February 28, 2006
February 25, 2006
February 13, 2006
The first time I ever heard of you was back in the day on Politically Incorrect with Bill Mahrer. You earned an enormous number of brownie points back then for repeatedly poking Bill in the eye. Sure, you were a bit snarky, but you were at least funny. Here, I thought, was a great spokesperson for the right. Smart, attractive, witty and more than able to hold her own against the shrill leftists. There were times when I thought you went a tad overboard as a polemicist, but still I defended you. After all: poking Bill Maher in the eye, repeatedly.
I read Slander, which I thought provided great detail on the hypocrisy of the left and its proponents repeated attacks on conservatives. It was funny. Harsh, at times, but rightfully so in most cases. Again, when you appeared to step over the line: poking Bill Mahrer in the eye.
Then you released Treason. That's where you started to lose me. Essentially, you painted all liberals as treasonous bastards. Listen up, Ann: I'm as big a critic of the JFK administration as anyone, but when you use a brush wide enough to paint that president, as flawed as he was, as a traitor, you've gone off the deep end. While you made many valid points in the book, they were pretty much lost in the white noise of the crap. The whole Bill Mahrer eye thing isn't providing the necessary balance anymore. Still, you did, at times, at least seem funny in your criticisms, so I decided to give you another chance.
I guess that we all have to live with our mistakes. Thanks for making mine so painfull:
She referred to Muslims as "ragheads." She went farther than calling for Justice John Paul Stevens to be poisoned. Muhammad is depicted as a historic law-giver on one of the court's frieses. Coulter wanted Muslims informed so they would burn down the Supreme Court. But just before that happened someone would call Justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy.
Ann, I have to ask you: when did you stop trying to be funny and just become mean? The whole "I hope your daughter is raped to death-JUST KIDDING!" schtick is something that I expect from my political opponents, and then only from the frothing at the mouth crazy ones. Reasonable people simply don't talk that way. If I haven't made myself clear to this point, that means that I've ceased to think of you as reasonable in any way, shape, or form. And I'm willing to bet most of my allies in the center or on the right feel the same way. Face it, Ann: you've lost us. You're now nothing more than the Right's version of the posters at the Daily Kos. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but hey, life is tough.
Here's a little advice that I'm certain you won't follow: apologize. Admit that you screwed up royally and that you've seen the error of your ways. No one would expect you to stop being a smartass. Heck, it's part of your appeal, especially to a smartass like me. But we'd like you to think a little bit more about what you say, before you say it.
I know what you're thinking. Yes, apologizing would give the left a bigger cudgel to beat you around the head and shoulders with. Frankly, though, you deserve it this time. At least being genuinely sorry could bring some of your former supporters like me back around. I have to tell you, though, that you're facing an uphill battle this time. So apologize. Be sincere. Accept the rhetorical beatings to follow. It's what a grownup would do, so of course I don't expect you to listen.
A former, saddened supporter.
Update: I see that Dean was already at this point long ago. Hey, some of us have to learn the hard way.
Update: Ace thinks that it's time for an intervention.
Update: And it's the last; this topic weries me. Jeff Harrell is spot on in his criticism:
There are those out there who think that controversial speech should be controlled by the government. There are those who think that saying things like what Ann Coulter said -- or publishing editorial cartoons deemed by some to be sacriligious -- should be against the law. These people clearly have the wrong idea. But just because Ann Coulter should be allowed, by law, to say whatever she wants to whichever audience chooses to invite her, so also should she be held responsible for saying things that do more harm than good. And calling people "ragheads" to resounding applause certainly does more harm than good. Harm to the conservative cause, harm to east-west relations and harm to the national discourse.
Ann, seriously. From now on, just stay off our side.
Update: I lied. Michelle Malkin has collection of links to conservatives ragging on Ann.
See how easy that was Ann? I used the word "rag" in a non-pejorative fashion. You idiot.
Really, the final update: John Hawkins has been a huge Coulter fan for a long time. If memory serves, he even had an interview with her once on his blog. And now she's losing his support. Money quote:
But, if she can't tone it down a few notches and stop being so deliberately outrageous (and yes, it's all deliberate), she's going to be written off like Pat Robertson by a lot of conservatives sooner, rather than later (It's worth noting that a lot of conservatives have already said good-bye to Ann).
February 08, 2006
My wife is essentially an apolitical person. Add in the fact that she's one of the most sensitive persons I've ever met(no, I don't know how I lucked into her either) and you end up with someone who can't understand how anyone would be a bbig enough dick to do what the Dem's did yesterday. Me? I was expecting it. I'm fairly certain that our current president was, too. The only thing did surprise me was the fact that no one started screaming CHIMPY MCSMIRKY BUSHITLER!!! Then again, maybe I stopped watching too soon.
As you might expect, yesterday's reprehensible grandstanding at the funeral has everyone buzzing. First up, the Anchoress:
My best friend, who was watching the funeral, called me up and said, exactly when did the Democrats utterly revise history and co-opt the civil rights movement? Why does the world forget that it was Democrat Bull Connor putting the hoses and the dogs on the marchers, and the Republicans standing up for civil rights? Why doesnt anyone mention that Bobby Kennedy was wiretapping King?
History got revised because of the US press, and two men - Lyndon Johnson (the Great Society) and Bobby Kennedy, who did indeed wiretap Dr. King in an attempt to ruin him. But Bobby Kennedy went to the poor in Appalachia, and he went to the poor in the South, and he ended every speech with now, lets sing the song, and joined hands and sang We Shall Overcome, and it moved people to see a man born into unimaginable privilege find common cause with the under-represented. It made it easy to forget that hed tried to get dirt on Dr. King. I remember it like it was yesterday. Kennedy then single-handedly and forever put the Democrats=Civil Rights equation together when he, upon hearing of the assassination of Martin Luther King, extemporaneously and movingly called for calm and gave tribute to King. You can read or listen to the speech here.
In the issue of Civil Rights, I think its pointless to carry on about revised history. Its done. The warp of history and the woof of of hype will never be untangled. Let it be. People believe what they want to believe, anyway, as we see daily.
And Glenn Reynolds delivers a total bitchslap, in his usual understated manner:
The problem with today's Democrats is that they try to invest the naked hunger for power with the dignity of the civil rights movement, a dignity that they no longer possess because it was based on a self-discipline that they no longer possess.
90 queries taking 0.1252 seconds, 221 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.