Greenwald Jerks Knee, Applies Paint With Broad Brush
In other headlines, dogs bark, cats meow, and bears poop in the woods (and oh, yes, the Pope is Catholic).
[Ann Coulter] is the face of what the hard-core Republican Party has become, particularly during the Bush presidency. That is why she holds the position she holds in that movement. That’s why Mitt Romney was giddy with glee when her name passed his lips. He knows that her endorsement is valuable precisely because she holds great sway within the party, and she holds great sway because the hard-core party faithful consider her a hero for expressing the thoughts which they themselves believe but which other, less courageous Republican figures are afraid to express.
This is not about a single comment or isolated remark. The more Ann Coulter says these things, the more popular she becomes in this movement. What this is about is that she reflects exactly what sort of political movement this is. She reflects its true impulses and core beliefs. If that were not the case, why would she continue to receive top billing at their most prestigious events, and why would she continue to be lavished with rock star-adoration by the party faithful?
Pbbbsst….rubbish. Ann Coulter represents ‘conservaties’ the way Noam Chomsky – no wait, he really DOES represent progressive thought. Let me try again. Ann Coulter represents ‘conservatives’ the way Garfield represents Snoopy.
Hmmm…well, you get the idea…maybe?…a challenge to Glenn – show me one influential conservative, blogger or otherwise, who has based even the most remote iota of a post or article on a thought of Ann Coulter’s…even one. She throws red meat to the lions, and predictably they roar. So what? Since when has there been a shortage of idiots on either side of the aisle?
The point is, she has no influence among anyone who DOES have influence…
Mark – If Ann Coulter is so anathama to conservatives and such an unrepresentative, fringe figure –
(1) Why is she a featured speaker at the most prestigious event of the year — where the Vice President of the U.S. and and virtually leading Republican candidate appears?
(2) By all accounts, she receives the most enthusiastic and rabid reception of all the speakers. Conservatives at this Conference line up around the corner to have her sign their books. Why is she so popular among so many conservatives?
(3) Who are the millions of people who buy every one of her books and put them all on the top of the best-seller list?
(4) Why is Mitt Romney so complimentary of her and welcoming of her presence at this Conference?
(5) When the Conference annoucned she would be a featured speaker and plastered her face all over its promotional materials, name the conservatives who complained about her inclusion or who refused to participate in an event where someone like Ann Coulter is the featured speaker?
(6) When is the last time Noam Chomsky appeared at a Democratic Party event as a featured speaker or when leading Democrats praised him?
(7) How can you say with a straight face that she is not representative or reflective of the conservative movement when there is probably no single pundit with a larger, more intense or more loyal following than she has? Who do you think her followers are- members of the Green Party?
Glenn, all the things you say relate to Ann Coulter as a celebrity – she is no thinker. Even her first book, a relatively straightforward indictment of Clinton called High Crimes and Misdemeanors, if memory serves me, was marred by a totally out-of-place reference to assassination.
She has always been a firebreather, and she occupies the same niche as, say Keith Olbermann. Look how liberal bloggers salivate over his latest denunciation of the ‘Bush regime’, as if he were some great thinker. Truthfully, he’s a snake-oil-salesman, just like Coulter – as I said above, throw out red meat, and the crowd will salivate and roar – but what does it prove?
Again, I repeat my challenge above to you – “show me one influential conservative, blogger or otherwise, who has based even the most remote iota of a post or article on a thought of Ann Coulter’s…even one.”
You know as well as I do that she caters to the idiots. Alas, there are never a shortage of them…
And for the record, CPAC is, alas, frequented by many of these idiots. It’s not my scene, to say the least. I’m a conservative, but there are many, many things about the event (such as prominent coverage of morons like Coulter) that serve to hurt conservatives more than help them, in this non-firebreathing-conservative’s view…
Ann Coulter is racist, homophobic, hateful, and prone to oddball theories (such as idolizing Joseph McCarthy). Keith Olbermann is not.
Olbermann may be strident and ideological, but the comparison would be with someone like Brit Hume, not Ann Coulter.
No, not at all…Brit Hume may be biased, but he’s hardly the crank Olbermann is. Yes, Coulter is marginally worse…but the concept is the same, she’s just even more disgusting than he is…
Frankly,
I found Coulter very funny. We all need to lighten up and laugh a little. Unlike idiots like Bill Maher who actually believes his idiocy, I highly doubt Coulter thinks Edwards is a Homosexual.
No, Dennis, calling a political opponent a ‘faggot’ is not acceptable.
Period.
This isn’t a matter of humor, it’s bigotry…
I don’t recall Brit Hume devoting half of his program to extended rants with over-the-top comparisons. He’s not a racist or a homophobe, simply because those forms of extremism don’t fly on the far left. Like Coulter, though, he is the epitome of an extremist ideologue who despises everything that is not of the left with an intense passion. He thinks George Bush is a greater threat to the world and a greater doer of misdeeds than Osama bin-Laden. Surely this is as irrational (albeit a differnent category of irrationality) as racism.
When I said ‘he’ in #8, I was referring to Olbermann, not Hume.
I’d just like to point out that the poster “Dennis” above, the guy who thinks Coulter is a hoot, is not the same Dennis who posts here regularly. That would be me, and I think she’s a vile twit. Maybe I need to call myself Dennis (Original Flavor).
I don’t think Olberman is racist or homophobic, but I do think he is hateful of those whom he opposes, and given that he was flogging the “Diebold robbed us” theory for a while in ’04, he’s pretty prone to oddball theories of his own. But in any event, I’d say the leftist equivalent of Ann Coulter is really Michael Moore. Same sloppy thinking, same snideness, same arrogance and same poison.
And if we’re going to tar the entire right side of the debate with Coulter’s antics because she’s got an audience, let’s not forget the bevy of political bigwigs who were showing up at Moore’s premieres, inviting him to sit with Jimmy Carter at the Democractic National Convention, etc. Now the left has been smart enough in the past two years to shove him out of the limelight; I hope the right does the same with Coulter.
Well Glenn, as you well know, if you throw together a book filled with stuff that just reinforces what people want to believe, you can find an audience.
You don’t have to look very far to find a roundup of conservatives who want nothing to do with Coulter. And considering that your hypocrisy on broad-brush tarring was just unveiled for all to see, I’m pretty astounded by the 55-gallon drums of gall you must carry around.
re: Aaron “He thinks George Bush is a greater threat to the world and a greater doer of misdeeds than Osama bin-Laden.”
Isn’t Bush a great threat than Osama though? He’s certainly responsible for more deaths. He’s seen as a larger threat by our friends and neighbors than Iran and North Korea.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/03/america/NA_GEN_World_Views_of_Bush.php
Bazza, I’m not even going to entertain that foolishness. Thanks for proving Klein’s point…
Oops, Klein’s point is from another thread…
What I wonder is where was the conservatives denouncing her when she called for poisoning Supreme Court Justices, wished terrorists had blown up more buildings in NYC, or called 9/11 widows “whores” who tried to make the big bucks off their husbands deaths?
I don’t remember reading anyone who continued to let her come on their shows disavowing themselves of her (well maybe there was a few who expressed slight displeasure after she went at the widows, but that didn’t stop them from having her back ad nauseum). If there is anything I have learned the last few months it is that silence equals approval, so her past statements were approved.
I don’t understand this: Ann Coulter is not fringe, she’s not marginalized. She’s getting chummy with one of the leading presidential contenders. Mitt Romney says that he can’t imagine them ever disagreeing. And the leadership of the Republican party was there. -Everyone- was there. So to say that the ‘crowd’ at the CPAC isn’t your crowd– well, I guess you’d best start a new political party.
Um, no Leoniceno, you don’t know me at all, so I won’t be baited into an argument with a complete stranger to this blog…I guess you and Flounder can’t understand that not every conservative likes Ann Coulter, past or present. I guess since Ward Churchill is a liberal, and you didn’t come by here every day decrying his ‘chickens come home to roost’ comments about the victims of 9/11, you endorse his comments. Come to think of it, when has Barack Obama ever gone after Churchill? Or Al Gore? I guess they endorse his comments, too.
Come off it…this is a little children’s game…
Obviously, I’m not a regular here either, so I regret if that makes me suspect. But I really think it’s important to observe that serious Democratic candidates have to run from Michael Moore as though he had the plague, while for somebody like Romney kissing Coulter’s ring makes him more desirable. And even now, there are a lot of right-leaning figures that, unlike you, won’t repudiate this kind of bigotry, and that are starting to back away even from the reservations they had expressed. Her quasi-exile has lasted only a couple of days. This suggests to me that she is popular enough and important enough, not just at CPAC but in the movement at large, that you really have to have some guts to repudiate her because you’re risking your own popularity, and that that’s not necessarily such a good sign.
At any rate, thanks for registering that that wasn’t cool.
“Come off it…this is a little children’s game.”
Yes, it is. The asserted equivalence between conservatives and liberals – the Democratic and Republican Parties – on this issue is an empty and ludicrous polemic. This is evident from the principal claims of those defending the specious comparison.
“I guess you and Flounder can’t understand that not every conservative likes Ann Coulter.” Irrelevant. It simply makes no difference that “not every” conservative likes Ann Coulter, or even that lots of them don’t. As Glenn laid out in intricate detail, there is probably not a single figure who elicits greater passion among the conservative movement as a whole, as evidenced by the screaming throngs at the Conservative Conference. Ward Churchill? Noam Chomsky? You probably couldn’t find 10 Democrats across the United States who’d agree to be seen with them, much less cheer wildly for them and grovel for their autographs.
“show me one influential conservative, blogger or otherwise, who has based even the most remote iota of a post or article on a thought of Ann Coulter’s.” In other words, she doesn’t influence conservative opinion-makers, just the rank and file. Thus, her adoring public reveres her not for her political theories, but for “faggot,” “raghead,” “media whores,” “fragging,” and the rest. Quite a defense.
“Olbermann’s] not a racist or a homophobe, simply because those forms of extremism don’t fly on the far left. Like Coulter, though, he is the epitome of an extremist ideologue who despises everything that is not of the left with an intense passion.” Equally irrelevant. The issue isn’t “extremism” or “ideology,” just as it isn’t “political correctness,” “free speech,” or a poor sense of humor; it’s vicious, unmitigated bigotry. Quite simply, there is a self-evident moral distinction between “faggot” and “raghead,” on the one hand, and “George Bush stole the 2000 election and is the worst president in U.S. history,” “Dick Cheney should be put on trial for war crimes,” and any variations thereof, on the other.
The remaining defenses of Coulter – “it’s a joke,” “she doesn’t really think Edwards is a homosexual,” and the like – are beneath contempt.
And to add on to Legal Eagle:
Strange, these comparisons to Michael Moore. Has Moore:
1) Called for the assassination of a Supreme Court Justice (“Someone should put poison in John Paul Steven’s creme brulee?”
2) Called for hundreds of his fellow Americans to be blown up (“the only trouble with Tim McVeigh is that he didn’t go to the NYTimes building”?
Note that Coulter has never apologized for or withdrawn #2(#1, she has claimed, was a ‘joke.’)
Can you point to *any* of Moore–or Olbermann’s statements that match these in their calls for direct violence and murder? If not, can you find *anyone* on the left whose books sell as well, who is as prominent, who is invited to conferences on the left as Coulter is on the right? No? You can’t? Interesting, that.
You need to address why so many prominent, and popular, people in your party are so violent, and so willing to call for violence against their fellow Americans, so willing to accuse their fellow Americans of treason.
Ann Coulter is a “celebrity”? Well, yes. But she’s a *popular*, *Republican* celebrity who is given great prominence in your party. If you object to this, if you think thtat calling for hundreds of Americans to be blown up just because they might have different views from you, is a bad thing, then you’ll have to put considerably more effort intto cleaning your own party up.
Look, if you guys want to pretend Ann Coulter is some giant to conservatives, have at it – self-delusion is a progressive specialty, after all.
Who are the real giants of conservatism? Milton Friedman, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, even William Kristol, perhaps – but Ann Freakin’ Coulter?
Go fly a kite…I’ve said all that needs to be said about the publicity hound, and I’ve condemned her foolish bigotry.
That’s more than I’m required to do, and more than she deserves…
Dylan, it’s not that not being a regular makes you suspect – I welcome all readers from both the right and the left. It’s people that aren’t regulars coming here and deigning to speak for my beliefs and my ‘ideology’ that I won’t stand for.
The Ann Coulter brand of ‘conservatism’, to degrade the word and the movement, has never flown in these parts, thus I feel no need to undergo a big brow-beating moment of conscience. I didn’t like her before, and I like her even less now.
She has no power. She is popular because the lowest common denominator is always popular. You’ll never go broke pandering to the base, right or left…
Saying Coulter has no power because she supposedly only appeals to the ‘idiots’ in your party is kind of like saying Jerry Falwell has no power because he also only appeals to idiots, albeit of a somewhat different flavor.
There are a lot of people in the modern conservative movement who seem able to appeal to one variety of ‘idiots’ or another, who obviously have power within your party, or they wouldn’t be sharing a stage with your major presidential candidates.
Unfortunately, you declined to address any of the points I raised regarding the absence of equivalence between Coulter and the Democrats. Of course, that is entirely your right. But it seems to me to dilute the force of the argument you’ve set forth in this thread.
You claim to have no ideological affinity with Ann Coulter and accordingly have no need to apologize or account for her. Fair enough. But ideology aside, your identification as a conservative evidently means you lend your support to the Republican Party and Republican candidates. Were the Republican Party representative of your beliefs and positions – not hers – I could just as easily view the party as the loyal opposition and regard its membership with an attitude of civil skepticism and competitiveness. Her viciousness and bigotry make that imposible. Accordingly, there is absolutely no political objective I regard remotely as important as the complete eradication of the Republican Party as an influence in American life. Essentially, my view is that the Republican Party – as represented by the influence of Coulter and all those like her – has waged a political and cultural civil war against liberalism and the Democratic Party, one in the pursuit of which I intend to expend all the resources at my disposal.
Of course, that acknowledgement typically elicits howls of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” or the like from Coulter supporters and the dittoheads. Fine. No one gives a damn anymore. Yes, I do, indeed, genuinely detest the Republican Party. And no, there’s not a damn thing deranged about it. Not when substantial portions of its membership scream their adoration at the very deliberate and pervasive hatred of people like Coulter.
Of course, you may well take the position that it’s really none of your business, and that you couldn’t care less about the intensity of my and others’ political opposition. But it seems to me if you’re as opposed to Coulter’s positions as you say, you’d be concerned about the hostility she engenders for the party you support. Nor, I believe, can you present an argument why that hostility isn’t entirely appropriate, notwithstanding your lack of agreement with the views that provokes it.
If you genuinely detest the Republican Party – which, after all, consists of 30-40% of your fellow Americans – then I don’t see the point in ‘debating’ with you. Other Americans are not the enemy, my ‘friend’ – but since you profess your hatred of me and my party, I’ve given you enough of my time…
Visiting Leftie, so what? There’s no monopoly of idiots on either side of the aisle. You guys act like you’ve ‘discovered’ some great truth here, when you’re only confirming what a seven-year-old knows…
Mark,
I think you misunderstood LegalEagle’s comment. I took it to mean that he hates the Republican mindset that is involved with cheering on the bigotry that Coulter espouses, the bigotry that leads some Republicans to “hate” liberals.
That was just my take on it.
LnGrrrR, here’s what LegalEagle said:
…there is absolutely no political objective I regard remotely as important as the complete eradication of the Republican Party as an influence in American life. Essentially, my view is that the Republican Party – as represented by the influence of Coulter and all those like her – has waged a political and cultural civil war against liberalism and the Democratic Party, one in the pursuit of which I intend to expend all the resources at my disposal.
The complete eradication of the Republican Party? He was being narrow there?
I don’t think so…
COMMENT 18 Mark Says
And when was the last time you saw Ward Churchill given a platform on CNN or FOX, or invited to speak at a Liberal gathering? When have we ever seen people lining up around the block to get Ward Churchill’s autograph?
It’s not that there aren’t loonies on both sides of the political spectrum, but liberals marginalize theirs, while conservatives celebrate the likes of Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity.
Suggesting there’s some sort of equivalence between Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter is just ridiculous.
Please…’conservatives celebrate the likes of …”
Blah, blah, blah – don’t you guys have any brushes besides the broad variety?
I’m not a monolithic ‘conservative’, I’m a unique individual, just as you are. Some conservatives are mindless buffoons, sure – why would that surprise you?
Quit trying to fit ALL conservatives into your neat little taxonomy…
Well I would call it about.. Mmm this narrow:
LeagelEagle did not say that he wants all those useless, blood-thirsty, megalomaniacs to suffer immediate disemboweling.
But I just did.
Yes, nice…you’re very clever. Very much like Ann Coulter, you might say…
Don’t worry, I was only kidding around. I love you so much.
Mark Says:
March 6th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Visiting Leftie, so what? There’s no monopoly of idiots on either side of the aisle. You guys act like you’ve ‘discovered’ some great truth here, when you’re only confirming what a seven-year-old knows…
Oh, I think the Republicans have come pretty close to getting a monopoly on idiocy, as a matter of fact.
It’s a party that preaches hatred, though usually not as openly as Ann Coulter did the other day.
If you hate gay people, liberals, Mexicans, Muslims, blacks, atheists, pro-choicers, environmentalists, you-name-it, the Republican party will find a home for you. Congratulations…the Republicans have finally become the Big Tent party they wished they could be so long ago.
The trick so far has been how to balance those competing hatreds, and above all how to get the religious nuts to work hard and turn out the vote, since without them the Republicans are toast.
But really, it’s a false equivalency these days to claim that there are ‘nuts on both sides’. The Republicans have travelled very far down the road to extremism and embraced all sorts of nasty things along the way.
You may think of yourself as unique, or somehow above it all, but you support a very nasty, ugly movement that uses scapegoating and hatred to get its way.
Visiting Leftie, that’s rich – progressives are synonymous with angry bile…but this is a boring, useless conversation, and I won’t indulge you any further in your delusions. Comment away, but I’ve said all I intend to on this ‘subject’…
progressives are synonymous with angry bile
I guess you haven’t listened to right-wing radio lately. Or ever.
Your party is just a big hate club…figure it out, dude.
Well, you’ve got one thing right, finally – I haven’t listened to right-wing radio lately. Conservatives don’t always fit your narrow stereotypes, you see…
Given the exultant reaction Coulter got, and the largely silent reactions from all those ‘non-stereotypical’ conservatives you seem to think are out there, I’d have to disagree.
I think most conservatives DO fit much of the mean-spirited stereotype…and while there are certainly exceptions (put yourself in this category if it pleases you), there is a reason stereotypes come into existence.
Sure, not ALL conservatives are religious nuts who think gay people are going to ‘destroy’ marriage, but enough of them are to be a big force in your party.
Sure, not ALL conservatives are hate-filled bigots, but enough of them are to make Ann Coulter a bestselling author and invited to the main stage among your presidential contenders.
Give it up, man…you’re like the nice guy at the KKK rally claiming that not EVERYBODY in the white hoods burns crosses…just a few of them do while the rest are just sticking up for their rights and don’t hate black people at all.
Alright, that’s quite enough from you, thank you very much. I said I would ignore further comments last time, and I didn’t, but I will now. Your KKK reference is grossly offensive, and you show an appalling ignorance of what me and my readers are about.
In other words, for your unbelievably poor taste in insulting your host: get bent…
When Johnson signed the civil rights legislation in the sixties and lost the South, whose party do you think all those white supremacists went to?
Don’t get mad at me because you don’t like my descriptions of your party, since you know quite well they are accurate.
Anybody that has a grudge to bear, or an axe to grind, against some kind of group, finds a happy home in the Republican party…the party that can’t exist without an Enemy.
Honestly, it’s a dark part of conservative nature, and the Republican party has had a lot of success over the past few decades appealing to it…which is why people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage, et. al., are so successful.
Here’s what Andrew Sullivan had to say…you don’t like hearing it from me, maybe you’ll take it from him:
It’s your party…the racist, homophobic boorish relative you wish you didn’t have to see in your living room.
“The point is, she has no influence among anyone who DOES have influence…”
1 idiot = 1 vote