“Ann Coulter may have committed ‘treason’ against conservative good taste. But she’s done the rest of us a favor. She has exposed the often empty semantic difference between the “responsible” right and its supposed ‘fringe.'” Sam Tanenhaus of Slate examines why conservatives hate Ann Coulter (too).
12 thoughts on “Showing their cards.”
Comments are closed.
Hmmm, I thought that was a pretty weak essay myself. I can’t imagine personally wanting to go GOP, but I think there’s a difference between “lower taxes now and let’s not think too hard about the future” and “forcibly convert Muslims at the point of a nuke”. To me, there’s even a perceptible difference between Sullivan and Safire on the one hand, and the real ranting haters like Horowitz and Coulter on the other — even though I don’t remember ever agreeing with anything any of them said.
And is it at all germane to her ideas what or how much Coulter smokes, drinks, and eats? I do personally suspect that she has some sort of mental disturbance that she’s cleverly parlayed into large book deals — but the right answer to that is to ignore her, not to paint all conservatives with the same brush. I have to admire the way that she manages to push people’s buttons, but that just makes me want to not play her game — by ignoring her whenever possible.
Yeah, I basically agree with your assessment. The Safires and the Coulters are two different political breeds (while Coulter and Horowitz are definitely birds of a feather.) But since the Right is always trying to rub the far Left in the Democrats’ faces, they’ve got plenty to answer for themselves with Coulter. And she makes a good lithmus test when dealing with conservatives – if they like her, I’m pretty much ending the conversation there, ’cause no minds are going to change.
Refusing to consider changing your mind isn’t an effective way to deal with the dominant political force of this century.
I agree, which is why that I check out of a conversation once I hear that someone’s drunk the Coulter kool-aid. What’s the point?
Don’t you need to understand our concerns about President Bartlett to keep your progressive quagmire on our sholders?
I’m sorry, that made no sense to me.
what a shame coulter turned out to be a wacko.
history offers little insight if not continuously re-examined with a critical eye. coulter may have served this purpose somewhat had she not watered down her opinions with a copious spew of inane garbage.
nice blog, kcm. been meaning to comment for some time. thanks for the balanced offering of arts, sports and politics. also I was surprised to find a pic of my wife buried in your website. small world.
Behind on the news? President Josiah ‘Jed’ Bartlet is leading the progressive blowhards Monicaing across our country. Try some mushroom -aid, you’ll see the gale you speak of is real Wednesday at 9:00, on Narco Bolshevik� Cooperative.
The second reference was to �This looming quagmire is on our shoulders alone.�
http://www.brainysmurf.org/archives/000347.html
A stupid metophor from a relic from the finished century and a finished party.
Blowhard: a loudly boastful person. Hmmm. I’d say the only thing that’s finished is this thread.
But in the last 18 months, it has become clear that the extreme, Bush-hating wing of the Democrat Party has decided to either ignore or reject the fundamental realities of 21st century life.
Ripper, you’re proving my point with every one of your posts. (And not to nitpick, but the word is “metaphor”).
Scoraic, thanks for the note. Your wife?
Sorry about the typo, you posting mechanism was a bit flakey last night, had to retype quickly.
Your point was, “minds wouldn’t change”, but how can you know this if you don’t have the guts to test your ideas against their real enemies?
I agree it is unlikely either of us will learn much from each encounter, but this may be your only method to influence people with real power as your party dies.