching messages of DU or DailyKos and FR are equally valid or invalid.

[pissant]

That oughta be a clue right there. If our opponents give free airtime to her comments, they must have a reason for doing so.

Not quite. Rush could be on TV everyday if he wanted to.

[Jorge]

"On the surface, which is how most people look at things, they BOTH made the SAME insult of 9-11 widows. Nowhere in Ted Ralls comic did he say his comments were directed at ALL 9-11 widows."

Respectfully, sir, you are wrong. The cartoon in question is posted here: profanity alert This "cartoon" was published March 27, 2002, well before the "jersey girls" were an item with the liberals.

No, I am not wrong. I read the Ted Rall cartoon when it was first published and participated in discussion threads here on FR at that time.

Furthermore if you actually read the page you linked to, you have seen that Ted Rall specifically said his comic was directed toward the 9-11 widows he saw as "EXPLOITING exploiting their new found prominence in pursuit of their own personal fame and fortune."

Not ALL survivers of the 9-11 victims have done this and he never claimed they all did.

Finally if you read my post more slowly you might have noticed that I said "On the surface, which is how most people look at things, they BOTH made the SAME insult of 9-11 widows."

Nobody claimed their comments were EXACTLY the same, and clearly Ann's were directed at a smaller group of widows, but they both accused them of exploiting the deaths of their spouses for their own personal ends.
The writer of the article made a valid point.

[Jorge]

Clearly she is not speaking about ALL 9/11 widows. Unfortunately you seem to have fallen for the leftist smear of her and her words--the depiction of her words are completely out of context.

What are you talking about?
I've ALWAYS known Ann was NOT talking about ALL 9-11 widows, and never claimed otherwise. ANYWHERE.

It truly pains me to point this out to you well-meaning anti-AC posters here, but you argue against rhetoric you don't understand. A polemic is a legitimate rhetorical device--the truth, indeed, hurts.

The "truth"?
Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose or what?

Nobody can know whether somebody enjoyed or is enjoying the deaths of their spouses for sure, unless they get into their heart.

It was a cruel and clumsy thing to say.

And finally, you should actually try reading posts before you respond to them.

That way you won't waste time arguing with people over things they never said, and repeating old information they ALREADY knew.

Just a suggestion.

[soccermom]

Look, if you want to continue telling yourself that Coulter and Limbaugh are influential in "converting" people, you go ahead and believe that. There are a handful of cases in which that is true -- and usually that is because a conservative relative urges them to listen. It certainly isn't because they were hooked by something mean either of them said. The reality is, they validate what people want to hear.

Michael Moore advertised all over "mainstream" outlets, too. Heck, Fahrenhype 9/11 was advertised on FOX! But the demographic survey showed that it was primarily lefties that went to his movie and it didn't change anyone's vote. Ann's "staying power" comes from sycophants willing to pay to hear what they aleady know. Or were you shocked and stunned to learn that the left uses victims as human shields? Did Ann, that sharp investigative reporter, blow the lid off some top secret tactic?

Rush's impact on politics is not from converting the middle, but from motivating base. Surely, you know that. Polls consistently show 30% of the population is conservative, 30% is liberal and the remainder swings. Had Limbaugh been successful in winning over converts enough to be considered "influential" it would reflect in the polls. There would have been a permanent shift in the polls of those considered conservative. Yet the 30-30-40 rule still applies. If Rush has 20 million listeners, the majority of whom are conservative, it is not a stretch to assume that "millions" of copies were sold to conservatives. Or, in my case, I bought a few copies for some liberal relatives. It didn't "convert" them, BTW.

If you want to pretend that book sales are strong indicator of public opinion, then Hillary would be immensely popular with the American people. Someone should ask her how 50% of the population has declared they would never vote for her, when her book was a #1 best seller!

"If this forum is an enabler of delusional people, then why are you here? Maybe David Gergen and Cathy Young and Arlen Specter will start an internet forum soon and be more to your liking with such reasoned, inoffensive blather." LOL! You're illustrating my point. I don't need to "find" an internet forum "more to my liking" because I don't need to surround myself with "yes men." And I didn't say everyone who posts here is delusional, but this is certainly where a deluded person would find validation.

I think it is dangerous to cocoon one's self where everyone marches in lock step. Again, I'll point to Michael Moore. He goes on his website and preaches his bile day after day. And his sycophants go on his message boards and tell him how right he is. Pretty soon, the deluded chap starts thinking these loons actually represent the thinking of America. He actually predicted that the Election of 2002 would forever be remembered as "payback" for the 2000 election because he was sensing a rage from the voters. Instead, Republicans won in a tsunami.

When you insulate yourselves in these dens, you start to think that is an accurate reflection of society's opinions as a whole and that isn't wise. So why am I here? Because delusional people need intervention.

Here are some clues you might be deluded:
If you think a Newsmax poll is a valid reflection of public opinion, you are deluded.
If polls supporting conservative candidates/ideas are good news, but polls opposing them are "biased", you are deluded.
If you think "freeping" a poll, which by definition makes it unscientific, is a worthwhile endeavor, you are deluded.
If you think, just because it is discussed here, it is the topic of national dialogue, you are deluded.
If you think the audience of "Letterman" or "Leno" is randomly seated and that audience reaction to jokes and guests is a reflection of public opinion, you are deluded.

[soccermom]

"Not quite. Rush could be on TV everyday if he wanted to." Just not ESPN! OK, he got a raw deal there. Actually, Rush had a TV show and it didn't last long. Something about syndication problems. Now that show I actually found valuable because he was able to show clips that the dominant media would skip over. If you want to talk about someone who exposed polticians for exploiting a tragedy, Rush was a pioneer. Remember the Ron Brown funeral clip? As I said before with the RNC ad, that is the way you expose these tactics -- not by personal attacks.

[Vision]

Coulter isn't crude, she says what needs to be said.

[EveningStar]

There are several arguments that Ann's defenders have thrown out during this latest controversy:

-- "Ann is being quoted out of context."

Response: Ridiculous. Most on the right probably agree with her basic charge (that because the Jersey Girls suffered such a terrible loss, they are held to be above criticism). They just didn't like some of her harsher statements. How do you justify a comment like this? "...how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy..."

-- "The people on the Left are far worse than Ann."

Response: True, but so what? Because the other side stoops to cheap shots, we can too, just as long as our side's cheap shots are slightly milder?

-- "You can't compare Ann to Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Ted Rall. They lie. Ann tells the truth."

Response: I'd like to believe, that but can you prove it? There are some folks on our side who are already disputing Ann's arguments in the Darwinism section of her book.

[pissant]

The reality is, they validate what people want to hear.

The reality is they tell the truth, and thinking people are attracted by the truth. Why is that hard for you to fathom? You keep bringing up Michael Moore. The author mentions Ted Rall, for crap sakes. Those two are certifiable, absolute liars. The service that Rush and Ann and Medved and Hewitt and all the rest perform is not only explaining conservatism, but exposing the insidous lies of the left. The left and the right are not morally equivalent. They cannot both be correct. Either there were communists spies infiltrating our gov't or there weren't. Either tax cuts stimulate economic growth or they don't. Either we are winning the battles in Iraq and Afghnistan, or we are losing. One side is generally honest, the other side is delusional. And the mushy middle does not know up from down in the political and culture war that is going on.

If Rush was not influential, would there be scores of talk radio hosts all accross the country right now? If Rush was not influential, would the MSM be so bitterly opposed to him. If Rush was not influential, why have the demonrats consistenly searched for the left's Rush Limbaugh? They have tried time and time again, and they always will fail, because you have to be fact based and more often correct than not, to be a Rush Limbaugh. The left cannot do that. Their worldview doesn't allow for accurate evaluations of society.

If Ann Coulter is getting college kids at Princeton, Michigan, Stanford, and all points in between to read her books, do you not think that some are going to "see the light" and realize what leftism really is? Don't you think that by flinging out over the top, headline attracting zingers, that Ann is getting exposure that Dorothy Rabinowitz, Mona Charen, and Phyllis Schlafly never get? When was the last time you saw Kathryn J. Lopez on the Jay Leno show. Or Matt Lauer get a much deserved public wedgie from Robert Bork?

Ann thrusts herself into the medias consciousness because she has chosen to fight fire with fire and in their arena.

Fine by me if you don't like her. Fine by me if you think she's a detriment to conservatism. But for pete's sake, at least understand that the left and the right are not two sides of the same coin.

[Tribune7]

You keep bringing up Michael Moore. The author mentions Ted Rall, for crap sakes. Those two are certifiable, absolute liars.

Of the many differences that's the most relevant. Ann has yet to be caught in a lie.

[pissant]

She does, and she says it in a way that some don't like, but apparently many others do.

[pissant]

She's made her share of errors, taking things out of context. But she does not rely on lies to make her arguments.

[pissant]

Here are some clues you might be deluded:

If you think a Newsmax poll is a valid reflection of public opinion, you are deluded.

If polls supporting conservative candidates/ideas are good news, but polls opposing them are "biased", you are deluded.

If you think "freeping" a poll, which by definition makes it unscientific, is a worthwhile endeavor, you are deluded.

If you think, just because it is discussed here, it is the topic of national dialogue, you are deluded.

If you think the audience of "Letterman" or "Leno" is randomly seated and that audience reaction to jokes and guests is a reflection of public opinion, you are deluded.

No those would imply that one is ill informed and has a poor grasp of the media & polling.

These are examples of delusion:

Thinking that marxism and socialism can work well if we just have the right leaders

Thinking that GWB and Cheney wanted to conquer Iraq for its oil and to give Halliburton stock a big boost

Thinking that Jimmy Carter was good for America

That the founding Fathers were just a bunch of rich white oppressors, whose accomplishments need to be minimized in school history books

That America is the biggest "terrorist" state.

[Jorge]

-- "The people on the Left are far worse than Ann."

Response: True, but so what? Because the other side stoops to cheap shots, we can too, just as long as our side's cheap shots are slightly milder?

Exactly.

And I think that rational is what's behind the fact that Ted Rall was roundly condemned here, while Ann Coulter is defended for making comments basically of the same nature.

And of course there's the hair splitting distinctions they use to try to excuse their hypocrisy.

And if all else fails you are dimissed with " well you just don't like Ann Coulter". Really weak.

The fact is I love Ann Coulter and always cheer for her when they put her up against the libs on TV.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with every word she writes.

This comment was way over the line.

[EveningStar]

I'm not a "hate-Ann" person either. I don't care for the comments about her appearance and marital status by some here.

[ChessExpert]

Something else for the liberals to get upset about:

“When our troops came under a bloody attack in Somalia in 1993, President Clinton ordered a humiliating retreat - on the advice of John Murtha. ... perhaps out of force of habit, Clinton pulled out before finishing.”

[pissant]

I think liberals cheered our retreat in Somalia

[ChessExpert]

I think what you say is true.

There is a double meaning (unless there is a third). One usually has to read Ann carefully.

[Texas Eagle]

So-o-o-o-o, Cathy, baby. What was the Boston Globe's position on Ted Rall's cartoon?