ANN COULTER ON HARDBALL TONIGHT (Wednesday 9th) with Chris Matthews.

TV | July 9, 20003 | self

[mr.pink]

I disagree with a ton of Lieberman's positions, but he's no anti-American.

Some would argue that having a "cafeteria style" relationship with the Constitution, as does Lieberman, is not very American.

[zook]

I don't think we ought to play this "anti-American" game so loosely. Following it to its logical conclusion, I could start calling Pat Buchanan anti-American. I could call lots of Freepers anti-American for their failure to support (and for taking swipes at) President Bush during time of war.

People on the "functional treason" kick ought to start asking themselves if this is an effective tool for increasing the power of conservatism in government or among the public. I don't think it is.

[CFC__VRWC]

Lieberman tried to win an election. There's a difference. Lieberman stood up at the time and stated that it was wrong to deny votes to overseas servicemen and women.

Maybe so, but I sure didn't see Lieberman actually DO much to try to stop he and Gore's lawyers from throwing these votes out in the courts down here. Talk's cheap.

[mr.pink]

I don't think we ought to play this "anti-American" game so loosely.

Pardon me, but I believe you were the one who started this "anti-American" game....and rather "loosely".

Myself, I'm not afraid to play any game anyone wants to play, and in any style anyone wants to play it....but unlike yourself, I won't start a "game" and the try to redefine the rules once play begins.

People on the "functional treason" kick...

Were you complaining when people like David Frum were questioning the patriotism of those who argued against the war? I was, and IMO that's also a a shabby, and loosely played game.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

I watched the interview, and you are right on the money with Coulter. I think someone at MSNBC told Chris Matthews no "popping" eyeballs for tonight's episode. CM made a butthead out of himself last week. The good thing is that a grand portion of the liberal left-wing media have gone bonkers over Ms. Coulter book. Couple that with the right wing critiques, and what you get is Ann Coulter knocking Hillary, not only off the best selling charts, but stealing all the oxygen in the room. Ms. Coulter's publisher must be having a field day. The firestorm over "Treason" has stopped all banter about Ms. Clinton's tome. And.....rightfully, it should. The Clinton tome is boring at best. I believe time will bear that out, no matter how many of her worshippers buy the book. Many of them, I believe, will never read the book at all, and certainly, never to conclusion! The liberals, unknowly, have breathed fire into Ann's "Treason" and in the process the market will soon send Hillary Clinton's book into "never-never" land will it will join her lead-in partner, Sid Blumenthal (The Clinton Wars) at six hundred something on the Amazon.com best seller list. Ann, you have just overtaken the most known and dangerous woman in America, thank you!

[mr.pink]

...and what you get is Ann Coulter knocking Hillary, not only off the best selling charts,...

I think Ann hit the nail on the head, when comparing her book to Hillary's, when she said that people who buy her book will actually read it.

I kinda' gave CM a pass on the tone of first interview as I felt he considered himself, as a democrat, unfairly smeared by Ann's broad brushwork.

Debating wise...I see them as a good match and hope to see more.

[Pharmboy]

Hmmm. Not everyone agrees with you about Marshall:

GENERAL GEORGE C. MARSHALL,



George Catlett Marshall (1888-1959) was a failed Army man starting in 1902 until 1933 when he came under the protective wings of KGB "Agent 19" Harry Hopkins and pinko Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1933 he was promoted to Colonel. In 1939 he was appointed Chief of Staff and four-star General of the Army over more than 400 hundred more qualified and senior individuals.


Marshall was deeply involved in the treason at Pearl Harbor and is the person who committed the most massive perjury about it and was the primary person responsible for ordering the destruction of Army documents concerning it (See John Toland's Infamy, 1982).


Marshall's order of October 18, 1941, to MacArthur to fight on the beaches was the basis for sacrificing 31,095 Americans at Bataan.


Marshall allowed Karl Marx to win the war. Marshall was largely responsible for the incompetent handling of the war including the second front, lack of fuel to Patton, the failure to take Berlin and Prague. See the brilliant Retreat From Victory by Senator Joseph McCarthy, Devin-Adair, 1951.


Marshall was a primary advisor to FDR during the treason at Yalta. He advised giving all concessions to Russia so it would enter the war against Japan after we had done all the dirty work. See Kubek pages 134 and 140.


Aid to the Communist takeover of China. After FDR, Marshall was the man most responsible for giving China to the Communists. Truman sent Marshall on a mission to China November 27, 1945. This mission was "one of the major factors contributing to the Red conquest of that nation" (Kubek, page 323).

Marshall had been the person who appointed the American Communist General Stillwell to be Chiang Kai-Shek's Chief of Staff. Marshall favored a coalition government giving Communists power and enforced an embargo against the Nationalists. The net result of Marshall's 15 month mission was summed up in this sober epitaph by General Chennault: "The trend of a gradually stronger central government was reversed and the military balance shifted again in favor of the Chinese Communists" (page 343, How the Far East Was Lost, Dr. Anthony Kubek, 1963).

When Marshall went to China the Communists had 300,000 badly equipped troops confined to a small area of China. He left them as 2,000,000 well equipped troops.


Truman appointed Marshall Secretary of State 1947-1949. His first order of business was to engineer the firing of anti-Communists like J. Anthony Panuch from the State Department. Communist agents flourished.


On June 5, 1947, at the Harvard Commencement he announced the "Marshall Plan" which was aid to developing countries. At the time this was the primary directive of Stalin to the Communist Party, USA - to get the U.S. to give aid to developing countries. By having Communist agents at the State Department direct the aid, the Soviet Union was able to conserve its resources while achieving all of its objectives. Marshall was Stalin's tool.



The writer's email: pha1941@hotmail.com.

---

[Eva]

Rabinowitz would have attacked her anyway. She is a liberal. She simply stepped out of character to defend Juanita Brodderick. Believe me, if she had not found Juanita credible, it would have been a very different story.

But Horowitz and some of the other non-social conservatives are frightened by the religious right, they feel just as threatened by social conservatives as moderate Democrats are feeling about the progressive take over of their party. Horowitz and Goldberg, et alias see a move to the right as a threat to the "big tent" Republicanism. So, an attack on Ann is predictable.

[JLAGRAYFOX]

Ditto! One thing is for sure. Ms. Coulter will raise Chris Matthews viewership numbers big time. Matthews has fallen badly since the Clintons left office. When he was beating up on the Clintons, he was doing just fine. Once he let up and fell back to his Democrat roots, he has gone nowhere but downhill. He does not realize that his numbers strength lies in conservative viewers rather than liberal watchers. That is exactly why Joe Scarborough's "Scarborough Country" is the most watched show on MSNBC! Matthews should wise up and get some more "red meat" guests on his show. Bland and boring Howard Fineman ain't gonna cut the mustard!

[mr.pink]

That is exactly why Joe Scarborough's "Scarborough Country" is the most watched show on MSNBC!

I don't watch Scarborough's show, but I see him regularly on Buchanan & Press and have grown to like him and his style. He seems to have a good sense of humor, and I like that when combined with sound analysis and bold opinion.... so I'll try to check it out.

Bland and boring Howard Fineman ain't gonna cut the mustard!

HF is a bore who is too timid to state any hard opinions that he personally holds. I don't mind that quality if someone has a consistently diplomatic style/nature (D Gergen comes to mind)...but Fineman plays the insider/gossip role and often comes off like an untrustworthy sneak.

[DPB101]

Horowitz and some of the other non-social conservatives are frightened by the religious right...

A damn shame, small minded and more than a little bigoted on their part. I'm not a part of the religious right but I don't view evangelical Christians as threats--they are allies. Can't think of one proposal even the most right of the religious right has made that would impact my life negatively in any way. As WFB once commented, if the religious right had its entire agenda enacted into law, which it won't, America would be much like the country he remembers as a student at Yale in the early 1950s and that wsn't a bad place at all.

[pgyanke]

Zook, I'm going to wade into the waters with you a little bit. I've read the entire thread and see you defending liberals and leftists as not necessarily anti-American.

I have to disagree with your position (in general terms).

[Before I get started, please understand that I am not calling each individual who espouses these thoughts patriots or traitors. I am dealing with the generalities of the positions (as Ann does too, BTW).]

What does it mean to be an American? According to our Founding Fathers and their like-minded progeny, those who chose to participate in this nation sought to be left alone. They suborned the State to the will of the People by instituting a Constitutional Representative Republic to ensure that we wouldn't be ruled by tyrants but governed by our fellow citizens.

Americans seek to raise their families, earn their living and worship their God without interference from the government. Government overbearance is something to be feared and aggressively fought and the second amendment was meant to give us the means, if needed.

We welcome those from foreign lands who come to add to our culture and become part of the melting pot. We despise those who come to mooch off the sweat of our brow and conform the culture to themselves. We are generous and give readily to those in need to help them get back on their feet. We do this of our own volition and according to our own values.

We see all life as precious and meaningful. No man or woman has more worth than another regardless of age, financial status, minority status or ideology. We want no kings, elites or noble class. All are equal under the law.

We are proud to be the people and nation that we are.

What does it mean to be anti-American? It means to be on the opposite side of the above issues.

You change history to reflect your agenda and ignore facts.

You are hostile to the nuclear family (pro-abortion, pro-alternative lifestyles, pro-government nanny-state). You encourage a lack of industry (welfare grants, environmental restrictions on private property, government control of industry). You prefer to have the government say when and where we may worship. You see government as beneficent and something to be welcomed and encouraged. You like to see the government produce legislation through judicial fiat rather than through representative bodies.

You welcome those from foreign lands who you can influence through the reallocation of taxpayer funds and are generous with everyone's money but your own. You see issues of right and wrong in terms of what benefits your agenda and not what is actually right and wrong.

Certain people are more equal than others.

Your world-view is influenced by your own feelings of inadequacy. When your country is attacked your first inclination isn't defense but introspection to find the flaw within. When the perceived flaw is found, it becomes the enemy rather than the enemy without. You focus on the negatives in your country, ignore much that makes this country great and are not proud of your American heritage.

Which side of the above sounds more like liberals and leftists?

[zook]

I appreciate your sharing your ideas on this. I agree with most of them. Where I differ is in understanding of the term "anti-American." I'd rather use to describe someone who seeks to destroy the country, or turn it into a fundamentally different place than it was meant to be. Certainly a lot of, if not all, leftists fit that description. A lot of "liberals" as well. Even some "conservatives" (phony conservatives in my opinion).

And yet, I shy away from the term when it comes to talking about my friends, even those who are surely liberals. For I see the term as a political tool or symbol, rather than a useful descriptive term. I'd rather engage my friends in debate than end the discussion (and the friendship) by calling them anti-American.

[pgyanke]

I'd rather use to describe someone who seeks to destroy the country, or turn it into a fundamentally different place than it was meant to be.

Here's a distinction without a difference but I'm not referring to individuals with the term. Anti-American is a term for an ideology or movement that seeks to do just what you describe.

I'd rather engage my friends in debate than end the discussion (and the friendship) by calling them anti-American.

So don't call them anti-American. Point out to them how they have been brainwashed into having some anti-American views. Then explain to them with examples how those views are anti-American.

[StriperSniper]

I think someone must have explained to CM

And/or Ann read some of the reviews here, she seemed much more in control of herself.

I hate it when she lets someone push her buttons(probably jealousy that it's not me ;-).

[Pharmboy]

If you're for Marshall and against McCarthy, I must wonder about you.

[mr.pink]

I hate it when she lets someone push her buttons...

Ann's no slouch in the "button pushing" department herself....she's got it down to a science.

[irish_links]

"...But Horowitz and some of the other non-social conservatives are frightened by the religious right, they feel just as threatened by social conservatives as moderate Democrats are feeling about the progressive take over of their party. Horowitz and Goldberg, et alias see a move to the right as a threat to the "big tent" Republicanism. So, an attack on Ann is predictable...."

Very important point, Eva, and well stated too. I question the application of the term "progressive" to the Howard Dean crowd, though. I think "hyperventilating leftists" would be more accurate.

[Eva]

I like the term "progressive" because it was the name chosen by Wallace at the name of his communist party. It has since been adopted by the Democratic Socialists, but the meaning hasn't changed.

[bvw]

Marshall was a Mason, pretty high one, no?