Bush supporters' aftermath thread

If Ann wasn't so successful, she wouldn't be able to put the Left into such a state of apoplexy

And hey Bill, you've been sorely missed on the Forum but we all fully understand why. Hope the new venture is going well.

Thanks Foxy. i'm just very busy lately and probably will be through summer. I miss you guys too.

Hi bill...good luck on your new thing.

But, god, you guys can be dull. The rap on Coulter isn't that she is a conservative. David Brooks is conservative, Tucker Carlson is conservative, and Bill Buckley are conservatives and they all have little use for Coulter.

They have little use for her because she's an intellectual whore who has little if any concern for facts and responsible journalism/commentary. Those three men are bright enough to understand that Coulter's style and techniques are a threat to a well-informed public and thus to democracy.

Don't Ann Coulter and Michael Moore basically cancel each other out?

FD

Maybe. But to reach that conclusion, we'd have to figure some way to analyze each person's work against some set of criteria eg do they provide appropriate and full documentation for claims? or do they procede rapidly to self-correction where mistakes are made evident, etc.

We can't say it simply on an unthinking black/white 'he's on one side, she's on the other side' basis.

How thin your skin. (and how dull your umbrage can be)

Ann Coulter is a personality. An intelligent, witty, and outrageous personality, but a personality nonetheless. Attempting to cast her as some sort of archetypal character is nonsensical.

It's rather ironic that the best wits the Left can offer are Al Franken and Jeannine Garafalo while the Right can lay claim to the very clever Coulter.

The woman is funny.

Criticizing her for her political rants is like criticizing Charlie Chaplin for not walking properly.

Perhaps there are those who profess to being disciples of Coulter, but I've never encountered them. Generally speaking, Liberals take her far more seriously than do Conservatives. To the extent that Brooks, Carlson and Buckley (all personages of which I am fond) have little use for Ann, I suspect that it has more to do with sharing the limelight than anything else. Frankly, any ill regard they may have for her is rather petty, in my estimation.

The Right gnashes its teeth over the likes of Kennedy, Byrd, Pelosi, and McDermott, while the Left suffers the Vapors over Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, and Falwell. What's wrong with this picture?

To contend that Coulter is a threat to democracy is so ridiculous, I hardly know how to respond.

Looked like a pretty good response to me Finn. I wholeheartedly agree.

Thank you Paladin

Thanks for the well wishes Bernie, my friend. Sorry about that whoopin you had to take from Finn... but seriously... who ever quoted Coulter as a source, let alone elected her speaker for any group? I would sooner quote Dennis Miller to a serious audience (and would take less flak for doing so), ya know? She remains hot, intelligent and funny... and hopefully making an appearance in Cedarburg soon. :wink: Rest assured, the vast majority of my staff is, of course, on your side. Seems to be my life story.

No. They both aggregate the amount of zealotery and stupidity in the world. Each of them is a bad thing their own right. They add to, not subtract from, each other.

Nice to hear from you again bill.

finn

I think Thomas' take on this is the more correct.

You and bill use the descriptor of 'personality' (as in merely a celebrity) for Coulter, but that ignores the important ways in which she is different from, say, Brad Pitt or Kentucky Fried Chicken's Colonel Whatshisname. She's a high profile political voice who is influential in affecting the thoughts/beliefs of a significant portion of the community. She is quoted here, for example, as an authoritative source for our political consideration. Her book sales are significant and she is frequently on political discussion shows, as you know. She's not politically benign in the manner of Mick Jagger's 27 ex-wives. Folks read her, listen to her, and model their political discourse styles after hers. I think we would agree that her intention is NOT to be a benign celebrity but to be an influential political agent. And one can't properly consider her as a something like a single bird singing in a forest...she's part of a team with a strategy to be influential. That team, which isn't roughly configured, creates a planned uniformity and breadth of voice. The goal is serious political influence.

I don't know if you saw Jon Stewart's visit to Crossfire, but if you haven't, you ought to See Here (quicktime will come up automatically)

Simply because the style of discourse has evolved in the way it has in the US doesn't entail that this evolution is either inevitable nor, more importantly, that is is positive. I think it is deeply negative in the manner Stewart argues. And I think Thomas's arguments would head in this same direction.

There IS an acutely important difference between traditional journalism and what Coulter/Moore are up to. For journalism, truth and carefulness are critically important. For Coulter or Begala perhaps, that is not so - partisan gain is the more important goal.

A highly negative consequence of all this can be seen voiced by numerous folks here and elsewhere...namely, that "all political writing or commentary is merely opinion". Thus any one source is exactly as worthy or truth-laden as any other. The Globe equals the Chicago Tribune. Blogger Bill Schwartz equals David Brooks. Of course, what is equal here is the right to voice opinion, but quality of opinion and quality (in the journalistic sense) of commentary is not.

If you watch PBS News, you'll know that Friday nights includes a review of weekly Washington/world events with David Brooks and Mark Sheilds queried by Lehrer. It is slow and careful and without rancor. There is little of that style remaining now elsewhere, and that's not a good thing.

The common rap on this style of TV discourse is to label it 'talking heads', and what's implied there more than anything else is BORING. That is a key to this whole story. Who would value exciting bad discourse over boring good discourse? And that's clear...whoever it is fighting for viewer share and advertising dollars.

Blatham - always good to read you. Naturally disagree with your "take" for the excellent reason that both Brooks and (before him) Safire crossed a line never to be crossed without getting cast into the outer darkness.

They're only "conservatives" in their own tiny minds; Brooks had to abjectly apologize for claiming all criticism of the vile neocons is "antisemitic" (sic) and Safire has been dispatched by the NYT to graze in the Elysian fields in anticipation of his (well-deserved, the sooner-the-better) demise. Conflating such clowns with true conservatives only adds to the confusion

For those behind the curve in the subject: the husband of Tricia Nixon-Cox, is planning a run for the seat of Mrs Clinton in NY State.

What Tricia has to say about Safire (alleged friend and speechwriter to her late father) isn't printable in a page that children might see.

To sum up: Blatham - you underestimate the long memories of true conservatives (and I personally recall Adm. Inman's treatment by Safire and cohorts, whence my sincere wishes for him to move on to a better place fast) and probably overestimate the mental capacities - memory included - of the Democrats in this land <G>

blatham: wrong again. I posted Ann because she's an enjoyable read. She rarely fails to entertain.

tico

Sure, like slasher films entertain some.

helen

Safire, the windy old fart, loves words so he gets a special pass. I'm mixed on Brooks. On the one hand, he's probably attended far too many free chicken dinners courtesy of AIPEC but on the other hand he did refer to the appointment of Christine Todd Whitman to Interior as "making the forests safe for steeplechase."

I'm worried I overestimate everyone's mental capacities.

And not having you around in all these discussions is rather like waking and discovering some Asian doctor has taken out my liver.

... and scare others. :wink:

I will say this in defense of Anne Coulter: At least her fanatism is dishonest, cynical, and unprincipled. Michael Moore, by contrast, honestly seems to produce documentaries and write books in the hope that they make the world a better place. While this makes Moore a much more pleasant person to have a glass of beer with, I find his misinformed idealism much scarier in the grand scheme of things. Like Adam Smith, "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."

thomas

Not sure if you (or Helen for that matter) bumped into this piece on a fine Canadian prairie lad...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17994

And, careful of what human motivations you slander or I will procede to document all the times you've instructed me not to speak rudely to the folks who have head filled with fast-set concrete.

Yes, I remember reading this review. (Perhaps you posted a link to it earlier.) I am generally unimpressed with John Kenneth Galbraith the thinker, though I'm in awe with his writing. I have considered buying the biography because of the historical background that it seems to teach the reader so much about. But my to-read pile is currently 14 unread books high, and I have decided not to buy any new ones until it's below 5.


That's fine with me, as long as you do it for your own pleasure and not for the good of Able2Know.

LOL...that was very funny indeed thomas.