Posted on 06/15/2006 10:12:05 AM PDT by Kitten Festival
Let me ask you this: when, prior to last week, was the last time you heard of the Jersey Girls? I can’t give a definite answer, which in itself is telling. Not that I was paying any large amount of attention, but there was a lot of noise in between the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, intense media play building up to the 2004 election, which they did their damndest to throw to Kerry, and then… nothing.
They’d shot their bolt, they had their fifteen minutes and more, and that was the end of it. Until last week when Ann Coulter, acting unilaterally, put them back on the front pages with an attack so obnoxious that it immediately (and unjustly – it was the Girls themselves, after all, who debased their victim status for political purposes) threw all sympathy in their direction. A free ticket to a second act. Not to mention providing Madame Hillary with an opportunity to pose as, of all things, the defender of civility.
Thanks a lot, Ann.
Conservatives used to be known for this kind of thing. Much of this was the media’s doing – at any conservative gathering, be it a gun show or a political convention, reporters will make a beeline for the guy in full camo gear or wearing two dozen anti-UN buttons. But conservatives played their part.
The classic figure here is Coulter’s idol, Joe McCarthy. Bellowing about Communists you couldn’t produce (and it cannot be repeated often enough that McCarthy bagged nobody – the Party infiltrators had been cleaned out by the time he showed up) was bad enough. Doing it in an ill-cut Chicago gangland suit with a five-o’clock shadow and fifth of Jim Beam under your belt simply turned it into a circus.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
You really believe this about Ann Coulter?
My mileage does vary. I think Ann slips far too often into hyperbole, guilt by association and overgeneralization (e.g. lumping liberals with hard-leftists) and other forms of intellectual dishonesty. Her treatment of evolutionary science in the book is a stunning example, which includes many bald factual errors as well. This tends to discredit the many valid points she makes. Smart as she is, the total result puts her only a grade above a complete moron and total embarrassment like Michael Savage.
Too bad. I like many of her lines. Favorite (approx quote from memory): "We finally gave the left what they always wanted -- a war on fundamentalism -- but they won't fight it because it'd put them on the same side as the United States."
Sure you can. Fame is no prerequisite for people to become strong supporters of other people in their lives.
But now at least you've admitted to a personal stake in defending Coulter. That much, I can understand and admire about you. Loyalty counts for a great deal. I would only urge you to not dismiss conservatives like the author of the posted article or myself so blithely.
To me, politics is not everything. I react to Coulter not on a political basis, but on a human basis. You can't force people to like her. Throwing around silly attempts at insult such as, "But keep reciting the DNC's talking points," merely reinforces what I believe to be true about her, which is that she does more to alienate potential conservative voters than attract them.
Naah, you're just easily amused.
< |:)~
I originally signed up in 1997. Multiple times in the first year or two, the site would go down and some, if not all people who registered had to re-register. Don't believe me? Check with JimRob.
Polemics in the service of Truth can still be annoying, perhaps, but never worthy of condemnation, IMO.
Not a guy, huh? Possible you're jealous of Ann? You feel she's too nice, and yet getting all the credit?
(Just guessing.)
Coulter said "...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..."
Sam, do you really think Rush's and Ann's comments are comparable? Also, can't one agree with the substance of Ann's argument, but disagree with her choice of words?
The author is not much of a thinker...
For most of his career, Buchanan was a conservative. He may still characterize himself as a conservative, for all I know. However, I agree that, at least as I understand the term, Buchanan is no longer a conservative. However, I did not compare them on a political level, but as to their polemical approach to political commentary.
I happen to believe getting rich honestly is an entirely good thing.
So do I. It's not the fact of her acquiring wealth to which I refer, but rather to her choice of how to go about it. Is she entitled to do so. By all means. Do I have to like her personna? Nope.
Don't worry, nobody noticed you didn't answer the rest of my post.
"But now at least you've admitted to a personal stake in defending Coulter."
Only a regard for the truth. I'm sick of seeing the same lies spewed by people like you about her. You don't know anything about her, but pretend you do to try to discredit her?
Why do you do that? If she is so terrible, you should be able to discredit her with facts known to you.
"I would only urge you to not dismiss conservatives like the author of the posted article or myself so blithely."
I don't care about either of you. I simply wanted to correct his errors and yours. You are obdurate in yours, apparently. Your motives for that are between you and your caseworker.
"I react to Coulter not on a political basis, but on a human basis. You can't force people to like her."
I don't care if people like her or not. But I'm sick of seeing people like you lie about her
Your's is the first truly interesting reply I've received on this subject, and the only one that will make me stop and think it through.
Like any tool, polemical speech is neither good nor bad in and of itself. I agree with much of Coulter's underlying premise regarding the "Jersey girls," although we on the right use our own human symbols in precisely the same way as the Left uses them, Sheehan and their ilk. I also understand Coulter uses the language she does in order to draw the kind of attention her remarks about them engendered.
Nevertheless, I have been repulsed by her acidic manner for a very long time. As mentioned earlier, I much prefer the style of someone like Rush Limbaugh to Coulter's style.
I hoped you'd walk right in the door I opened. Typical. Don't accept a person's point of view as stated, but look for a dark underlying reason. Well, chum, get this straight. I don't like Coulter for the same reasons I don't like James Carville. My reasons have nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the kind of people they choose to portray themselves as when they pop up on my TV screen and elsewhere in the media.
"Multiple times in the first year or two, the site would go down and some, if not all people who registered had to re-register. Don't believe me? Check with JimRob."
I was there.
It's untrue.
Check with JimRob.
LOL
Show me where I pretended to know her. I know what she chooses to say about herself. I know how she behaves on TV and on radio. I know what she writes in her columns. Are you saying I can't evaluate her based on her public persona?
"Don't accept a person's point of view as stated, but look for a dark underlying reason."
This from the same person who says Coulter only says what she says to enrich herself.
Hypocrisy? --You're soaking in it.
"Are you saying I can't evaluate her based on her public persona?"
I'm saying you can't claim she is only motivated by greed when you don't know anything about her.
It's a fairly simple concept.
It is true as I experienced the site in 1997 and early 1998. In fact, as I recall it, the Yahoo alternative forum was set up as a place to go when FR was down. I also recall having to re-register from time to time when the site was down. So what are we going to do now? Have a battle of recollections? Sheesh!
"It is true as I experienced the site in 1997 and early 1998. In fact, as I recall it, the Yahoo alternative forum was set up as a place to go when FR was down. I also recall having to re-register from time to time when the site was down. So what are we going to do now? Have a battle of recollections? Sheesh!"
The site being down has nothing to do with people having to register or re-register.
The alternative site was formed for when the site went down.
I only pointed it out because it shows how fast and loose you play with the truth. There were no wholesale re-registries.
And your argument from authority--because of a (claimed) early membership is hilarious.
And you still never answered who caused the site to go to a registration system in the first place, oh, founding father (or mother).
It should be an easy question for such an old timer. LOL
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.