'That's Not Nice' - "Our political discourse needs more self-discipline" (re: Coulter & Maher)

Here is what has been said the past week or so that sparked argument: Bill Maher, on HBO, said a lot of lives would be saved if Vice President Cheney had died, and Ann Coulter, at a conservative political meeting, suggested John Edwards is a "faggot."

She was trying to be funny and get a laugh. He was trying to startle and get applause.

What followed was the predictable kabuki in which politically active groups and individuals feigned dismay as opposed to what many of them really felt, which was grim delight. Conservatives said they were chilled by Mr. Maher's comments, but I don't think they were. They were delighted he revealed what they believe is at the heart of modern liberalism, which is hate.

Liberals amused themselves making believe they were chilled by Ms. Coulter's remarks, but they were not. They were delighted she has revealed what they believe is at the heart of modern conservatism, which is hate.

The truth is many liberals were dismayed by Mr. Maher because he made them look bad, and many conservatives were mad at Ms. Coulter for the same reason.

I realized as I watched it all play out that there's a kind of simple way to know whether something you just heard is something that should not have been said. It is: Did it make you wince? When the Winceometer is triggered, it's an excellent indication that what you just heard is unfortunate and ought not to be repeated.

In both cases, Mr. Maher and Ms. Coulter, when I heard them, I winced. Did you? I thought so. In modern life we wince a lot. It's not the worst thing, but it's better when something makes you smile.

Thanks for your gracious post.

You are right that he cannot be replaced and yes, I recall that story of him in the hospital. We were fortunate to have had him as our President. I think we'd pay him best tribute to find the most effective ways to persuade voters.

Part of being effective is to give a voter something to look forward to. Sure, we have gone to the polls to vote to prevent a bad candidate or bad ballot item, but the goal should be to find what's best about conservatism and what we want to do.

I am not suggesting that you or others here are knuckledraggers. What I am suggesting is that while RWR is gone, we can't replace him, but we can learn from him. While it might feel good to do the quick quips, like Ann does, we are more vulnerable to these attacks than the left.

That's the way it is.

And at the end of the day, voters want hope.

Denis Boyles wrote in his book "Vile France, Cowardice and Cheese" that he was helping a coworker in trouble and it turned out that the coworker was lobbying to take away Denis's job. Denis asked for advice. His mentor said to do nothing. His punishment will be his life. That's pretty wise when it comes to dealing with people who behave badly but within the confines of the law. It always looks worse for the accuser than the accused.

There's a lot of opportunity in untapped quarters. Porkbusters is a great example of a missed opportunity to get a wide range of voters who are fed up with unnecessary spending. You would be stunned to find self identifying Dems who support Porkbusters. Just about as stunned as I still am that the Senate Minority Leader is one of the prime purveyors of Pork- there's a drag for sure.

After Kelo, there were numerous non conservatives that were outraged that the government had the power to destroy homes and destroy lives.

Lately, votes aren't as partisan as they have been and that makes for a better opportunity for R's to take the less traveled (less traveled since 96 when Newt had to resign) road and cut gov't back. It also makes us more vulnerable. Why vote for lib lite when they can get the real thing? That's what happened in 06.

This is a challenge and an opportunity. In the absence of someone pulling us together toward a shared goal, until someone comes along to carry that weight, it's pretty well up to us.

As such, every time we speak or write, that's an opportunity to build a vote.

Ann has a completely different role and that's fine.

At political functions, we don't have the luxury right now for blowing off steam for a quick quip. Politically let's pick what's the major focus and make the case rather than beat the other guy up. If we can be funny and there can be no criticism of the laugh, even better. Like "I will not take advantage of my opponent's youth and inexperience." Or "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job and recovery comes when Jimmy Carter loses his."

If we are good (and we are) we don't need to do anything else but make the argument effectively by taking away the barriers. Confrontational style is necessary for the courtroom and fun on whatever television program, but the style has to change to be effective outside those venues.

Pursue principles effectively and strongly, but do it by showing why it's good, not why the other side is bad.

These "barometers" don't actually have "prissy sensitivities", and you know that because the language that they excuse from their own is much worse than that which they condemn from us.
You are absolutely correct.
Politically Correct censorship is a Marxist device intended to destroy traditional culture and morality. It was used by the butcher, Mao, and by Stalin to silence opposition to communist tyranny.

By labeling certain words as hate speech it becomes possible to censor opposition to immorality. This is precisely the purpose of PC today. It is used to deny any criticism of homosexuality.

In each of those statements, no one is called a name. Nor is the suggestion that they would be called the bad name, should the predicate circumstance be found true, a definite promise. Each of those statements in that "passive-aggressive" formula deflects the stark crassness of bad name name calling by using verbal formula that is humorous as well as passively aggressive. The liberals use such passive aggressive formulations quite a lot, really, and some formulations with bigger bite of meanness that Ann's.

The liberals knew exactly how we would react to their tempest over nothing important.

These marxist and deconstructions and Bush-haters knew that the nanny-ist and twit-ish streak that many of us conservatives have (including myself) would produce exactly the effect it has. It would be mesmerizing to us.

Like hypnotized chickens we would peck ourselves to death over it.

Here, it is our winter, the Enemy holds both Houses of State, many of the Judicial benches and bureaucratic corner offices; they hold nearly all of the pastures of the Academy where they try to raise generations of perverted sheep, likewise they hold the prevailing strength in news, entertainment and media, wherein they are wolves to the weakened herd. Listen to Benjamin The Wise and Honorable:

The Rattle-Snake is solitary, and associates with her kind only when it is necessary for their preservation. In winter, the warmth of a number together will preserve their lives, while singly, they would probably perish. The power of fascination attributed to her, by a generous construction, may be understood to mean, that those who consider the liberty and blessings which America affords, and once come over to her, never afterwards leave her, but spend their lives with her. She strongly resembles America in this, that she is beautiful in youth and her beauty increaseth with her age, "her tongue also is blue and forked as the lightning, and her abode is among impenetrable rocks."
(source: http://fi.edu/qa99/musing3/index.html)

Join or Die.

She definitely did not call him a faggot there, she inferred that if she talked about him she would. A very minute difference yes, but the point she was making was about the PC-ness and hyper-metrosexuality of the Edwards camp. The thought police have infiltrated further than I imagined if even you can't tell the difference between an inference and a statement. I thought you were smarter than that.

You CAN'T be serious.

That's like me saying if I DID say something about Don W, I'd say he was a child molester, but since I'm not saying anything about him, he won't be miffed at me saying this.

Playing like a snotty gradeschooler who's trying to make an insult without saying it is really beneath anyone over the age of 16. Unless you believe that communicating is only about making specific statements, this doesn't pass the laugh test.

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.