For your information:
Buffoon
Conservative Commentator - NOT a Buffoon
Posted on 06/28/2006 5:10:56 AM PDT by libstripper
June was a very good month for Ann Coulter. Was it a good one for her millions of enemies and the future of the world? Hard to say.
On June 6, the day her fifth book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, arrived in bookstores, Ms. Coulter appeared on NBC’s The Today Show. The conversation with Matt Lauer began as a civil debate, but a barely concealed gleam in Mr. Lauer’s eyes suggested the host had a poison arrow waiting in his quiver.
And then it flew: His last question concerned a section in her book about the four 9/11 widows who dubbed themselves the “Jersey Girls,” and who became national figures for demanding an investigation into how the Bush administration might have prevented 9/11 and who later campaigned for John Kerry. In her book, Ms. Coulter calls them the “witches of East Brunswick,” describing them as Democratic Party pawns sent out onto the political stage because of their victim status, as “messengers whom we’re not allowed to reply to,” let alone criticize.
Mr. Lauer read Ms. Coulter’s words: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
(Excerpt) Read more at observer.com ...
I shall seek that one on my next trip to the book store. :)
From what I can tell--and I don't watch him a whole lot anymore--he's a "populist", kind of like what Al Gore was trying to be in 2000. He poses as a fighter for "the little guy". "We're watching out for you" or something like that is his line, isn't it?
So, sometimes BOR is on the conservative side, and sometimes he's on the liberal side...because his "guiding" principle is what he perceives as the "common man's interest".
marking
You're right. Great article.
John Kerry = "dorcus erectus." Oh, Ann, I love you.
I'm almost done with the book....now I think I'll go buy the CD.
For your information:
Buffoon
Conservative Commentator - NOT a Buffoon
I have the same attitude about NPR. I listen to it because it's like signals intelligence. The folks they interview express unguarded liberal opinions and sometimes they reveal plans and intentions that they might reserve on TV or on a MSM news program. Most of the time, on TV, liberals just go down the talking points. On NPR, they depart from the script and openly tell what's in their conniving hearts.
“Oh, I like that!”
What would you do your first 100 days?
“Deport all liberals.”
Where would you send them?
“It doesn’t really matter. Just get them out. And then I wouldn’t need to do anything else, because it’s really a great country.
One can dream...
I understand the point you're trying to make, but what you wrote actually proves my point.
I chose my words carefully and deliberately. I did not say O'Reilly has no "set of standards or principles", I said he has no COHERENT set of standards or principles. The difference is crucial.
In your final sentence you yourself acknowlege that he flips back and forth because his "guiding" principle is what he perceives as the "common man's interest". Again, it's all about what HE believes, feels, etc.
In contrast, my usage of the term "principles" with regards to political or social issues is based on the social compact as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and codifed in the Constitution.
For example, in basic terms, the Constitution is simply the listing of the governmental powers and authority which the People have delegated to the government for our benefit (IOW, for "the little guy"). Those powers are specific and "enumerated", hence the derivation of the "principle" of "limited government" which we as a nation so hypocritically proclaim that we love.
We are supposed to have "a government of laws, not of men" (another of those platitudes we pay lip service to), and according to the "principles" upon which this country was founded it is the Constitution (i.e. the Law, carefully enumerated, and limited), not Bill O'Reilly, which is the designated protector of the rights and property of "We the People" (the "little guys", the "big guys" and everyone in between).
O'Reilly is too ignorant or stupid to grasp these concepts. In his mind, whatever the issue or problem at hand, it is perfectly okay to use the coercive power of government to solve it, and the determinant of how that should be done is simply his opinion. It never even occurs to him to question whether the government is legitimately or lawfully empowered to butt in. The concept or principle of "a government of laws, not of men" is simply alien to him.
As a bloviating commentator, the damage he can do is limited, and on some issues he will actually do some good. If he ever acquired any real power and authority, however, he would be a frightening and dangerous demagogue.
Terrific interview!
Example:
"Do you think liberals were bummed out about Al-Zarqawi getting blown up?"
“Yes, well, naturally they were bummed out, because that got Al Qaeda mad at us, and we have been getting along so beautifully until then.”
And, she's hilariously funny in the face of truly meanspirited and hateful personal attacks:
"...did she hear about the vulgar comment Mr. Penn made in the article about his Ann Coulter doll, and how he liked to burn its private parts with a cigarette?"
“Oh, right.”
That’s gotta be as offensive as things you’ve said?
“I don’t think I’ve said anything offensive. Well, I was not surprised to find out that Sean Penn plays with dolls. I did think they’d be larger and inflatable.”
Oh, that woman...
Bill is actually simple to understand. It's all about Bill, all the time.
Dan Rather’s legacy?Courage, Dan. Courage!“There’s only one thing he’ll be remembered for: listening to that nut foaming at the mouth and putting those fake National Guard documents on air,” she said. “That’s it! He’s a good example of someone who’s a pompous blowhard without much intellectual firepower, who gets pushed into taking positions to suck up to power. I mean, if Dan Rather were in a world by himself, I don’t think he could come up with an idea on his own. But it shows you the cultural influence of liberalism. That’s just what he goes along with. I’m sure if he lived during the Crusades, he’d be a leading crusader.”
He did have a lot of power for a long time, right?
“Yes, well, all three networks did,” she said. “That’s why liberals are going crazy now. They’re becoming like the Sunni insurgency without the physical courage.”
"Combat veteran" Murtha. Did you know he was wounded? Twice even!
Speaking as someone who worked for Victoria years ago, I am having a touch of schedenfraude.
That may be the wittiest two word one liner I have ever seen on FR!
I believe I'd have to sit down as well...
Speaking as someone who worked for Victoria years ago, I am having a touch of schedenfraude.
Do tell!
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.