1

I said it to Dignan, and I'll say it to you: THANK YOU! This needs saying, particularly after her repugnant CPAC speech.

2

Amen! Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh are two reasons why I'm tempted to shrug off the label "conservative." Because whatever they are, I certainly am not.

3

I agree with you on this one.

4

Joe, you're missing the whole thing.
Anne is a satire of the Left, man! Get it? She's not serious, for petesake. If you think what she says is outrageous, then you're simply not listening to the Left. Listen to what *they're* saying, then go back and here what Anne comes up with afterwards. It's a piece of political-commentating genius, but you'll never see it if you miss the first half of the joke... the Left.

5

I'll add one more amen to the growing list. I think the issue is hatred of your political enimies; we can dislike what people believe, but hating them for it isn't good.

6

Well, there's nothing like a small, yet growing lynch mob to inpsire me to take a a contrarian position.

So far it is Joe and four commenters against, and only one in favor of Ms. Coulter. So I'm going to have to take her side in this dispute.

I'm a little busy right now, but I should have some time later to weigh in.

7

I largely (naturally) agree with your point about Coulter, but you have to understand: Coulter's paid to say these things, because it's red meat to the crowd, a sideshow, part of the conservative 10 in 1. And she's indeed got a free speech right to be offensive.

Which brings me to:

Now we have embraced one of the most morally stupid behaviors ever conceived: the interminable use of the language of "rights." It is this appeal to “rights” that claims that freedom of speech rests on the slipperiest of slopes. Even people who reject slippery slope arguments when applied to abortion or same-sex marriage believe it is incontrovertible when applied free speech. Start chiding people for saying “raghead” , they contend, and the next thing you know we'll all be trading our pilates mats for sajjad and setting our Blackberry's to chime for salah.

First of all take a land in which there's a few million people, lots of land, lots of forest, indigenous people who are either starving, sick, or easily driven from their land, and start an economic system which produces fabulous wealth by the indentured servitude of people kidnapped from Africa, come back a couple of hundred years later, when the descendendts of the kidnapped Africans are given "freedom," add a few ten's of millions of immigrants and their descendents, and maintain an economic system that is utterly dependent on exponentially increasnig rates of consumption, and by gum, sooner or later, people are going to bump into each other in ways they didn't when "everyone knew their place," so to speak.

But the real reason I disagree, of course goes back to what I said in comments here, which were in your tepid response to the cartoon controversy:

To put it another way: any conversion experience, to or from anything involves a mental crossing of the Rubicon which is blasphemy and folly to what went before.

You can't allow just one type of conversion experience; it's like trying to [empty] the ocean with a teacup; weather will annihlate your efforts faster than you can make any progress at your endeavor.

So I think, while I acknowledge that Carter does (eventually) come out on the right side of this issue, he only does so out of reluctance and still in suspicion of heterodoxy.

Ann Coulter produces her own counter-conversion experiences away from conservatism, just by watching the types of people that are drawn to her drivel - every bit as much, I'd say as the alienation of Jan Crouch's taste in decor and demeanor from the Shakers' or the megachurch.

Or the folks clammoring to "save Terri" I might add.

In the realm of ghoulish and potentially offensive, the equation of a human being with a zygote or a brain dead woman to born people is a far greater obscenity, with far more sinister effects than whatever Coulter says.

8

Joe, I think Coulter has become the George Carlin of the Right. Carlin's a lot more fun for Lefties to listen to than, say, George McGovern. Likewise Coulter, by skewing leftist absurdities with far right absurdities, is more entertaining than Thomas Sowell (my favorite spokesman). The big difference between the two extremes is that the leftists are serious when they spout their absurdities, and MSM treats them with respect. That infuriates conservatives, who then roar with laughter when she gives them their comeuppance.

That's more confession than analysis.

9

JIm :

Ms. Coulter will never be anything equivalent to the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine's narrator.

She's just not talented.

She's not even Al Franken of the right.

Remember she got her start writing briefs for that absurd Paula Jones case that was tossed out of court for having no merrit. She's completely a creation of the right-wing noise machine.

Frankin, and Carlin, actually got their start as serious performers.

In that sense she's more like Vladimir Posner than the other 2 folks. Except that Posner's more talented at using his voice, too, come to think of it.

10

Like Jim, George Carlin was a name that popped in my mind when you brought up Ann Coulter. But after approximately 0.0000001 seconds of reflection (which is about the maximum this particular topic deserves), I concluded that Michael Moore (e.g., "These bastards who run our country are a bunch of conniving, thieving, smug pricks who need to be brought down and removed and replaced with a whole new system that we control.") is really a better comparison on the left.

One major difference, of course, is that Ann Coulter wasn't sitting by Jerry Ford at the Republican Convention.

11

Another "AMEN", Joe.

Ann Coulter is intellectually dishonest and not at all funny. These are two essential ingredients for satire to work. For example, in her Feb 8th column she stated:
---
Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey -- maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.
---

Except that there ARE protests in Iraq, too. She is attempting to support her point with false statements. She is not an intellectual heavyweight like Safire, or even George Will for that matter. She is not humorous, like Franken or Carlin. She is not a journalist.

What exactly is she trying to accomplish?

12

Here, here, Joe. Excellent post.

13

Another "AMEN", Joe.

Ann Coulter is intellectually dishonest and not at all funny. These are two essential ingredients for satire to work. For example, in her Feb 8th column she stated:
---
Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey -- maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.
---

Except that there ARE protests in Iraq, too. She is attempting to support her point with false statements. She is not an intellectual heavyweight like Safire, or even George Will for that matter. She is not humorous, like Franken or Carlin. She is not a journalist.

What exactly is she trying to accomplish?

14

Here, here, Joe. Excellent post.

15

Amen,

It's funny how liberals claim that the Republican party (thus conservatives) are being taken over by Christians.

I see the opposite, especially in right wing radio.

16

I think it's apparent that the author of this article completely misses the point Coulter is trying to make. Coulter isn't to be taken literally. She always goes for shock-value. Obviously Coulter doesn't REALLY have a problem with the First Ammendment (as the author is quoting her as saying.) If the first ammendment didn't exist, neither would her column or any other opinion column for that matter. Same goes for the other quotes listed there. Someone needs a little lesson about "context" and what it means.

On another note, if Joe Carter would open his eyes and look at the so-called leader of the "evangelical movement" (at least in the eyes of the media), he would be writing this article on Pat Robertson. The "mainstream evangelical" has done far more damage to the conservative front than Ann Coulter ever will. People read a coulter column and if they disagree with her they write it off as her being an idiot and move on. People hear Robertson proclaim that we should assasinate world leaders who don't like us....and it's gonna start a war.

17

"Coulter isn't to be taken literally. She always goes for shock-value."
I think that's part of the problem we have with her, as indicated by Joe when he writes, "Our political culture has truly become debased when even conservatives now accept what James Q. Wilson has described as the elevation of self-expression over self-control."

ANN Coulter (those of you who support her ought to be able to spell her name right) may be out for shock value, but is that really good? I could streak across the White House lawn with a sign, but that doesn't mean its a good way to get my message across.

18

Oh yeah, and Ryan V is entirely off base to act like Joe never tries to deal with the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell evangies. See here among other posts.

19

I guess I am part of the lynch mob. One question-does Ann really help or further the debate on any issue? The arguement that she is our response to the extreems of the left are beneath us. If we had no Frankins or Coulters would the electorate be more or less informed? I believe their type just make it easier for the politicos to triangulate us. Somebody slap the horses rump.

Did Mumon say Frankin got his start as a serious performer? Thank you for a good laugh so early.

20

Mumon:

"In the realm of ghoulish and potentially offensive, the equation of a human being with a zygote...is a far greater obscenity."

Not to change the subject, but there are very good philosophical reasons for finding human life, qua human life, to be intrinsically or inherently valuable. The problem is that you can just as easily replace "infant" with human zygote in your sentence. Infants have a lower IQ, fewer motor skills and a smaller capacity for social interaction than gorillas. Should the law allow infanticide? Are infants *really* people? What about *unwanted* infants. I guess they're just f*cked.

Just because one might be pro-choice, or against what Tom Delay did to Terri Schiavo, doesn't mean you ought to equate the pro-life side to lunacy. This is especially important when discussing the intrinsic value of life. The moment we lose that, all of us, the right and the left, are doomed. Ann Coulter may be an ass, but from your comments, no worse than you.

21

Thank you for your post. Comments like Ms. Coulter's are the reason many blacks see the GOP as wicked. We should strive to set a good example, not emulate poor examples even in jest. If someone like David Duke said this we chase him into the hills. Let's not embrace stupid comments just because they come out of a "popular" mouth.

22

Matthew G.:
Well, there's nothing like a small, yet growing lynch mob to inpsire me to take a a contrarian position.

The question isn't whether she can say what she said. The question is if, based on what she says, she should be held up as a representative of the conservative movement. I'll admit that at times I've enjoyed her rantings. However, I believe she's crossing the line and it is perfectly legitimate to say she has crossed the line. Conservatives have to stand for more than being against what liberals want.

23

M.G.

you can just as easily replace "infant" with human zygote in your sentence.

I don't want this thread to go here either, so this will be my final reply on the subject; have at it in response.

But when you insist on human beings being equal to live cells with human DNA, and give no weight to the situation in which these cells find themselves, and their capacity and prospects for conciousness, you are indeed devaluaing life.

Many Zygotes - at least 1/3 of them- never become babies. Equating a baby to that which may never be a baby is morally repugnant, because it blurrs the distinction between what is a human and what is not and why human life is valuable. And it diverts attention from the very real problems those of us who are born have.

Brian in Idaho:

Did Mumon say Frankin got his start as a serious performer? Thank you for a good laugh so early.

That is to say, Frankin began his start as a professional comedy writer and performer. He was, if you will seriously a comedian, he wasn't astroturfed down onto the set of SNL because somebody thought the appearance of his body would draw viewers.

24

The big problem with Coulter is that so many people take her seriously. One oaf in my neck of the woods recently wrote a letter to the editor suggesting Coulter as a candidate for president.

People like Coulter make a living picking scabs off of culture war wounds.

25

I'm with you on distancing conservatives from the trash-talk. The biggest problem I have with that, though, is that it reeks of unilateral disarmament. Whereas the left legitimizes a Moore, Franken, or Sharpton, we run (as we should) from Pat Robertson or Coulter. As our electorate becomes ever less-sophisticated, the moral high road is getting pretty lonely.

26

.... not that I have any better suggestion, mind you. I'd rather take the high road and lose, but it does hurt.

27

Frankin is no longer funny because you can't make hate funny to anyone who doesn't share your hate. Coulter is just not very funny. Both preach to their respective choirs, who collectively make up most all the people who pay any attention to either.
Today it took me 37 words into Mumon's first post to scroll down the page and confirm that it was him. Kind of an average number. Sometimes it's lower and sometimes higher. Just curious if anyone else does this.

28

I'm with Larry on this, almost.

I must confess that my politics and my faith don't always reconcile cleanly.

I enjoy watching the left go apoplectic over having their sacred cows ridiculed. Yes, the dialog is coarsened. Yes, I think Joe is correct with his post. And I suppose this is just a reflection of my need for sanctification, but I like seeing SOMEONE on the right go after the other side. Why do we have to sit there and take their nonsense, year after year, issue after issue? Again, shame on me, but Coulter gives vent to the anger I've felt brewing for years.

29

I've been hearing self-righteous denunciations of Ann Coulter for the better part of a decade now. In many cases, they come from the same collection of yahoos who pay her to be such a termagant.

Denouncing Ann Coulter isn't enough. If you don't want to be tarred by the brush that paints her and her support network as the conservative transmission channel for proto-fascist trash that it is, then you're actually going to have to stop inviting her to conservative venues like CPAC and the Fox News Channel.

30

...I'm not going to hide and call myself a moderate - I proudly call myself a liberal.

That said - I'd like to think I can be a pretty reasonable guy. I don't dream of a Congress with 435 Sheila Jackson nor even a Senate with 100 Teddy Kennedys. I have a great deal of respect for the writings of a number of nominally conservative commentators like George Will - even if I disagree with their points 90% of the time. I can't think of a single liberal or democrat whose foreign policy expertise and experience I find more valuable than that of Dick Lugar. I give all the props in the world to someone like John Sununu when he took his stand on the NSA spying issue - not because it helped score points for "my side", but because I truly do believe that checks and balances, civil liberties, and the like trump any temporary security needs.

In short - while I'm pretty set in my policy views - that doesn't mean I'm some absolutist who believes in my way or no way, and I hate that policy always seems to come down to such a black or white, with us or against us choice… because it's rarely that simple. Even a dyed in the wool, tax-and-spend, fear the military-industrial complex liberal like myself understands that.

Does the left have its Ann Coulters, too? Sure - but whomever may have invited Michael Moore to sit where at the 2004 Dem convention --- I can't remember the last time I saw Moore (or Franken… or whomever) sitting on a panel. I avoid cable news like the plague that it is - but even in my limited viewings, folks like Ann seem to invariably pop up.

I don't want to descend into a game of "well you started it!" -- because I do appreciate the nature of the post, and that it wasn't intended for 'me', as much as other conservatives… but the fact is -- other than the 98 midterms temporary bump -- we (libs/dems) have been pretty much getting our asses handed to us ever 1994, which corresponds well to the rise of Rush Limbaugh, talk radio, and the like.

Someone upthread in the comments spoke of fear of unilateral disarmament… Put yourself in my/our shoes… Limbaugh's working on his second decade - while Air America is what… 18 months old? Maybe I'm blinded by partisanship - but I can't help but feel that MY side is the one playing 'catch-up' when it comes to the partisan fire up the base antics. I suppose the counter-argument is that the traditional media has always had a liberal bias - so Limbaugh, Coulter, etc are just the antidote or counterbalance, but even if we accept as a given a "liberal bias" in the media -- and I do not -- isn't the brute squad a bit like having an offensive lineman sit on the other end of the teeter-totter from a malnourished 5th grader?

I don't tune into AA/Franken/etc all that often - and when I do, yeah… my head invariably ends up hurting as a few cogent points and factual nuggets drown in a myopic stew of partisan pandering - but, how else do we win elections? How else do we get our voices, our agenda, our policies on the table if not by winning elections?

It almost drives me to despair, really… I mean - believe it or not - not all of on left, at DKos, that are lefty activists suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome". Many of us - even the majority of us - simply have grave and completely justified disagreements on policy with the current administration. And just as I'm sure some of you on the right would admit that despite a majority in both houses -- your duly elected reps have strayed from your principles -- I worry that even if we wrest control of congress using the same tactics, we'll end up with a bizarro version of the same

31

On the "Cartoon Jihad" issue we had to agree to disagree, but on this one Joe, I'm in full agreement.

"Serving up excrement," not bad.

I featured this post on SmartChristian.com

32

This is a very interesting post. As I see it, Coulter used a religiously insensitive epithet to mock one of the most religiously and racially insensive groups (islamic dictators) on the planet. The other comments in the post strike me as being little more than hyperbole, some of which are intended to be funny while others are intended to be merely provocative.

Frankly, I doubt she believes someone should poison Justice Stevens, that the US should nuke N.K., or that she isn't a big fan of the 1st amendment. Moreover, I bet that she counts on the fact that her listeners recognize that she is using hyperbole and that they will respond appropriately (or not respond accordingly, as the case may be). I cannot recall reading a single story in which a Coulter fan did anything other than laugh, clap, and cheer, apart from the comment above in which one person reportedly wrote a letter to the editor. Given the incendiary nature of her comments, this suggests that most listeners do not take her literally, even if they do take her seriously. This is in stark contrast to the way she and other conservatives are routinely treated when they give presenations on college campuses.

Given the sentiments of most of those who have left comments, does this mean that rhetorical strategies such as ridicule, hyperbole, satire, and caricature are inappropriate for conservatives because they serve to debase the political culture? Since all of these strategies seek to exaggerate some truths and suppress others, those whose oxes are being gored by them will inevitably decry such comments or caricatures as a lie. Moreover, any form of ridicule or mockery is inherently disrespectful of the target. Are these things out of bounds for conservatives?

For those who claim to be Christians, is there a Christian ethic against these modes of expression?

33

Given the sentiments of most of those who have left comments, does this mean that rhetorical strategies such as ridicule, hyperbole, satire, and caricature are inappropriate for conservatives because they serve to debase the political culture? Since all of these strategies seek to exaggerate some truths and suppress others, those whose oxes are being gored by them will inevitably decry such comments or caricatures as a lie. Moreover, any form of ridicule or mockery is inherently disrespectful of the target. Are these things out of bounds for conservatives?

This is probably a good encapsulation of the topic. Wish I was eloquent enough to have worded it so. Personally, I don't think they are or need to be out of bounds. I think of AC as the "enforcer" on a hockey team. It would be nice if we didn't have to have them, but sometimes they make the game a lot more interesting.

34

FWIW:Does the left have its Ann Coulters, too? Sure - but whomever may have invited Michael Moore to sit where at the 2004 Dem convention --- I can't remember the last time I saw Moore (or Franken… or whomever) sitting on a panel.

I didn't realize that, to the left, there's no difference between being asked to be a talking head on TV and sitting in the catbird seat at a quadrennial national nominating convention. I suppose it doesn't surprise me, but it's nice to know.

35

I didn't realize that, to the left, there's no difference between being asked to be a talking head on TV and sitting in the catbird seat at a quadrennial national nominating convention. I suppose it doesn't surprise me, but it's nice to know.

Look. I'm not trying to troll or start some flame war. I thought it was a very well done post, and while I probably share little common ideological ground with the site proprieter - I simply wanted to contribute a POV from other side.

If that's not wanted - so be it... no skin off my back. I'll leave.

The only point I was trying to make vis a vis Moore and the 04 convention -- Moore was invited to Jimmy Carter's box by Jimmy Carter. He wasn't some high poobah guest of the DNC, nor does he -- to the best of my knowledge -- have any instituional ties to the DNC or any prominent dem politicians (hell - the guy was a Naderite in 2000... hardly a bedrock "dem" supporter).

Show me the left equivalent of CPAC where Moore was invited to be a keynote speaker. You might have a point if you want to argue that a lot of the hard left (of which I am a member) have developed a sort of cult of Moore (of which I am NOT a member) -- but my point, perhaps poorly made, was that there are more institutional ties -- whether from various think tanks, policy advocacy groups and media figures, between Coulter and "the Right", then there are with Moore and "the Left".

But in the end - these are quibbles around the fringes of the point.

I think the point of the post was whether folks like Coulter and Moore contribute to the dialogue and the nation, or, whether they debase it into a race to the most hyper-partisan. I dwelled on it more than I should - but I just don't see how one can honestly say that Michael Moore has gotten/has been give more "mainstream" cred than Coulter.

36

I'm beginning to detect a false dichotomy among Coulter's supporters: either we let Coulter foam at the mouth and laugh along, or we have no witty voice on the right.

Were Coulter actually witty, this would make sense, but she isn't, so it doesn't. Surely she is not the only person in the world who can be both funny and conservative.

37

Frankly, I doubt she believes someone should poison Justice Stevens, that the US should nuke N.K., or that she isn't a big fan of the 1st amendment. Moreover, I bet that she counts on the fact that her listeners recognize that she is using hyperbole and that they will respond appropriately (or not respond accordingly, as the case may be). I cannot recall reading a single story in which a Coulter fan did anything other than laugh, clap, and cheer, apart from the comment above in which one person reportedly wrote a letter to the editor. Given the incendiary nature of her comments, this suggests that most listeners do not take her literally, even if they do take her seriously. This is in stark contrast to the way she and other conservatives are routinely treated when they give presenations on college campuses.

California Dreamin, I think Joe's point was not that people take Coutler seriously but rather that they choose to take her at all. In essense you are saying her ideas don't really matter, what matters is that the crowds 'laugh, clap and cheer'. Does this remind you of the phrase 'bread and circuses'?

Modern Conservatism, almost single-handedly founded by William F. Buckley argued as one of its key principles that 'ideas matter'. It savaged liberalism on the grounds that liberals, being in power at the time, were thinking less about sensible ideas and more about how to appease various interest groups. For a classic example, I'd direct you to Tom Wolff (of Bonfire of the Vanities and The Right Stuff fame) essay on mau-mauing.

I think Joe is onto something with the intellectual death of conservatisim but I'm not sure he's really ready to admit how dead it really is intellectually. Many agree that liberalism suffered greatly in the late 60's and early 70's when it was nearly unopposed. Liberals were more concerned with maintaining power than developing ideas. Conservatives, trained well by Buckley, enjoyed cultivating an elitism for themselves. They may loose but they will always be Right (in both senses of the word).

Today more than a few conservatives (Andrew Sullivan is a good example but even old party hacks like George Will are showing signs of cracking) are noticing that more effort seems to go into dubious legal theories (such as the assertion by the President that he can 'do anything' as Commander-in-Chief with no checks and balances) or shallow slogans than real principle. The emphasis seems to be less about ideas that count and more about cheerleading the maintaince of an electorial majority.

38

Joe, good post.

The problem I have with coulter is that she thinks it is perfectly acceptable to lower herself to their level. She knows what she is doing and it is purposeful. She wants to shock and to point out that the left does it just like she does it.

We should be above that as Conservatives.

There was a time, not long ago, that I bought her books and read her website. Not only that, but I enjoyed them, shame to say it.

Then came the Harriet Miers nomination and it was the first time I was on the receiving end of her "wit" and "humor". It opened my eyes.

Shame on me for taking so long to see it and for not being able to see it until it was directed at me.

We should all strive for a higher level of discourse and not lower ourselves to the level of the BDS left.

39

This is weird. For a long time, I found little to agree on with Joe. Now two things in less than a week: the "Cartoon Jihad" and Coulter.

BTW, I'm sure it will come as a total shock to many on the Right, but many of us on the Left hate Michael Moore as much as, or more than, you do.

40

Line me up with those that disagree with Joe on this one, at least somewhat. First, there is no right in the U.S Constitution to be free from being offended by what someone says. Ann Coulter's speech is her Constitutional right and if we start trying to restrict it then who's to say someone else cannot say that half of what gets written here is offensive and should be controlled.

Secondly, there are plenty of, shall I say, "less than righteous" conservatives who love her give-better-than-you-get sarcasm. They find it very appropriate and on the mark. Conservative does not equal Christian and to expect so-called Christian civility from all conservatives is not appropriate. A little civilty from the other side would be nice now and then, but I'm not holding my breath.

Now, one can argue whether her approach is strategically or tactically helpful to the conservative cause, but lets be careful about debating whether she should be allowed to say what she says. I realize many are not going this far, but some do sometimes.

41

"First, there is no right in the U.S Constitution to be free from being offended by what someone says. Ann Coulter's speech is her Constitutional right and if we start trying to restrict it then who's to say someone else cannot say that half of what gets written here is offensive and should be controlled."

I don't think Joe is claiming such a right, and I don't think he is advocating restricting Coulter's constitutional right. I think he is saying her vitriol is repulsive, and if fewer people supported it, fewer people would be exposed to it. When I see her face, I reach for the remote.

42

Given the sentiments of most of those who have left comments, does this mean that rhetorical strategies such as ridicule, hyperbole, satire, and caricature are inappropriate for conservatives because they serve to debase the political culture? ... For those who claim to be Christians, is there a Christian ethic against these modes of expression?

The problem comes less with the tactic (ridicule, hyperbole, etc.) than with the tool used to execute it: blunderbuss or scalpel? Both Jesus and the apostle Paul were good at sarcasm and hyperbole. (Paul was so fed up with the legalists that he actually wished the party of circumcision would go all the way and emasculate themselves.)

I was talking to a friend about this today and we lamented that neither the Left nor the Right has a seriously good satirist along the lines of a Jonathan Swift or Lewis Carroll any more.

BTW, I have it on the authority of a man who knows Ann Coulter well that she supposedly became a born-again Christian within the past two years. Hmmm.

43

Joe,

I have to take you to task for denigrating Rush by comparing him to Russell Kirk. The conservative movement hasn't replaced one's wisdom with the soundbites of the other. That is a facile comparison that has no basis in fact. Rush is an entertainer, a conservative radio personality who has had a tremendous impact on popularizing conservative philosophy in American culture. Mr. Kirk was an intellectual who built the foundations of the conservative movement. Rush has built on that. Coulter may be "stupid and banal" at times, but if you are saying Rush is doing the same, you obviously don't listen to Rush.

44

Thank you for being a voice of reason in this time of great unreason. I am somewhere in the middle of the conservative and liberal spectrum, although the idiocy of this Administration has shoved me further into the Al Franken camp. If you read Al's "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", you'll see two chapters detailing more of Ann Coulter's mendacity and the negative effect she has on politics and society. Some may say the same of Al, but I first read this book of his just a few months ago -- I'm not a follower of his, in other words -- and his tone is extremely measured, certainly by comparison with any of Ann's books!

Thanks again. Even though you and I might disagree on many things, if people who prefer to find common ground as part of a constructive social process take the upper hand, the people who prefer to turn our culture into a battleground will be forced to yield.

I'm just sad for all the casualties along the way.

45

Tom, you've made an interesting point in your reference to Paul's desire for certain opponents to emasculate themselves.

Personally, I don't think the scalpel/blunderbuss analogy is appropriate in this case for the simple reason that the perception of which tool one is using is too subjective. As I suggested previously, it depends on whose ox is being gored. The targets of sarcasm, ridicule, satire, caricature, hyperbole, and the like will always charge that it is untrue, unfair, and mean-spirited (i.e. you're using a blunderbuss). Whereas those who use those tactics will almost certainly believe they are being witty, insightful, and responding to a prior injustice (i.e. I'm using a scalpel). To be effective, these rhetorical strategies have to contain at least a kernal of truth, though they also include the distortion and/or suppression of other truths along with it.

Your reference to Paul and Jesus leads me to conclude that you do not believe there is a Christian ethic against these strategies. If that's the case, it seems that the opposition to Coulter using them is largely pragmatic (it doesn't help conservatives achieve their goals) or aesthetic (conservatives do no like the manner in which she employs these tactics). If that's the case, are there conservatives who use ridicule, sarcasm, hyperbole, and the like but who use them more artfully or effecively? Dennis Miller is quite vulgar, but he leans right and uses sarcasm and ridicule. Do those who dislike Coulter dislike him as well? or is he in a different category? If not, this leads me to wonder, is there something inherent in conservatism that makes these rhetorical strategies inappropriate?

46

Looks like Ann Coulter's committed a felony.

Oops.

47

Regarding the alleged voting fraud, that is no surprise. As I mentioned above, she is intellectually dishonest in her efforts to make her points.

Regarding the point that this is just "... ridicule, hyperbole, satire, and caricature ..." that is just nonsense. Look at the quotes Joe provided. They are typical. She calls for the death of those with whom she disagrees. That is not satire. It comes across as the desperate verbal flailing of someone who cannot intelligently articulate a position. It is cruel, insensitive and disrespectful. Should Justice Stevens' wife and children be upset just so Coulter can crow? Is this Christian behavior? I don't think so, but I cannot judge what is in her heart.

48

Good morning all,

Before talking about Ann Coulter, I'd like to start off with a short joke:

Jesus and his disciples walk into a village where the people are preparing to stone an adultress. Jesus steps forward and says, "Let the one among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

All the villagers are cowed, lowering their eyes and shuffling their feet, except one woman who looks Jesus straight in the eye, picks up a stone and throws it at the adultress.

And Jesus says, "Mom!!!".

[I got this joke yesterday from a fellow who calls himself nk.]

So now, let's get to that old stone-throwing gal, Ann Coulter.

I think Jim (comment #8) made an excellent comparison between Ann and George Carlin.

Ms. Coulter and Mr. Carlin both use edgy, provocative, and even vulgar humor to get their points across.

Here's two big differences between them: Carlin can be described as politically left-of-center, while Ann is decidedly right-of-center. And more importantly, Carlin is a professional comedian who sometimes likes to use politics and political controversy as material, while Ann is a professional political commentator who relies heavily on sarcasm and other forms of humor.

But I think they have something in common which is actually much more important than their different professions or their clashing political beliefs. What they have in common is that they both have finely-tuned baloney meters. They both love to skewer baloney whereever they can find it. [For the purposes of this comment thread, I am using the word "baloney" as a family-friendly substitute for a more graphic term which has the initials B and S. Feel free to substitute this more graphic expression whereever the word "baloney" appears in the following.]

People who disagree with Ann on politics will vehemently deny that her baloney-meter is anything close to being in working order.

However, like Eric+andLisa, I myself was on the receiving end of Ann's vitriolic wit when I found myself on the opposite side of Ann in the Harriet Miers debate. At first, I reacted like Eric+andLisa: "Man, how could she be so snobbish about Ms. Miers. And she's being really unfair to Ms. Miers' supporters, including me and President Bush."

But after I got over my hurt feelings, I realized that she wasn't really doing anything wrong other than committing the mortal sin of daring to disagree with me. In short, I didn't actually have anything to complain about. I wrote my own blog post about Harriet Miers and let the world decide who was right and who was wrong.

Now if I'm going to defend Ann against the din of criticism here, I might as well go all the way and tackle her "raghead" remarks as well.

Those of you who know me know that I would never describe anyone as a raghead, even if the person in question actually did have some rags on his head. I am not into being rude and disparaging. I believe rude and disparaging comments create negative energy and make the world a worse place for everyone.

But...

Ann was making a speech at a political convention for conservative activists, CPAC.

While addressing the War on Terror, she made the following remark:

"I think our motto should be, post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

I believe Joe is right to point out that this is arguably a rascist remark (Joe didn't say arguably, but I don't agree that it is definitively a rascist remark).

But I think "rascist" is somewhat off the mark here. I think a more apt description is "jingoistic", which refers to someone who is boastfully patriotic, who is stubbornly chauvinistic, or who advocates an aggressive, threatening, and warlike foreign policy.

Raghead is definitely a rascist word, and Ann knows it is too. But she was using a rascist word to make a jingoistic point, which may or may not be rascist itself: "Islamo-fascist dictator or terrorist talks tough, Islamo-fascist dictator or terrorist faces consequences."

Now that doesn't quite have the same ring as "raghead [blah, blah, blah...] ", does it? Using the word "raghead" actually gets the point across much more forcefully than not using the word "raghead". Just like when I use the phrase "baloney-meter", I lose a lot of the impact of the phrase that I am really using in my head.

Is the relatively high impact of the word "raghead" a justification for its use? Like I said, I personally would never use it. But I personally am not Ann Coulter giving a speech at CPAC. If she is willing to use that word and take the heat for it afterwards, then I'll leave it to her judgement and I'll respect her editorial decision-making.

I suspect that the word "raghead" is a word with somewhat wide currency among front-line American troops nowadays. If that is the case, then I think Ann might be justified in borrowing it herself to make a point about the war our men and women-in-arms are risking their lives to prosecute on our behalf. But I could be wrong about that!

So I guess what I am saying is, let he/she who is blameless on the incendiary-rhetoric front be the one to cast the first stone at the "rascist" Ann Coulter.

And that goes double for you, Joe Carter, who insists, quite publicly and persistently (I can provide links if anyone wants), that I and my six-year-old child are going to hell for all eternity. :)

49

Matthew,

Ms. Coulter and Mr. Carlin both use edgy, provocative, and even vulgar humor to get their points across

There is another thing they both have in common. Neither of them are funny.

Now if I'm going to defend Ann against the din of criticism here, I might as well go all the way and tackle her "raghead" remarks as well.

If you are going to defend her, you might ought to start with her call to poison a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps some people think that joking about murdering people is "edgy humor" but I find such crass nonsense beyond the pale.

And that goes double for you, Joe Carter, who insists, quite publicly and persistently (I can provide links if anyone wants), that I and my six-year-old child are going to hell for all eternity. :)

I don't believe thaht if your six-year-old died he would necessarily go to hell. While I may be wrong, I believe in the concept of an age of accountability.

As for you, I think you are going to hell because that is what you have chosen. You have made it very clear that you have no interest in spending eternity with any being that resembles the God of the Bible. So assuming that the choice is to (a) spend eternity with such a Being or (b) spend eternity apart from such a Being why is it "incendiary-rhetoric" to point out that you have chosen option (b)?

Do you think that God should force you against your will to be with him? Should he kidnap you because he doesn't like the choice you've made?

50

Joe,

Neither of them is funny.

I saw Mr. Carlin in a one-man show at Vernon Valley, New Jersey, about ten years ago.

Some of his stuff actually made me feel uncomfortable, it was so... graphic. But it was easily the funniest comic routine I have ever had the privilege of attending.

[Mr. Carlin once entertained my parents while my dad was still courting my mom. He was just starting out himself, and was playing a little dive on Jerome Avenue in the Bronx.]

As for Ms. Coulter, I find her as consistently witty and entertaining as Mark Steyn, for example. But whereas Mr. Steyn is always very circumspect in his rhetoric, Ms. Coulter is not shy about being as demagogic as she likes.

Joe, take a look at her latest piece: "Calvin and Hobbes -- and Muhammed". I don't think there is anything there at all which is inappropriately harsh or insensitive:

CALVIN AND HOBBES — AND MUHAMMAD
by Ann Coulter
February 8, 2006

As my regular readers know, I've long been skeptical of the "Religion of Peace" moniker for Muslims — for at least 3,000 reasons right off the top of my head. I think the evidence is going my way this week.

The culture editor of a newspaper in Denmark suspected writers and cartoonists were engaging in self-censorship when it came to the Religion of Peace. It was subtle things, like a Danish comedian's statement, paraphrased by The New York Times, "that he had no problem urinating on the Bible but that he would not dare do the same to the Quran."

So, after verifying that his life insurance premiums were paid up, the editor expressly requested cartoons of Muhammad from every cartoonist with a Danish cartoon syndicate. Out of 40 cartoonists, only 10 accepted the invitation, most of them submitting utterly neutral drawings with no political content whatsoever.

But three cartoons made political points.

One showed Muhammad turning away suicide bombers from the gates of heaven, saying "Stop, stop — we ran out of virgins!" — which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. Another was a cartoon of Muhammad with horns, which I believe was a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence. The third showed Muhammad with a turban in the shape of a bomb, which I believe was an expression of post-industrial ennui in a secular — oops, no, wait: It was more of a commentary on Muslims' predilection for violence.

In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence.

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

The little darlings brandish placards with typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: "Behead Those Who Insult Islam," "Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way" and "Butcher those who mock Islam." They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

The rioting Muslims claim they are upset because Islam prohibits any depictions of Muhammad — though the text is ambiguous on beheadings, suicide bombings and flying planes into skyscrapers.

The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad.

But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It's a "living document," capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will. Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.

Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child's coloring book blasphemous. That's why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.

Largely unnoticed in this spectacle is the blinding fact that one nation is missing from the long list of Muslim countries (by which I mean France and England) with hundreds of crazy Muslims experiencing bipolar rage over some cartoons: Iraq. Hey — maybe this democracy thing does work! The barbaric behavior of Europe's Muslims suggests that the European welfare state may not be attracting your top-notch Muslims.

Making the rash assumption for purposes of discussion that Islam is a religion and not a car-burning cult, even a real religion can't go bossing around other people like this.

Catholics aren't short on rules, but they couldn't care less if non-Catholics use birth control. Conservative Jews have no interest in forbidding other people from mixing meat and dairy. Protestants don't make a peep about other people eating food off one another's plates. (Just stay away from our plates — that's disgusting.)

But Muslims think they can issue decrees about what images can appear in newspaper cartoons. Who do they think they are, liberals?

Joe, can you tell me that Ann's piece above is devoid of humor? And is there anything at all in the above essay which is more outrageous than something you or I would have written ourselves?

I think the above essay is actually something along the lines of some of funny satires you have written recently. It's almost like she reads the E.O. and is trying to ape your style! :)

If you are going to defend her, you might want to start with her call to poison a sitting Supreme Court Justice. Perhaps some people think that joking about murdering people is "edgy humor" but I find such crass nonsense beyond the pale.

Good point, sir. But that's not the quote you chose to highlight in your post.

If I tried to track down the context for all of Ms. Coulter's notorious remarks, I wouldn't have time for anything else.

I don't believe thaht if your six-year-old died he would necessarily go to hell.

Gee, aren't you sweet! Allow me to reciprocate: I don't think you are necessarily going to hell, either! :)

Do you think that God should force you against your will to be with him? Should he kidnap you because he doesn't like the choice you've made?

I don't give an iota of mental energy to the question of what God should or should not be doing.

First off, I don't believe She exists. Secondly, if I'm wrong, and She does exist, I think She is perfectly (divinely?) capable of making Her mind up without my assistance.

I wonder if She likes my joke about Mary stoning the adulteress, though. :)

Joe, I've said it before, but please forgive me for repeating myself:

I think of you as an intellectual brother, despite our differences in theology and our occasional differences in politics. I respect you, and I love the E.O. -- it is a model blog for bloggers everywhere.

You don't like Ann Coulter, and I do. I can definitely see where you coming from, but I think you're giving her short shrift.

She's a very talented and funny writer. Sometimes she seems to put her foot (or her pen) in her mouth, but you seem to be using that all-too-human fallibility on her part as an excuse to totally discount the very real good aspects of her work.

On balance, I think Ann creates a lot more light than heat. But like I said, I can see why you disagree and I respect that.

Now, go to hell! (Just kidding, although it would be nice to enjoy your company there :) )

51

Ann makes personal attacks against her fellow human beings. I don't understand how some can condone this as sarcasm.

And let none of you think or imagine or devise evil or injury in your hearts against his neighbor, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, says the Lord.
(Zechariah 8:17 amplified)

52

Matthew Goggins wrote:
Joe, can you tell me that Ann's piece above is devoid of humor? And is there anything at all in the above essay which is more outrageous than something you or I would have written ourselves?
---

Humor is subjective. I did not find it funny (but I'm not Joe). More importantly, as I have already pointed out, her main premise is false. They have been rioting in Iraq, also, in response to the cartoons, despite the imposition of a democratic form of government.

How can you give any credibility to someone who has to distort the truth and attack other people?

53

Rdsmith3 (Bob),

I agree with you about the subjectivity of humor. I believe you when you say you didn't find Ann's essay funny.

It's especially hard to appreciate someone's humor when you disagree with his premises or his point of view.

However, are you saying that if you read the following as a free-floating one-liner, you wouldn't crack a smile:

They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: "Europe: Your 9/11 will come" — which is ironic, because they almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attack.

As for me, when I read Ann's piece about the cartoon crisis, I laughed out loud about five or six times.

And I know Joe found this line funny:

Muslims are the only people who make feminists seem laid-back.

How can you give any credibility to someone who has to distort the truth and attack other people?

I'm not sure I would agree with you that she distorts the truth.

As for attacking other people, what do you think about this:

Conservatism is dead and Ann Coulter is its corpse.

That was my initial reaction to hearing Coulter’s latest semi-racists jibe: "I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'"

Admittedly, I’m being a bit hyperbolic. While suffering from decrepitude, conservatism isn’t exactly dead. And though she possesses the same pallor and stench, Coulter isn’t exactly a corpse. But the two appear to have formed a symbiotic relationship of decay.

Coulter has been serving up such excrement for years, yet far too many conservatives lap up such feculent bons mots as if they were bon bons.

Are you trying to tell me that when Joe says, "And though she possesses the same pallor and stench, Coulter isn’t exactly a corpse," Joe is not making a personal attack on Ann Coulter?

Joe is not always 100% correct in everything he says. Joe does not always refrain from attacking people.

So in answer to your question, "How can you give any credibility to someone who has to distort the truth and attack other people?", I can state without reservation that Joe is a credible person because no one is perfect, and Joe has a lengthy track record of being very credible on a wide variety of issues.

54

Joe, I'm one of those lefties who is delighted to see you post someting I can agree with. For some time now I've been thinking you must have gotten on Karl Rove's "talking points" fax line. It's great to see to see your thoughtful, well-reasoned criticism of Coulter (in spite of your obligatory jabs at the left).

What surprises me is the number of poeple coming to her defense. I thought this would be one instance where all the commenters would be on the same page. Silly me.

There is no one on the left who compares with Coulter. She spews hate and her apologists pretend it's sarcasm.

See also The Wisdom of Ann Coulter. It's from 2001 but she hasn't done anything since except, if possible, become more shrill. And the Wikipedia article about her.

55

AndyS,

What surprises me is the number of poeple coming to her defense. I thought this would be one instance where all the commenters would be on the same page. Silly me.

There is no one on the left who compares with Coulter. She spews hate and her apologists pretend it's sarcasm.

If someone says something negative or critical about someone else, it is very easy (if one were so inclined) to point out the negative comment and say, "This is hateful! Shame!"

I myself think that "hate" is a very strong word, and when misapplied, a very, very ugly word. It's not a word I would use to describe someone's attitudes unless I were very, very sure of what I was saying.

It's interesting you are "surprise[d at] the number of people coming to her defense."

What was the ratio of defenders? Was it three or four people out of thirty-five? Are you saying there should be less than a handful of people who are willing to defend Ann? Are you saying that anyone who defends Ann must have something wrong with them?

If one person is willing to come to Ann's defense, then what difference does it make that there are others -- unless you are saying that strictly no one should take Ann's side?

Let me get to the point.

You said, "She spews hate and her apologists pretend it's sarcasm."

Well I am an apologist for Ann, and you are accusing me of "pretending". I assure you, I am not pretending anything, and I mean everything that I say.

If you are as high-minded as you are "pretending" to be, you will apologize to me for implying that I am dishonest.

Thank you.

56

I suspect that the word "raghead" is a word with somewhat wide currency among front-line American troops nowadays.

Actually, the term of preference is hajis, although if I remember correctly, Haji in the old "Clutch Cargo" cartoons (I guess I date myself) was Indian, not Arab.

57

Matthew,

That you are one of the Coulter apologists is quite surprising. You often make valuable contributions to the level of discussion here.

It's interesting you are "surprise[d at] the number of people coming to her defense."

What was the ratio of defenders? Was it three or four people out of thirty-five? Are you saying there should be less than a handful of people who are willing to defend Ann?

Yes.

Are you saying that anyone who defends Ann must have something wrong with them?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, where "something wrong" might be anything from a terribly infantile sense of "humor" as is often found in some emotionally stunted teenagers to a complete lack of morality.

If someone says something negative or critical about someone else, it is very easy (if one were so inclined) to point out the negative comment and say, "This is hateful! Shame!"

Review Coulter's remarks. It's not about a few negative comments, it's about a lifetime of hatemongering. When someone has made themselves wealthy spewing hate, has made a decade long career of it, then it is not only easy but ethically necessary to say "This is hateful! Shame!" This is what makes it so astounding that the CPAC would give Coulter speaker slot. They cannot claim they didn't know what she was like.

If you are as high-minded as you are "pretending" to be, you will apologize to me for implying that I am dishonest.

High-minded? Hardly. When even Michelle Malkin weighs in condemning Coulter I don't think we are in high-minded territory.

58

AndyS,

Review Coulter's remarks. It's not about a few negative comments, it's about a lifetime of hatemongering.

I cannot deny that the quotes you linked too are very harsh and un-Christian.

A couple of quick observations:

Most of the quotes seem to be from the Clinton impeachment era. Emotions ran high then, and if somebody felt like dumping a steaming pile of junk on top of President Clinton's head, I don't particularly feel like nay-saying that.

The man was a horrible President, and he single-handedly provoked a grave consitutional crisis. He was quite the fitting object of ridicule and scorn, even if I wouldn't have said the things Ann Coulter said.

I am only familiar with Ann's writings of the past few years. I don't agree with everything she says. I don't even like the way she says everything I agree with.

But she is very funny on a regular basis. She also says a lot of important things that most people are too politically correct to say, or say very loud.

"Are you saying that anyone who defends Ann must have something wrong with them?"

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, where "something wrong" might be anything from a terribly infantile sense of "humor" as is often found in some emotionally stunted teenagers to a complete lack of morality.

I think you are jumping to conclusions here. In fact, I would even suggest that perhaps you are being close-minded and judgemental of many people you don't know.

Ann writes a lot and speaks a lot, so people who like Ann might not be exposed to the same material you are exposed too. I wouldn't condemn people for liking Ann when you have no idea what the basis is for their liking her. There's a lot, a lot of stuff that she writes which is very reasonable.

When even Michelle Malkin weighs in condemning Coulter I don't think we are in high-minded territory.

So Michelle Malkin is some kind of cheap trash-talker too? I understand your animosity towards Ann, but Ms. Malkin doesn't merit your scorn at all.

Andy, I like Ann Coulter because she is bold and smart and funny.

She is not a perfect person, but neither am I or Joe or yourself.

If you choose to judge her harshly, then, as I told Joe, I respect that. But don't feel you should attack fans of Ann just because they reach a different conclusion. Then you would just be guilty of the same kind of thought-crimes you are accusing Ann of.

59

"Joe, can you tell me that Ann's piece above is devoid of humor?"

Not devoid of humor for me, but neither are racial jokes. Humor is not a cure-all for hatemongering.

Like someone said earlier, Coulter serves to throw meat to the wolves. As long as there is a market for her material, she will do her thing. I wish I could say I'm glad you enjoy it, Matthew, but I'm actually disappointed.

60

Rob,

I wish I could say I'm glad you enjoy it, Matthew, but I'm actually disappointed.

Fair enough, I won't argue the point.

But I will ask you a question: Did you like my joke about Jesus and the stone-throwing mob?

61

Ann Coulter is completely serious when she makes these remarks. She apparently believes her own press, and has learned that the more outrageous the commentary, the better for her career.

I have listened to dozens of audio interviews with her, and she is one of those people who doesn't "get it". She'd never watch South Park because the humor would go over her head. She is obtuse and thick, and is wrong a little too often.

She recently purchased a home in Florida for over one million dollars to escape New York (stalkers), and I am not surprised, since she's taken up with the cabal of Limbaugh and his cronies. Malkin will be next.

It's very disappointing to see so much of our attention taken by such a dimwit who only serves as a distraction for our side, and a magnet for criticism from our opponents.

62

Matthew,

So Michelle Malkin is some kind of cheap trash-talker too? I understand your animosity towards Ann, but Ms. Malkin doesn't merit your scorn at all.

Again, you surprise me. Since your writing often demonstrates awareness of many sides of contentious issues, I had assumed you were aware of Malkin's many and constant distortions of truth (which seem to me outright, willful lies) and purely incendiary writing. In looking for a typically case I didn't have to go far. See this post from her blog yesterday, then read the truth behind the situation here. This is an example of shirking any responsibility for verifying accuracy of what she "reports."

The most notorious example of Malkin's slide into pure propaganda is her book In Defense of Internment: The Case for 'Racial Profiling' in World War II and the War on Terror; its lies and distortions are revealed here.

If you are willing, you might also look at this report on why she was dropped from a Virginia newspaper.

The difference — the moral difference — between the right and the left can be seen in the line up their more outrageous talking heads. On the right you have Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, O'Rielly, and Hannity leading the way — all with huge followings, all with little regard for presenting anything akin to fair and balanced. To the contrary, they are all famous for precisely the opposite, for severely slanting their "reporting" and commentary and being incendiary.

Who on the left is similar? The names I hear most often are Moore, Franken, and Stewart. A filmmaker and two comedians, none of whom have anywhere near the visibility of those on the right and only Moore comes close to the style of propaganda expoused by opposing line up. Franken and Stewart a humorists. And Franken's books actually include research and references to back up his claims.

But more important are the causes they support. Those on the right advocate a state of fear: fear of terrorists, fear of the poor, fear of Europeans (especially the French), fear of universities, fear of immigrants, fear of science, fear of pretty much everyone and everything that is not part of mainstream life in a small midwestern town. Those on the left advocate mundane things like national health insurance, gun control, conservation, unbiased science and news reporting, and worry about corporate control of the media and an unchecked executive branch.

Of course, most people reading this blog will see it differently.

63

"Those on the right advocate... Those on the left advocate... "

Let's trade straw men, shall we?

Those on the right advocate smaller government, personal responsibility, morality, and freedom.

Those on the left advocate government intrusion into every area of life, immorality and license, and forced income redistribution.

I left out the incendiary abortion entries.

64

Bryan writes Those on the left advocate government intrusion into every area of life....

Huh? Have you read anything about the NSA lately? Or perhaps the "Patriot" Act? Terry Shiavo?

Those on the right advocate smaller government, personal responsibility, morality, and freedom.

That's the claim, sure. But do you listen to what those pundits I listed actually say and how they say it? The ranting, the name calling, the twisting of the truth by the right's pundits is only matched by fanatical Muslims. Then of course there is the fact of the federal deficit, the biggest ever, the proud accomplishment by the most "conservative" administration in memory — after four years of surpluses by that demon Clinton.

Morality? Let's remember DeLay and Abramhof and K Street. Or O'Rielly's unwanted phone converstations with his assistant about loofa. Perhaps Limbaugh's addiction and criminal behavior in obtaining his drugs.

I do believe there are legitimate, well-reasoned positions by credible people on the right. It's just that the right's pundits don't represent any of them. Yet millions of people every day listen eagerly to these self-serving, ranting men and women. There is nothing similar on the left.

65

Nothing to add on Coulter. AndyS has posted some very sharp responses.

Matthew: You need some better heroes.

Joe Carter: I'm interested in your choice of blogging material here. Did you elect to distance yourself from Coulter because of Glenn Greenwald's challenge to Glen Reynolds? It got picked up by several other luminaries on the right.

Regardless, I appreciate your taking the position you did. It's important, and if there's any hope of this country healing its terrible state of polarized partisan politics, it's going to happen as each bloc moves away from the hard edges and back to a reasonable center.

From some things, though, there is no center. Like the NSA spying situation. There's no compromise on the 4th amendment. It either protects us by demanding warrants, or warrants have become "optional." Per your most recent post, the analogy here is that you can't be "less pregnant." You can't have half of a civil right - you either have it or you don't. I'm fighting for the side that says we should have it.

Lastly, I caught your appearance on the Michael Medved show. I don't know whether to congratulate you on your success in cracking into broadcast media or scold you for associating with such a repugnant host and panel of goons (Prager and Hewitt). Those are really the bottom of the barrel and your comments were somewhat paliative.

66

The Raven,

I caught your appearance on the Michael Medved show. I don't know whether to congratulate you on your success in cracking into broadcast media or scold you for associating with such a repugnant host and panel of goons (Prager and Hewitt). Those are really the bottom of the barrel and your comments were somewhat paliative.

Hey Raven, calling people goons is very rude. Describing people as "really the bottom of the barrel" is beyond rude -- it is so beyond the realm of polite discourse that I don't have a good word for it. It's even beyond "shameful" -- I think the AndyS h-word might actually apply here: it's hateful.

All people (with very, very few exceptions or possible exceptions) are entitled to a modicum of respect. Anyone who is not a bona-fide criminal should never be characterized as "bottom of the barrel".

Yet not only do you call Hugh Hewitt and Denis Prager "bottom of the barrel", you do so in such an off-hand way, with such a casual tone, that you really come across as someone who could be deeply disturbed in the head.

Now, if you want to come across as someone who could be deeply disturbed, then that would explain your use of a pseudonym. But if you don't want to give that impression, then you need to do some serious re-tooling of your snark mode.

Matthew: You need some better heroes.

I agree with you that I need better heroes than Ann Coulter (although she is a very good model for being a humorous political commentator).

Of course, I never said Ann was my hero. I just said I liked her and I greatly enjoy most of the columns that she writes nowadays.

67

Well, if anybody knows humor--particularly satirical, acidic humor--it would be my evangelical Christian compatriots.

Definitely the group that's shown a finely-honed, rapier sense of humor. If there's one group I'd look to for advice on what's funny and what isn't, it would be my fellow evangelicals.

68

No doubt Coulter is a charlatan. I put her in the same class as the TV evangelists who have religious tracts for sale and beg for love offerings. Or gay men who join the preisthood just to have access to young boys. Drinking Baptist preachers, ambulance chasers, snake oil salesmen, sons of Nigerian oil ministers, and addicted conservative talk show hosts.

But everybody's gotta make a buck somehow.

Personally, I find myself very sexually attracted to MS. Coulter and I am sure that if I could spend one night with the lady, I could bring her around to a more liberal way of thinking. If only I had the money.

The extreme edges of all sides are what is dangerous. Somewhere between burning buildings/killing people because of politically satirical cartoons and the "turn Iraq into a parking lot" with nuclear weapons crowd, there is a a large center. This center comprises mostly fair and reasonable common people. It comprises some very intelligent uncommon people, such as those present in this post. I commend you all for your (mostly!) civil and respectful debate(and including the ad hominems, as long as no blood is spilled). Long live the debate!

When men refuse to talk, the real trouble begins.

When Coulter begins to talk, B*I*T*C*H*! flashes across my mind.

69

Further on reasonableness.

I remember Paul Harvey's retreat, after so many years, from his pro-war stance to his finally admiting that Vietnam was one of our biggest misadventures. I remember him recanting his stance on marijuana, from dangerous drug to possible panacea. I remember his former disdain for environmentalists to his eventually almost becoming one. Is it his advancing years causing these changes, and the wisdom and mellowness or senility that comes with them? or his loyalty to his sponsors? or his ultimate reasonableness?

I remember William F. Buckley, generally consensed to be a man above reproach and price, and his pro(or at least neutral) stance toward the legalization of marijuana, in addition to his many other level-headed pronouncements. Surely Reason shall continue to rear it's lovely head now that he's gone.

I can't see Coulter or Limbaugh taking over Buckley's chair. Hannity is a long shot, too. Any other possible candidates?

Try me, I'm a reasonable man.

70

It seems to me that something is missing in the stream of comments (and I didn't read them all, but I searched for these words and they weren't there):

Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schummer
Ted Kennedy
Howard Dean

That is, ELECTED democrat officials who are supposed to be civil and ARE NOT.

Joe does miss the point. Most of the comments I read compared Coulter to Franken and Moore. Good point, both sides have offensive, loud-mouthed, sometimes funny and sometimes not, writers. Commentators. Lampooners. Whose job it is to inform and entertain at the same time. I don't like it when it gets mean spirited, but it does.

But I REALLY don't like it when the person who is hired to represent the entire DNC says things like:

"I don't want to belong to the party that wants children to go to bed hungry at night."

The big difference is that the elected Democratic leadership is as rude and insulting as their Michael Moore.

jared