Andrew got AIDS from scruple-free tactics.
Andrew, your moral equivalence is an effective emetic.
Now, which of these two will be able to define and spell emetic?
Which one gets Andrew hot?
Cue Seinfeld: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted on 07/05/2003 4:28:35 PM PDT by Pokey78
Andrew got AIDS from scruple-free tactics.
Andrew, your moral equivalence is an effective emetic.
Now, which of these two will be able to define and spell emetic?
Which one gets Andrew hot?
Cue Seinfeld: Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Uhhh, are either of those statements false, Andrew? No? Then what's your problem?
COURIC: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should--when it came to fighting terrorism, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?
Ms. COULTER: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now. And, in fact, this--the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I describe in my book, which is the constant mischaracterization, switching a small word, taking out the word, apparent. It makes a big difference and these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference, to try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as--as Nazis, slave owners...
Sullivan used a similar trick in this article, adding the word "forcible" to the quote about converting them to Christianity.
See this article from National Review Online that explains that Ann Coulter was not fired, but that she severed ties with NRO.
The "fool" Sullivan cites is a noted McCarthy scholar who was himself attacked for pointing out that most of McCarthy's targets were in fact Communists.
Said "fool" says that Coulter misused and distorted the footnoted cites of his own book.
This may come as a surprise to some of you out there that have never seriously studied history or politics in an academic setting but simply having footnotes doesn't mean a given work is magically accurate.
Not so, according to a column by Jonah Goldberg. He said they objected to the one column, and Coulter threw a fit and quit.
"....her flights of fancy go back a long way. No punches are pulled. Ted Kennedy is an “adulterous drunk”.
Get real, Sullivan! That description of Kennedy is NO flight of fantasy. The girl Ted killed, while he was DRUNK?
"In Coulter’s world there are two types of people: conservatives and liberals. These are not groups of people with competing ideas. They are the repositories of good and evil. There are no distinctions among conservatives or among liberals."
Sullivan can't have read "Treason", where Coulter talks about Democrats who have swerved to the extreme Left, and those who didn't.
"Liberals are “devoted to class warfare, ethnic hatred and intolerance”. Liberals “hate democracy because democracy requires persuasion and compromise rather than brute political force”.
Those are true statements, hardly indictments of Coulter!
"....by defending the tactics of McCarthy, she actually plays directly into the hands of the left."
It is Sullivan here who rejects "nuances"....McCarthy was an imperfect human being but his charges of Soviet spies in our government were ALL based in fact.
".....shameless hucksters of ideological hate."
Sullivan would have conservatives continue to condemn ourselves to oblivion by "niceness"....which David Horowitz constantly warns us against.
I don't know what Sullivan's problem is, but he's all wet comparing Coulter to the abominable Michael Moore.
Does Sullivan believe that if Ann disappeared, Moore would go away? This is hardly the case. Until recently, the left had a monopoly. There was no Sullivan, no Coulter, no Limbaugh, no Fox. No intenet. No Free Republic. Until recently Walter Cronkite could say things no more extreme than Moore and get paid to say it. And no one would refute him.
But those days are gone.
, in the wake of 9/11, she urged the invasion of all Muslim nations and the forcible conversion of their citizens to Christianity.
Not all. Just our enemies. She's right, however impolite it was to say it.
In Coulter’s world there are two types of people: conservatives and liberals. These are not groups of people with competing ideas.
In Coulter's world, Conservatives compete. They are not required to sit still with hands folded while "liberals" re-write history. In Coulter's world, paid liars like Chomsky and the New York Times are confronted and forced to eat their words.
Coulter does not seek to complicate her view of liberals with any serious treatment of the many Democrats and liberals who were ferociously anti-communist. Scoop Jackson? Harry Truman? John F Kennedy? Lyndon Vietnam Johnson?
Sullivan needs to study history. Truman's anti-communism is open to debate... precisely the debate Ann has begun. JFK's anti-communism is completely false. The only room for debate, after considering his betrayal of the Tibetans, the Cubans, his assassination of Diem, his withdrawal of US assets from Turkey in the face of Soviet aggression, is whether he was a traitor, or merely drug-addled and incompetent. As Ann would say, where our national security was concerned, the difference between the two was immaterial. Or, as she might say, if he had been a traitor, what would he have done differently?
As for Johnson, he mismanaged the Viet Nam War. That is his claim to anti-communist fame.
American politics has been badly damaged by the scruple-free tactics of those like Moore and Coulter. In some ways, of course, these shameless hucksters of ideological hate deserve each other.
It comes down to this. Moore is a liar, and it is pretty easy to deconstruct his work. Coulter is telling the truth. So far, every attack on her I have read has focused on her supposed hatred of "liberals" but have not bothered to refute her on any substantive point. They don't refute her because they can't. I know my history as well as anyone, and she is telling the truth. The best her critics can do is complain about her tone, or complain that she says "the Times said..." when she should have said "an editorial in the Times said...".
I am disappointed in Sullivan for this rather unworthy attack on her.
Yeah, I also am not big on long straight hair for some reason, too. Never quite got how people think she's drop-dead gorgeous.
If she were a slightly dumpy-looking and a bit overweight brunette of average height (not ugly, necessarily, just not striking or memorable) she wouldn't have a career; she wouldn't get near being on TV without buying a commercial, and the only thing she'd be publishing is a website hosted by Geocities and self-printed pamphlets.
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.