Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Major Man Of Straw | Main | Boy, Were They Naive »

A Thought On Ann Coulter

Not from me--I haven't said anything about her latest fragging of her own troops, because I rarely say anything at all about her (and not being a conservative, I'm not as concerned as conservatives should be as to how she makes them look). It's from a Freeper. In West Hollywood:

The other protest that I have seen already, on different threads, is as follows: Ann is a private citizen, she can say what she wants, only a fool would think that Mitt Romney or Duncan Hunter feels the same way. But I submit to you that this is what I call "insider thinking." Of course, WE know whose stance is what... we are familiar with the nuances of conservative thought. We read up on politics every single day. But compare how an outsider such as Michael (and glittery Tony) views the conservative world: much like we view the muslim world. When a mad mullah or bomb-laden extremist foams at the mouth about decimating Israel and America, we look to the rest of the muslim world as if to say politely "And do you agree?" When all we hear are crickets chirping (and a few bombs going off prematurely because some Palestinian's cell phone got pinged) we notice. And we think, ah. I see. You agree.

If we do not agree, we do indeed have the responsibility to say so, as conservatives.

In fact, at the end of the evening an incident occured that captures this second point nicely. A very intoxicated young man with a penchant for chanting hiphop lyrics in people's faces, and flicking his lighter perilously close to women's noses, tried to put his arm around me. I had already developed a dislike for this one, and gave him a slight elbow while I stepped away. Outraged, he pursued me and I gave him a good shove. My sister told the bouncer and the other guys gathered round and chimed in their outrage. Throw that guy out! The bouncer threw the guy out.

For the next ten minutes, gay men were coming up to me anxiously: Are you alright? He's gone now, don't worry. He was a jerk. I don't like him either. I hope you aren't upset. We aren't all like that. Are you sure you're alright?

They instinctively came to reassure me, knowing that as an outsider, I could not distinguish between them unless they made known their stances. And Tony said, "I may be gay, but I'm still a man. Woman are supposed to be protected, you know?"

Unfortunately, while many will agree with her, there are a lot of hateful people over there (though nothing like the denizens of DU).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 04, 2007 10:25 AM

Comments

Not from me--I haven't said anything about her latest fragging of her own troops, because I rarely say anything at all about her

You have certainly said more than nothing about Ann Coulter. In 2004, you called it "cluelessness" for USA Today to cancel Ann Coulter's column. But especially now it looks more like prudence than cluelessness. If Coulter is an embarrassment even for CPAC, why should USA Today carry her?

Posted by at March 4, 2007 11:46 AM

You have certainly said more than nothing about Ann Coulter.

Since I didn't claim to have said nothing about Ann Coulter, I'm not sure why you had such a heart-felt need to G00gle what few things I did say about her. It doesn't negate my point.

If Coulter is an embarrassment even for CPAC, why should USA Today carry her?

You're asking if Coulter is an embarrassment for CPAC now, why shouldn't USA Today have carried her in 2004? I don't know? Why not crank up the time machine, and ask them?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 11:49 AM

You're asking if Coulter is an embarrassment for CPAC now, why shouldn't USA Today have carried her in 2004?

Conservative partisans may not like Ann Coulter any more now that her hot pepper sauce has started to taste rancid. But to the rest of us, she hasn't changed.

And yes, I know, you're not partisan. You said so yourself.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 12:14 PM

I wonder why our anonymous coward clan has not hurried to jump in and condemn Bill Maher? He didn't call anyone a faggot though, just wished the Veep dead. Apparently, it is because they support what Maher said by their own reckoning on Coulter.

http://newsbusters.org/stories/maher_sorry_cheney_assasination_attempt_failed.html

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 4, 2007 12:43 PM

And yes, I know, you're not partisan. You said so yourself.

And yet every anonymous fool would project onto him their scatterbrained angst so to take him to task for what he hasn't said.

Posted by D Anghelone at March 4, 2007 02:48 PM

Rand: "because I rarely say anything at all about her"

: "In 2004, you called it "cluelessness" for USA Today to cancel Ann Coulter's column."

I'd have to say that one citation in 3 years qualifies as 'rarely say anything at all', but I'm surprised that our anonymous contributor would help prove Rand correct.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at March 4, 2007 03:14 PM

Jeff Goldstein said it better than I can:

http://proteinwisdom.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/22559/

I feel no need to distance myself from Ann Coulter, because she has never spoken for me either.

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 4, 2007 03:26 PM

Ann Coulter...has never spoken for me either.

It seems that Ann Coulter doesn't speak for anyone at all these days. If so, there was no more reason to invite her to CPAC than there was to invite Joe Bob from the local gas station.

And yet, not so long ago, certain people (who Ann Coulter doesn't speaker) confessed a desire to see Bush name Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court.

"I Have To Confess...a desire to see Bush name Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court, just to see the apoplexia that this would arouse among Democrats and liberals," is what Rand Simberg said about it in October, 2005. To which Ed Minchau replied, "Yeah Rand, I'd like to see that too."

I have to agree guys, if Bush nominated Coulter, it would hold tremendous amusement value. It would have a certain veritas to it too, although of course the Democrats would never confirm her. Are you two still in favor of this plan?

By the way, there is nothing partisan about wanting apoplexia among Democrats and liberals. Rand said so himself.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 04:12 PM

By the way, there is nothing partisan about wanting apoplexia among Democrats and liberals. Rand said so himself.

There's not, actually. That's anti-partisanship. I'm not a Republican. I just dislike Democrats. Not as people of course, but I do confess enjoyment at seeing steam come out of the deranged moonbat fringe's ears.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 4, 2007 04:41 PM

Funny thing, there are lost of Democrats I like and lots of Republicans I like. This must make me an Independent ;-). Though I must say I take a perverse delight when I see Cheney all steamed up, who by the way I see neither as Repub or Dem but rather as an odd aberration. In my fantasies I see Ann Coulter and Cheney make love.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at March 4, 2007 06:28 PM

TnT, please don't share any more of your fantasies.

Posted by Bill Maron at March 4, 2007 08:54 PM

Bill Maron:

Does that mean that I shouldn't share that my political fantasy is to see Ann Coulter and Al Franken doing the nasty?

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 5, 2007 07:16 AM

Does that mean that I shouldn't share that my political fantasy is to see Ann Coulter and Al Franken doing the nasty?

I don't know whether it means that or not, but you shouldn't. Have.

I don't want to see Stewart Smiley do the nasty with anyone. Now I'm going to have to partially lobotomize myself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 5, 2007 07:45 AM

Anonymous, yes I would still like to see Bush nominate Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court. She might be a boor, and a self-caricature, but at least I know she would stick to the text of the Constitution, and not read into it things that are not there nor ignore things that are.

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 5, 2007 07:46 AM

Just to be clear: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito have never spoken for me either.

Oh, and kudos on your 1337 search engine skilz, anonymous. You r0X0r

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 5, 2007 07:50 AM

I really do find myself wondering why some people are so obsessed with trying to play political "gotcha" with our host.

Did you trolls get kicked out of DU the way you want Ann Coulter kicked out of CPAC?

Posted by McGehee at March 5, 2007 07:54 AM

"Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and darn it Ann, people like me!"

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 5, 2007 08:44 AM

You want Ann Coulter kicked out of CPAC?

No, I don't want Ann Coulter kicked out of CPAC. Did CPAC sit in stony silence when she called Edwards a fag? Did they boo? Cut her off? No, they laughed and applauded; they whistled and applauded again. They thought it was great. It was only later, when the snap pollsters reported danger, that the CPAC crowd backpedalled. Then they said, "Who me? I'm nothing like Ann Coulter!" They were for Ann Coulter before they were against her. That is what is really damaging about Ann Coulter: the audience reaction, not her own words.

So, on the contrary, I want her to give the keynote address at CPAC. I want her to stick to CPAC like glue. I want Bush to nominate Ann Coulter to the Supreme Court, twice for good measure, since obviously she would be shot down both times. After that I want her to replace Tony Snow as White House spokesman. Snow is a pleasant, well-heeled conservative, but he is not the truth. Coulter is just as ug.ly as the real underside of Snow-covered White House policies.

Posted by at March 5, 2007 09:54 AM

I see the nameless one still refuses to touch the Maher comments along with Anonymous Jew-Hater who is always whining like a small schoolgirl when we don't practice his crotch-rotten brand of moral equivilency. Here he has his big chance and blows it.

The selfish hypocracy from the moonbat fringe of the left is staggering but predictible.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 5, 2007 11:33 AM

anon, you wrote:

Did CPAC sit in stony silence when she called Edwards a fag? Did they boo? Cut her off? No, they laughed and applauded; they whistled and applauded again. They thought it was great.

Well according to Michelle Malkin:

Ann Coulter just finished her riff on Al Gore, tossed out some cute jokes ("You can understand why Hollywood is concerned about global warming. You know what heat does to plastic."), and ended with a cheap one-liner about John Edwards being a "faggot." (Paraphrasing) She said she would refrain from commenting on Edwards because "if you say faggot, you have to go to rehab."

A smattering of laughter.

Not from this corner.

Crickets chirping.

Don't know if you buy that or not. But there does seem to be some after the fact negative reaction out there. I guess I'll have to watch the YouTube version to see what really happened.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 5, 2007 02:40 PM

I guess I'll have to watch the YouTube version to see what really happened.

Yes, that is what I did first, before I posted here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx9Bi3C4rs8

Or if you want it in context, here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QDM7T_tGqs

Meanwhile, later on, Coulter says that she "doesn't have a lot of respect" for the RNC, because "they criticized the 'Catch an Illegal Alien' game":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOqLvpGNaCA

That was another zinger that was pretty popular with the audience.

Posted by at March 5, 2007 03:41 PM

[Maher] didn't call anyone a faggot though, just wished the Veep dead.

First, certainly Bill Maher went over the line that time. He brought up a dangerous topic, with the reasonable intention of hearing all sides. But then he went over the line with the impulse of making a concession to the Huffington Post site. I will say that it's not fair pool to loosely paraphrase people if you want to accuse them of saying taboo things, nor to take comments out of context. Maher did not directly "wish Cheney dead", and he also did not bring it up out of the blue. But I will grant you that he put his foot in his mouth.

Also, I wouldn't want Maher nominated to the Supreme Court, or any other position. He is best left right where he is.

Even so, there are a number of big ways that this is different from Ann Coulter. Maybe the biggest is that you have a lot more license to put your foot in your mouth if you, at other times, calm down and treat people with respect. Maher has had a lot of significant Republicans on his show, in fact he had Joe Scarborough on his show right during this exchange about Cheney. He even had Ann Coulter on his show. He generally treats these guests with respect, which is why they keep coming back.

It is the difference between the dinner guest who can be nice but puts his foot in his mouth from time to time; and the dinner guest who smiles at flattery but has ugly things to say about your family the whole evening.

Ann Coulter is two steps beyond Borat. She even bullies her own side. Look at what she said about Harriett Miers. It's true that Miers lacked experience and was a poor choice for the Court, but at least she is a loyal woman and (AFAIK) an honest woman. The way Coulter put it, she was putting herself above Miers. This is one of many reasons that Coulter would be a very bad Supreme Court nominee, in fact rather worse than Miers.

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=80

So yeah, it's different.

Posted by at March 5, 2007 04:50 PM

I'm not prepared to waste a thought on Ann Coulter until I've heard a thought FROM Ann Coulter. It's been 45 years and we're still waiting.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 6, 2007 03:08 AM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?