Replies

I think it is cute the way you guys take internet forums so seriously.

I think it's cute that you know so little about this forum and its history. The Clintons certainly took this forum seriously - to the point of recruiting a couple of major media outlets to legally attack it, and having the case directed to a friendly Clinton appointee.

Name-calling by Coulter is tiddly-winks compared to that kind of suborning of the political and legal systems of this country.

Apparently, the Clintons' gut sense about the kind of danger posed by this particular kind of forum was correct, and we have the heads of Rather, Mapes and others hanging on our gates to prove it.

I'm done with you.

"Name-calling by Coulter is tiddly-winks compared to that kind of suborning of the political and legal systems of this country." Yes and what is your point? The Clintons are bad, corrupt people, so they "made" Coulter call other people names? What kind of logic is that?

As for the Clintons going after FR, so what? They go after Chris Wallace. They go after "bimbos". The go after people in the White House travel office. They go after the Mendozas for saying "You suck." Everybody is a threat in their paranoid world. Don't flatter yourself.

My commentary wasn't about the effectiveness of FR or any other internet forum. My commentary is about how you seem to see it as a vehicle for personal glory and self-congratulation, rather than a forum for discussion and news. Sites like FR and Moveon.org are the political equivalent of Dungeons and Dragons for you guys.

A comparison of the polar reactions to Clinton's latest blow-up and Coulter's Jersey Girls comments illustrates my point. After Clinton's blow-up, we all thought it was horrible for him. I tried to look at is as objectively as I could and still concluded that -- to the apolitical person -- Clinton looks bad. Yet, you look at the far-left websites and they're ecstatic. They think Clinton put Wallace in his place and finally "exposed" Fox and Wallace as members of VRWC. I'm sorry, but they're deluded. I would hope that isn't what the average person would see. His anger would remind them of the last time he angrily wagged his finger.

Now let's contrast that with the reaction to the Coulter comments. People in this forum were ecstatic that Coulter finally "exposed" the victim-as-human-shield tactic. Meanwhile, the leftists thought this exposed Coulter (and by association the right) as mean, cruel and heartless. Again, I try to look at this as objectively as I can and how an average apolitical person would see it. And, I'm sorry, the average person isn't going to be talking about a leftist tactic -- they're going to talk about what Coulter said about some 9/11 widows. It doesn't matter what you know about these women. It only matters what they perceive.

Both sides have got to get their heads out of their insulated, self-affirming websites and face reality. Rarely is anything accomplished by someone on your side getting in some put-downs on the other side. It may make you feel good. But it is meaningless unless it wins "undecided" people to your side. The average, apolitical American doesn't see Fox as part of the VRWC and doesn't (or didn't before Coulter's comments) know who the Jersey Girls are. The political battle isn't about what a staunch conservative or a staunch liberal does because they don't need to be persuaded. It is about winning over the "undecideds".