Posted on 11/08/2002 7:45:30 PM PST by parsifal
In July 2002, freeper tlbshow picked up on a thread on a certain rat underground website. It seems one of the dems had actually bothered to read Ann Coulter's book, "Slander" and thought her analysis of democratic and leftish problems was correct. The brave rat posted his/her thoughts on the dem website and drew a firestorm. The Dem article is reproduced here in full:
I just went to one of the "bad places." Is this the article you were referring to:
Ann Coulter is Right - And I Am Reeling" Posted by khangaskhan on Jul-03-02 at 11:46 PM
I just finished reading Ann Coulter's new book, Slander. As much as it pains me to admit, she is right. Not about our underlying philosophy, but about the way we politick. We Democrats, and particularly we Liberal Democrats, are far too busy name-calling and acting like elite self-righteous snobs, to dirty our hands with the problems of the working class. I do not say this lightly and am reluctant to say it at all for fear that it will end up on some right-wing moron website.
But the charges that Ann Coulter so devastatingly levels at us are true. If the only victims of our attacks were Republicans and the right wingers, then it would not matter. They deserve it. But I believe that we have almost fatally wounded ourselves as a party in the process. We do not debate fairly because we do not understand what we are all about. We substitute canards and slogans for thought.
Let me give you an example. I remember reading about a study of the Head Start program. The study noted that by the fourth grade, there were no significant differences between those students who attended Head Start and those who didn't. The Neanderthals, of course, wanted to discontinue funding for Head Start. And our side. . .the good guys. What was our response? Well, we called them neanderthals. How could they be right? They're neanderthals. They're greedy. They don't like poor children. They're racists.
Do you see our methodology? They rely on a study. They make a logical, cogent point. We simply call them names and rely upon our own reputation for self-righteousness. Then....we wonder why these guys are murdering us on talk radio. They understand just enough of the situation to be dangerous (and wrong). But do we "tell the rest of the story?" No. Do we respond with reason? Do we respond with logic? No. We are far too good for that. What would a liberal talk show host do, call Republicans names for two hours?
We are the "right kind of people", you see, and they aren't. And if you don't believe this, then read Slander. I expected to find a book of right-wing blonde-bimbo-babble. And through the first few pages I was not disappointed. But somewhere around page 10, I began to get an uncomfortable feeling. Coulter wasn't just calling us bad names—she was challenging us to debate. And debate on logical grounds. Read this, from page 10 and 11:
"But ad hominem attack is the liberal's idea of political debate. They self consciously hold themselves outside the argument and make snippy personal comments about anyone who is actually talking about something. The Republican's motives are analyzed, his intelligence critiqued, his personal life unearthed. If it were true that conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, fascist, stupid, inflexible, angry, and self-righteous, shouldn't their arguments be easy to deconstruct? Someone who is making a point out of anger, ideology, inflexibility, or resentment would presumably construct a flimsy argument. So why can't the argument itself be dismembered rather that the speaker's personal style or hidden motives? Why the evasions?"
And for the next 230 pages of text and voluminous detailed footnotes, Coulter fires salvo after salvo after salvo of truth and reality broadsides squarely amidships into us. By the end of the book, I was physically nauseated. I am not ashamed to admit that I spent the next few days in a kind of psychic shock. I even began to question whether I still believed in income redistribution, affirmative action, and gun control. The only thing that saved me was when I realized that the answer to Ann Coulter and all the other right wingers wasn't to agree with them or become them, but to simply learn how to HONESTLY DEBATE THEM. And the reason that we haven't been HONESTLY DEBATING THEM, is that we have lost touch with our Democratic roots. Ann Coulter isn't our problem, WE are our problem.
We really, on a personal level, do not know the problems of young black children and because we don't, we rely on a PROGRAM to save them. LET THEM EAT CAKE, we say. And when Marie Antoinette first said that, it wasn't a mean thing—she just didn't understand the problems of the poor. And neither do we Democrats. The point of Head Start, for example, isn't to perpetuate the Head Start program. The purpose is to provide an educational boost to underprivileged children. If the program doesn't work, then we need to change the program. If the other side points out that the program isn't working, then we should thank them. What vested interest do we Democrats have in a program that doesn't work? None.
I have long thought that our Democratic leaders have lost touch with the grass roots. How else do you explain Democratic support for NAFTA, the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, the welfare program reductions, the increased use of the death penalty, tax reductions for the wealthy, and the Democratic failure to pass meaningful living wage legislation and the failure to provide for national health care.
In our impotent rage, we simply, well, rage. But that rage can be better utilized to accomplish some good. I believe that all of us need to read the Coulter book. I think it is almost a rite of passage for us. We need to come to grips with our failures before we can take back the Congress and White House. DON'T BUY THE BOOK, just check it out at the library, or borrow it from somebody. Pick up a copy on the $1.00 shelf at Books-a-Million in few months when the new has worn off. Do not support her, but do please read her. And after you finish, let's you and I roll up our sleeves and go to work. We need to return to our roots.
If this person was going to run the democrat house I would be much more concerned
. The point of Head Start, for example, isn't to perpetuate the Head Start program. The purpose is to provide an educational boost to underprivileged children. If the program doesn't work, then we need to change the program. If the other side points out that the program isn't working, then we should thank them. What vested interest do we Democrats have in a program that doesn't work? None.
He/she's not too smart if he/she doesn't realize that everyone who works for Head Start votes LEFT. They do have a vested interest in every government program becasue that is where they get a large percentage of their votes.
The Pubbies are going to have to deal with the Dem Hydra for some time to come.
He/she's not too smart if he/she doesn't realize that everyone who works for Head Start votes LEFT. They do have a vested interest in every government program because that is where they get a large percentage of their votes.
khangaskhan, truly believed that the reason Liberals don't debate is that bringing conservatives to their glowing state of enlightenment would be like trying to bring a chimp to the understanding of higher math.
And here in lies the fallacy and the lie of Liberal/Socialism, and their phoney compassion. As history records democracy and socialism fails, and it fails repeatedly and always ends with the death rattle of a civilization or nation. But like the old joke about a man who keeps hitting himself on the head with a hammer and tells his Doctor, "Doc it hurts when I do this", and the Doctor advises, "Well, stop doing that", the Liberal insists that, given one more chance, this time the end result will be different. Liberals believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that socialism won't fail because all that it lacked to succeed in the past was the personal input of their socialist illuminaries.
If socialism's madness were not so destructive one could laugh at the incredible egos of those afflicted with the mental incapacity. But like a man who impulsively decides to go into the sheep ranching business and, against the advice of his far more experienced peers, decides to put his pet domesticated wolf in charge of guarding his flock. Things appear to go well at first as long as he keeps the wolf well fed.
And that is what socialism is, a wolf with an ever increasing appetite that can never be satisfied who begins to consume those he was mandated to care for.
It doesn't matter to socialism that the rich create jobs, Daddy Warbucks kids want to go into business for themselves and everyone benefits, or Daddy Warbucks will invest in start up companies or the stock market and everyone benefits. No socialism says that the very fact that Daddy Warbucks is ambitious, smart, and successful makes him evil, and calls on those in whom they have developed a taste for self pity and resentment to make the moral distinction that he is an evil man who has robbed them and is selfishly hording for himself what could be put to better and more noble use by them. So they rob him, punish him, regulate his abilities, and no one cared because there is no sympathy for the rich.
But the wolf, with an ever increasing appetite, begins to lower the bar on the definition of rich to include the tips of the divorced waitress at the diner with two kids. Socialism decides that the 80 year old woman who is delinquent .02 cents on her property taxes would better serve the whole to have her property confiscated and put to better use, while she herself would benefit by surrendering her independence and allow herself to be cared for by an underfunded nursing home provided to her via the theft of resources being doled out by socialism. Should she resist she is selfishly hording from socialism what it needs to cover an ever widening and thining pool of resources that is spreading over every nation as it begins not to be able to impact the very needs it was intended to cure.
Socialism is neither compassionate nor workable and this is why khangaskhan was banned. The powers that be know this already and can't have someone around who is begining to question their tactics or logic.
Well they do jump out of perfectly good aircraft with equipment provided by the lowest bidder.
Though their are rotten apples in every barrel (this place included)...don't confuse indifference and apathy to being "mean" or "hateful"...you will find many indifferent or introspective conservatives...I being one...I have a real hard time feeling someone elses pain, especailly when its self inflicted...I refuse to cry for anyone who still has bootstraps and ability to pull them...
Then you have the Jeffords, rino's who lean far left but run as republicans because the voters back home vote republican, then will jump ship when promised a better office by the democrats who use him, then toss him aside like a used coke can. Most of them are just con artists shouldering for a place at the trough, like Condit, or Martin Frost without the job they are no one and they have very little other income, other than what they have been able to pocket in office. There was an article not long ago, I forget the congressmans name who lost his seat. The "club" was glad to see him the first couple of times he paid a vist to say hello, but after the sixth visit the "club" is grousing that he doesn't know when to go home.
Raw power is an addictive drug and many could care less who they have to sell their soul to, what they have to swim through, or promise to attain it, and when they lose it, some, like the above democrat hang around and can't let go. It's hard for people like you and I to understand it, I began to give it serious thought after watching Clinton and Gore out of power. No more limos, no more private jets, no more invitations to hang with the big dogs no more cloying for their attention.
It's the same in both parties, but both parties seem to have the same goal they are strolling towards, bigger and more dominating government, and both are bought and paid for by someone with an agenda. For example, look at how angry or at least upset voters are about our open borders, this should have these poll watching, finger to the wind politicans scrambling to appease us. It's not, and there must be a reason for that. Even Clinton, who ate poll stats for breakfeast, and wouldn't make a move without them, ignored the immigration polls, why is that? Even with the horror of 9-11, instead of doing the sane common sense thing, lame and usless new legislation is put in place rather than deal with this one, critical to our protection, issue.
We keep being advised to watch what they do and not what they say, I am, and I am sure there is more to open borders than just being shy about offending the nations illegal immigrants come from. I smell the U.N. and sulphur.=o)
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.