More on Coulter (Pun Intended)
A recent comment by our friend croche led me to seek out this story about Ann Coulter’s recent CPAC appearance:
Asked to describe her most difficult ethical dilemma, she gave a loud sigh. “There was one time I had a shot at [President Bill] Clinton.”
Shut up, already, Ann. Just shut up. After your recent remarks joking about assassinating Justice Stevens, dontcha think it’s time to cool the assassination jokes for a while — as in: forever?
Conservatives, it’s our job to call her out on this. This woman has proven herself incapable of engaging in serious discourse without constant “joking” fantasies about violence against government officials. I denounce her comments about assassinating public officials — jokes or no — and I encourage other conservatives to do the same.
I still remember when Bill Clinton had his bypass surgery. Despite my serious disapproval of the way he conducted his presidency, I wished him well — and was heartened to see that sentiment echoed throughout the conservative blogs. That is the kind of conservative commentary and tone that I am proud to associate myself with. By contrast, people like Coulter are simply an embarrassment, and should be shunned.
Ann Coulter has a pre-selected audience, the not-too-bright wing of the ultra-conservative base, who buy her books and pay her $20,000.00 speaking fees at campuses. They are entertained by her excessive statements. And that is all Ann Coulter is — an entertainer. Not a political activist or commentator or serious writer. If she could make more money as a stand-up comic she would be doing that.
Comment by nk — 2/13/2006 @ 8:07 am
Each end of the political spectrum has its own, tolerated but not really respected, strikers. I can think of two or three on the left. They get quoted.
Comment by kieth nissen — 2/13/2006 @ 8:07 am
“Conservatives, it’s our job to call her out on this.”
Maybe.
She’s just a hack making a living off making outrageous statements though and I could list a few of those on the left. And in any case I’ve been to probably 20 right of center blogs this morning and I bet 15 or more of them had similar posts blasting her, so she’s getting called on it.
Show me a similar trail for Moore, or more to the point, please show me some links to left of center blogs calling out Al Gore for his little grovel to the Saudis this past weekend.
I’m not a fan of Coulter, I haven’t bought any of her books, I don’t follow what she does, and I don’t feel responsible for the things she says.
Comment by Dwilkers — 2/13/2006 @ 8:24 am
I think she has first amendment rights too if I am not mistaken. I do have several of her books and find them, and her, very entertaining and enlightening.
Ann - please continue to speak your mind!
[Of course she has First Amendment rights, as do you, I, and Michael Moore. Whether she is using them wisely is a different issue altogether. -- Patterico]
Comment by Gbear — 2/13/2006 @ 8:39 am
“Show me a similar trail for Moore, or more to the point, please show me some links to left of center blogs calling out Al Gore for his little grovel to the Saudis this past weekend.”
Same old tired moral equivalency argument.
Comment by actus — 2/13/2006 @ 8:58 am
We better appreciate whatever speech we have left as conservatives thanks again to senator McQueeg of Arizona.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_1_rush_oreilly.html
Comment by Gbear — 2/13/2006 @ 9:01 am
Patterico,
You may not like what Ann Coulter has to say, but do you defend her right to say it?
[Of course! -- P]
Comment by Black Jack — 2/13/2006 @ 9:13 am
When Ann said: “There was one time I had a shot at [President Bill] Clinton.” Perhaps she meant it in the sexual context…jokingly.
[Seems like a stretch -- that's an "ethical dilemma" for her? Why? Because she finds his policies repugnant but finds him personally attractive? Sorry, I'm not buying it . . . but nice try. -- P]
Comment by PC14 — 2/13/2006 @ 9:23 am
P–Ann’s strategy to piss off Liberals usually involves her two favorite tactics: shock and/or sarcasm. If you go with shock, then the kill context works. Go with sarcasm, then it’s sexual. I’ll still buy into the sexual as it involves Clinton. The kill context would be more far reaching in its offense than even she might intend.
Comment by PC14 — 2/13/2006 @ 10:10 am
Personally, I don’t chose to frame the issues in the same way as does Ann Coulter. I must say, at the very least it is certainly very frustrating responding to some of this nonsense with facts and logical argument. Perhaps she just gave up at some point and decided to respond in kind. Who knows?
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/13/2006 @ 11:52 am
Sorry Patterico, it doesn’t look like any of your fellow conservatives can quite bring themselves to reject Coulter’s assassination quips. Should the lefties now declare themselves unable to take any of them seriously (see last week’s discussions)?
I applaud your stance though.
Attaching the “humor” (includes “shock”) label - could there be any weaker defense of such statements? There is nothing that can’t be characterized as humor by someone. The cartoons depicting Anne Frank in bed with Hitler - now that was a knee-slapper - somewhere.
Satire, sure - it makes a point. Exxageration, ditto, to a lesser degree. Cracks about nuking countries wholesale and shooting world leaders?
…
Comment by biwah — 2/13/2006 @ 1:21 pm
Harry, given the extent of your recent good faith efforts, and considering the lack of both gratitude and positive results, it’s understandable why you might be tempted to see response in kind as an option. Don’t yield to the temptation. That would be two mistakes back to back.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/13/2006 @ 1:22 pm
Isn’t humor supposed to have, you know, humor in it?
I’ve read a few of her columns and they can be entertaining when Dean steps in it, then rolls around it, and then eats if for dinner (Dean is an overachiever, you see). And I don’t see a red-blue circle of friendship to sing Kumbaya in my crystal ball, BUT she really makes it more difficult to come together. Bush is the great divider in the sense that the other side is populated, in large part, with children and it’s tough to teach children to share; power and what not. I don’t support silencing her, in a viciously humorous way or otherwise, but I’d like to see those that give her face time - that’d be you, FNC - make a move for the betterment of the populace instead of their bottom line. And I’d also like to have fairies play their harps for me each night as I fall asleep.
Comment by Sweetie — 2/13/2006 @ 1:32 pm
Me too Sweetie. And if not actual fairies, at least Mary Kate and Ashley.
Comment by biwah — 2/13/2006 @ 1:40 pm
And if not actual fairies, at least Mary Kate and Ashley.
One of the Bush twins would do nicely.
Coulter’s a button-pusher and attention-grabber; traits publishers and speaker’s bureaus reward.
Making her persona non grata - like David Duke - would not diminish her following, it would enhance it. Pies in the face, shouted insults and academic petitions are her raison d’etre. If you really want to guarantee her message gets ink, put her in the Time Out chair.
I can’t imagine a vibrant college Republican club without an Ann Coulter poster. Or three.
Comment by steve — 2/13/2006 @ 2:38 pm
Ann is bad enough but what disturbs me is that instead of being locked in an insane asylum she is out speaking to cheering crowds, selling millions of books,and appearing on hundreds of news and talk shows in America.
She is preaching a hateful rant that basically says anyone that disagrees with her radical postion is a threat to America, a traitor to the nation and ought to be tried for treason and executed. She has even published a book called Treason..referring of course to anyone that disagrees with her. The basic theme is that the Democratic party has been engaged in treasonous acts for the last 50 years. There is nothing too outrageous for her. No one in either party comes close. And for this she makes millions of dollars!!
That link Paterico posted goes to a story that is absolutely disgusting and freightening. This is just like the young Nazi movement in Germany in the 30s. Crowds filled with anger and hate crying to the blood of Jews. Substitute the word “liberal” and remember that in todays world anyone that does not agree with Bush is termed “liberal” and you see where this evil woman is leading us.
Imagine if she became President.. Does anyone doubt she would have concentration camps and death for anyone who she has already termed traitors and deserving of death? She will never become President but can you be sure one of the young morons that mindlessly cheer her hateful rants, might?
She is absolutely outrageous but even more so to think that this kind of hate-speech has any audience at all. Dont even suggest Moore or anyone else is nearly in her league. If and only if you can find statements from them suggesting that Conservatives are traitors, guilty of treason and should be executed, then I will be glad to condemn them as well. This is disgusting. This is beyond words. This is Nazism being welcomed to the USA!!
Comment by Charlie — 2/13/2006 @ 2:45 pm
Charlie said:
“Ann is bad enough but what
disturbs me is that instead of
being locked in an insane asylum
she is out speaking to cheering
crowds, selling millions of books
. . .”
Your idea of locking someone up for their political views sounds very Soviet, Charlie. In America, we don’t jail dissidents–although in the 1950s, some were blacklisted and couldn’t get screenwriting gigs quite as high-paying as their previous ones.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/13/2006 @ 3:06 pm
Equating an Ann Coulter speech to Nazism is just crazy talk. She may offend your sensibilities, but calling her “evil” and fretting about her becoming President- well, I can go to Huff Poo for that..
Comment by Tom — 2/13/2006 @ 3:12 pm
Yep, I agree with the Justice. The subtle act of not latching on to vitriolic crap is ultimately more powerful than branding the speaker insane and locking her up. slightly more legit as well.
Comment by biwah — 2/13/2006 @ 3:26 pm
Charlie said: “Dont even suggest Moore or anyone else is nearly in her league.”
True about Moore, afterall he got to sit in the presidential box during the DNC…way out of Ann’s league.
Comment by PC14 — 2/13/2006 @ 3:28 pm
Please get off the high ground argument. The war is on, and the left could care less about the volume of the debate. This is win or lose.
Comment by jeffersonranch — 2/13/2006 @ 3:39 pm
Patrick,
I suspect Ms Coulter thinks “shock humor” is clever.I went through a period oif “Dead baby” jokes when I was in jr. high.(My father delivered babies for a living.)It’s not even acceptable in an adolescent.I don’t think sinking to the left’s level is acceptable.It’s a little disgusting.
Comment by lincoln — 2/13/2006 @ 3:47 pm
After Ann Coulter’s books Slander and Treason were published and sold well, she got an advance of $1 million
for her next book.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/13/2006 @ 4:00 pm
Ummm….Charlie….need I say it?
Cindy Sheehan? She would be about the same level, but from the left.
Comment by Specter — 2/13/2006 @ 5:10 pm
Since most of the commenters here are (sucking up by) agreeing with Patterico and the few who are defending her are using lame first amendment arguments (as if that applies to a private gathering), I’ve decided that what she needs and deserves is someone to defend the substance of her comments.
While my full post is here, the punchline of my argument is that Ann was celebrating what makes us Americans special… that, no matter how little we think of our political enemies, no matter how much better of f we think the country would have been had Clinton not been President, there are some things we just don’t do…
Comment by steve sturm — 2/13/2006 @ 5:30 pm
I wonder how many Timothy McVeigh’s are out there feeding off of the hate-filled invectives of Ann Coulter and getting moral support from them. Of course I hope zero are, but I’m probably being too optimistic.
Thanks for the post Patterico.
So let’s cool things down a bit, and well let’s see… let’s talk about abortion. (Just joking P.)
Comment by Psyberian — 2/13/2006 @ 6:29 pm
I consider myself a moderately conservative Reagan Republican, and I LOVE Ann Coulter. Yeah she has some tasteless jokes but so much of what she writes is interesting and hysterically funny.
I think comparing her to Michael Moore may be fair… I used to think HE was hysterical. Remember his TV show on about a decade ago? I thought it was great! Granted, I was a liberal then… and now I don’t think he is funny at all.
My liberal sister thinks Al Franken is funny. I think he is dull and VERY unfunny. She thinks Coulter is a tasteless bore.
Just as Franken’s humor seems to appeal to a very limited liberal audience, I think Coulter’s does likewise for conservatives. When liberals pile on her, I like her even more. But I would not like to hear about conservatives shunning her.
If you don’t like her don’t listen to/read her! Why do you feel any responsibility for her tasteless jokes? (They are, in fact, just jokes!) And don’t go calling her an embarassment. She’s not at all an embarassment to me.
Comment by Susan — 2/13/2006 @ 7:20 pm
Pat’s right on this.
Ann Coulter’s bad for society, bad for America, bad for conservatism. When Ward Churchill, or idiot lefty of your choice, speaks, he galvanizes a small portion of his group, gives talking points to the other side, and, most importantly, tends to move the centrists rightward.
When Ann Coulter speaks, she moves centrists leftward. She calls centrists all kinds of evil names, but if you want to make progress on the debate of the hearts and minds of principled people, Ann Coulter does nothing.
She throws down, and this is *good*? The things she says about Democrats are not true. The things she says about people she disagrees with are awful. She must not just be shunned, but condemned.
Presidential assassination jokes are funny? Look assassination jokes aimed at, oh, say, prosecutors might be a little funny; the number of prosecutors assassinated is relatively minimal. But the chance of getting shot as president is absurdly high; it loses its humor when Reagan, Ford, and Kennedy all had assassination attempts on them.
It’s ineffective for conservatives to support Ann Coulter. Further, there’s a pretty good argument that it’s evil. She’s worse than Moore.
(To the extent it’s relevant, I am a moderate Republican.)
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 2/13/2006 @ 7:58 pm
To the extent it’s relevant, I am a moderate Republican.
To Ann and her adoring droids, there are NO moderate Democrats.
Comment by steve — 2/13/2006 @ 8:58 pm
You can not compare Coulter to Franken and Moore. She exposes the myths that have been spun into popular culture about Conservatives/Republicans. Franken and Moore perpetrate and perpetuate them! And she is much nicer on this old guys eyes.
Comment by Gbear — 2/14/2006 @ 3:42 am
Moderates?
There are no more moderates in American politics, and there haven’t been any moderates since Clinton’s second presidential election. Face it, the lines are drawn, it’s a battle for America and Conservatives are winning.
2006 and 2008 will decide the major social and political issues for the foreseeable future. Ann Coulter’s remarks simply aren’t all that important in the grand sweep of events. But, she sure infuriates the Lefties, and it’s fun to watch them fume, spit, and sully themselves attacking her.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/14/2006 @ 9:40 am
Black Jack, I think crowing conservatives like you would like to think that there is no middle. But in the same 06 and 08 elections that you claim “will decide the major social and political issues” (perhaps), that kind of denial could well bit the GOP. There might turn out to be a non-extremist center after all.
Comment by biwah — 2/14/2006 @ 9:49 am
“Same old tired moral equivalency argument.”
How is this tired? It’s true. Michael Moore makes movies (and millions) accusing the POTUS of “lying” to get us into war, among his latest lying movies. The difference between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter is that she can write a weekly column.
Comment by sharon — 2/14/2006 @ 10:49 am
biwah, Conservatives, by any and every reasonable measure, are winning. But, if you say it’s “crowing” to state the obvious, well then, you can call it like you see it.
But, what if I’m correct? Consider the unpleasant political realities the Left would have to grasp if they continue to lose elections. What if despite the best efforts of the Democrat Party and their allies in the print and broadcast media, voters continue to trust GOP leadership?
What if the angry Left continues to marginalize itself with idiot slogans, false prophets, and openly expressed hatred? What if the few moderates who are still out there reject the Left’s program of lies and obstruction?
Now that the Democrat party has exposed itself as too loathsome to be seen in public, how will it keep it’s current adherents, much less attract new members?
Comment by Black Jack — 2/14/2006 @ 12:03 pm
Black Jack, you mistake me for a Democratic shill. But that might be convenient for you, since it allowed you to sidestep my point, i.e. “there are no more moderates”, if it really reflects the political right’s beliefs, might lead to trouble for them in keeping power.
And excuse me, but you were, and are, crowing. It wasn’t meant as an insult. It just seems like a lot of hubris at a time when the GOP is far from golden, and as you state, the most important contests are still ahead.
I think that there is a middle. It may have been poached, largely over national security, by the right, but the wedge of Iraq is not quite a political golden goose. It seems to be coming around - who knows how far.
I agree that the conservatives are strong at the moment, and the Dems are looking very confused. I am not begrudging you that, so you don’t need to keep saying it.
The most interesting thing going on is that the right has found their success in abandoning most conservative values and driving hard for more and more power and money in the fed gov’t, especially in the executive. However well debasing their values is working at the moment, where can they go with no values but loyalty to Bush, ceaseless spending, and perpetual war?
Comment by biwah — 2/14/2006 @ 12:34 pm
The last thing any conservative needs is some liberal explaining to him what real “conservative values” are. After all, if you had any respect for conservative values, you wouldn’t be a liberal.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/14/2006 @ 12:40 pm
Sorry, I didn’t realize limited government, fiscal conservatism, and individual rights were esoteric concepts understood only by those who beleive every word uttered by this Administration.
I’m not sure what about my views, exactly, convinces you that I am a liberal. I mostly get hot about 4th amendment issues and, recently, the executive supremacy bug.
Comment by biwah — 2/14/2006 @ 12:47 pm
My problem with Coulter is, although bright, she is not an intellectual. Her thoughts (at least the ones she makes public) are without intellect because they’re a string of conclusions without any supporting argument or, more important, a true philosophical theory. More problematic, she oftem misstates facts.
Her legal analysis is nill. Her forte is hate spewing invectives designed for the right-wing. Rational legal analysis is not what butters her bread.
She is an attorney (or at least plays one on tv) yet her analysis on legal matters are designed to sell books and get on FAUX NEWS:
Her intelligence is usually manifested in her ability to spit out the party line at such a dizzying speed that the chumps that FAUX NEWS lines up on the other side to represent the “left” has no chance; the lone exception I have observed is Joe Conason who is able to disarm her with relative ease (of course, FAUX NEWS doesn’t put him on anymore.) The other rare time that she was on with a “worthy” opponent was on the ABC version of Politically Incorrect. She was shredded by Jon Stewart and Chris Rock and she was shut up the rest of the show.
Comment by Consigliere — 2/14/2006 @ 12:59 pm
Pretty wild to think that many admin loyalists raged that Dick Durbin’s remarks on the Senate floor after the Abu Ghraib photos were released would encourage and incite Muslims against the U.S. - but meanwhile they laugh off Coulter. Oh yeah, that’s just her style. So funny, though!
Who do you think is doing more to strengthen terrorist movements?
Comment by biwah — 2/14/2006 @ 1:09 pm
There are many other conservative issues–like opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and racial preferences and quotas. Since this apparently doesn’t occur to you, we’ve got you pegged as a Donkey.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/14/2006 @ 1:12 pm
biwah, I didn’t sidestep your point. I disagreed with it. I don’t think there are all that many moderates out there waiting to be persuaded to one side or the other. Consequently, efforts to appeal to the theoretical middle, while clearly part of any political campaign, will actually contribute little of consequence to the outcomes.
If you want to say I’m crowing, go ahead and say it again if you feel so strongly about it. My point, which you sidestepped, is that Conservatives are winning, and while saying so may offend the Lefty faithful, it’s also true. Now, if that’s crowing, then I’m crowing, but I can’t agree it rises to the lofty levels of hubris. Crows can’t fly that high.
Moreover, if you don’t wish to be mistaken for a “Democratic shill” perhaps you might want to avoid suggestions that the political middleground has been “poached” by the right. The use of that sort of loaded language is typical of Dem shills, and might tend to confuse the casual reader.
But, really, why bother attempting to mask your true sentiments? Your last paragraph speaks for itself, and it says a great deal about your political positions. Much more, in fact, than you’ve been willing to admit.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/14/2006 @ 1:18 pm
You know how I feel about blind adherence to the administration. But I don’t think that most of the issues at the fore of recent discussions have fallen along “classically” liberal/conservative lines. They mostly depend on your view of federal power at home, American power abroad, and trust of the people currently in power.
Face it, the lines are drawn, it’s a battle for America and Conservatives are winning.
I like colorful language - that’s what the “crowing” and “poaching” are all about. Soccer defenders poach in, baserunners sometimes steal. If they do it for the other team I can still give them credit. That said, I am not on the Dems’ team. But I don’t think my allegiances are the main issue when I’m simply saying there is a moderate electorate out there, and that the conservatives might be alienating it with their patronage of Ann Coulter.
Comment by biwah — 2/14/2006 @ 1:33 pm
HEY BLACKJACK… I have been wanting to say Hello to a fellow GI in the PI!!
Do me one favor folks..dont refer to Bush supporters as Conservatives. Call them by their proper term which is fascists.. lets just agree to this for the sake of having a civil discussion.. OK
Comment by Charlie — 2/14/2006 @ 2:54 pm
Sorry Charlie,
I can’t help you with this one. While Conservatives do usually support GWB, we don’t think of ourselves as fascists, we think the greedy, ungrateful, small minded, two faced, pandering, cowardly bootlickers who oppose America’s national interests include the established fascist elements traditionally allied with the Left side of the political spectrum.
Now, fascists are a tricky bunch who seek to escape identification, but one observes that most fascists are so openly hypocritical as to point out political opponents and attempt to label them as fascists. Similar to folk stories about the fox who smells himself first.
Incidentally, if you seek increased opportunities for civil discussion, perhaps you might want to offer another plan.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/15/2006 @ 10:27 am
BJ,
Bush policies are genuinely fascistic. Look up again the “14characteristics of fascism”. Now you are rubber stamping us to give up our rights.
Freedom of information is on the chopping block right now. The Pentagon is trying to control the flow of information on the internet. About the only source out there that isn’t controlled by huge corporations. We are in an info war besides the Iraq war. There was an expose’ that came out yesterday about the government funding of its propaganda, without exposing it was them doing it. Corporation united with government, government controlling news, beligerant nationalism, violating human rights (torture). This is the path to hell. Fascism is getting a stroner foothold, and you are accompanying it well.
If you doubt me google up some topics, and read the articles that are out there. They usually don’t make onto the MSM sources. Those are the government/huge corporation sources. Dangerous to democracy. Democracy is sinking fast. Information is key. We are trying to convey this.
You just make jokes.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/15/2006 @ 11:11 am
Two tokes over the line
Ann Coulter is one of conservatism’s loudest voices. And unfortunately, she’s used it last Friday to behave like an ass (as in Democrat) while speaking at CPAC. I’m outraged with Lefty nuts make comments like that about President Bush. And I’m just…
Trackback by reverse_vampyr — 2/15/2006 @ 11:56 am
Did you hear the one about the man who walked through a screen door?
It strained him, but he was fine.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/15/2006 @ 12:06 pm
Hey, BJ, you can do better than that. Sometimes you are funny.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/15/2006 @ 1:19 pm
Ann Coulter some times goes off the deep end, I’ll admit, but she can indeed be very entertaining, aside of calling it like it is on many ocassions.
Take one of her latest writings, which I will briefly quote form Hyscience:
(http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/coulter_muslim.php)
Coulter: ‘Muslim Bites Dog’
Ann Coulter doing what she does best - calling it like it is:
“The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn’t that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don’t go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That’s a “dog bites man” story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.”
“After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers’ relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.”
“The ‘offense to Islam’ ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.”
and she goes on.
However, certain developments in the protests taking place in the UK, give a somewhat prophetic tinge to her above scribbles as you’ll see by the following news from London:
AP London 2/15/2006.
Amongst continued violent protests about the publication of some innocuous cartoons picturing Mohammed in an obscure Danish periodical, all over the world, those in London, though not the most violent, have reportedly been some of the most colorful.
For instance, one of the protesters, who was later arrested, rigged himself up with false explosives charges, as suicide bombers are wont to do, marching wearing the device amongst the crowd, and many of the protesters carried such outlandish signs and banners as some which read: “Freedom Go To Hell,” “Massacre Those Who
Insult Islam,” and “Death To All Infidel Dogs.”
Apparently one of the irate Muslim protesters, in the heat of passion, took the latter too literally, when he attacked and bit one of the Police Dogs monitoring the demonstrations in the leg!!!
The incident has sparked a wave of protests from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), and other Animal Rights Advocacy groups worldwide. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been so far the only major Animal’s Right Organization which has not passed pronouncement upon the incident, citing that they are debating wether as animals Muslims should not also be given the same rights, under their charter, as the bitten dog, against whom the Muslim, allegedly, has many grievances.
The Muslim protester that bit the dog has been placed in quarantine in observation for forty days, and the dog has been vaccinated, as a precautionary measure, to avoid an outbreak of “rabies.”
So, as you can see, Miss Coulter is not only entertaining, but some times she makes some very good points. After all, some times we all take ourselves too seriously.
Althor
Comment by Althor — 2/15/2006 @ 9:48 pm
She is still a fascist bitch, apologist for criminality of the Bush administration. Lying about WMDs to start a war. That will never be hilarious. There are thousands of people dead that didn’t have to be. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Comment by blubonnet — 2/16/2006 @ 12:09 am
If you really want to know about what our government is about. Read this article about the collusion of government/military/CIA/multi-national corporations/media inter-dependent collusion. This guy worked for the NSA a few years ago. Read this article:
http:www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/15/1436221
Comment by blubonnet — 2/16/2006 @ 12:15 am
Somebody please bring a strait-jacket Blubonnet is loose!!!
ROFLMAO!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 2/16/2006 @ 9:40 am
Althor, did you read that article by the ex-NSA guy? No? Ignorance is like a warm blanky, huh?
Comment by blubonnet — 2/16/2006 @ 10:42 am
Yesterday Ann Coulter spoke at the Walton Arts Center just off the U. of Arkansas campus. The thin and attractive Ms. Coulter received a standing ovation as she entered.
Among other pithy comments, Ann cautioned the GOP, “The reason we are winning is because liberals are insane, not because we are a smooth-running operation.”
Comment by Black Jack — 2/16/2006 @ 10:50 am
The reason the GOP wins is because they use every dirty trick imaginable.
Wow. don’t you know that with all their dirty money, the GOP have been setting up operations in colleges to try and counter the realities conveyed by the political science professors that have been dubbed as “far left”. The reason they tend to be left is because they are studied individuals and know about the unscrupulous practices of multi-national corporations, war profiteers being the worse. So the multi-national corporations (the GOP) are doing their best to counter it. So, they find these young naive kids to manipulate. Kind of like you Black Jack.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/16/2006 @ 11:13 am
STOP. POSTING.
Comment by Angry Clam — 2/16/2006 @ 11:17 am
Come on, Clam. I know it’s painful, but Bluebottle does us all a favor when he/she/it posts. The only way the left ever gets another shot at running this country is if the rest of us succeed in keeping them from saying what they really think.
Comment by TNugent — 2/16/2006 @ 11:43 am
So, they find these young naive kids to manipulate.
So I take it that you don’t have a problem with manipulating “young naive kids” as long as it is the “studied individuals” who are doing the manipulating. Funny, all this time I’ve been thinking that the purpose of the university was education not indoctrination.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/16/2006 @ 1:23 pm
Yeah, I agree with you, Harry. They are there to learn the truth. So, why is it that the GOP is putting money into these GOP indoctrination plans for these young students?
So, the political science professors, having the total perspectives of all parties comprehended well, because of their necessary studies having gotten them to that point of knowledge, they tend to be more left leaning. Gee, what does that tell you?
The multi-national corporations/GOP/government/military industrial complex all work together to control people’s perceptions.
Albert Einstein: “Democracy taken in its narrower, purely political sense, suffers from the fact that those in ECONOMIC or POLITICAL POWER have the means for MOLDING PUBLIC OPINION to suit their OWN CLASS INTERESTS.
GOP stand for “good ol’ petroleum”
Sorry that knowledge offends you so severely, Angry Clam. Hating the messenger does not help anything.
There are so many Republican organizations out there that are turning their backs on this corrupt criminal war-profiteering administration. You should get with the program and admit that there are too many lies, too many deaths, too much defecit to give these scoundrels an iota of respect.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/16/2006 @ 8:58 pm
If you are just trying to make a Partisan point “Miss Margarine,” I will go along and laugh about your outlandish statements, but to seriously say that it is Republicans who are “indoctrinating” in our Universities, and “infiltrating” our Institutions is ludicrous in the face of the overwhelming evidence as to the contrary, which in fact has been going on for years: The infiltration by Leftists Secular Progressives of all branches of our Government, which has been going on for decades since the days when as students they waved the “Viet-Cong flag” on the steps of our Capitol while burning the Star and Stripes; who now sit on the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and at every Judicial level; who sit in the Houses of Congress; populate our Campuses; manipulate our Media and our entertainment venues; and who are no longer simply seeking “Equality under the Law” and “Protection from Discrimination,” but are desperately trying to impose their “Racial Favoritism Quotas” and “Alternate Lifestyles” upon us, as witnessed by the unprecedented campaign waged on all fronts to make of such Hollywood flops at the box office, as “Brokeback Mountain,” and “Trans America,” or the Ghetto Gangland violence of “Hip Hop,” and “Rap,” “Icons” of “Our Culture!”
When many of us were seven and eight years old we watched “Cowboy Movies” by John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Gregory Peck, etc., and wanted a “Roy Rogers Six Shooter” for Christmas, not like today where all some kid could watch, out of Hollywood, for a “Cowboy Movie” is the likes of “Brokeass Mountain,” and wish for, on “The Winter Solstice Holiday” (Christmas is no longer Politically Correct) what??? A ” Six Incher Dildo” ?!?!
Those you call “The Republicans” are simply the common folks that have gotten fed-up with all the Left wing, Democrat supported lunacy, the infiltration of our Judiciary, for years now, by those who will not “judge,” but rather “legislate from the bench, to ram down our collective throats their “Secular Progressive” religion of Godlessness, immorality and cowardice, that want to take away the Campgrounds from Boy Scouts while defending NAMBLA, will not abide any weed overgrown, half-buried, barely legible, monument of the Ten Commandments donated by the “Fraternal Order of Eagles,” decades ago, anywhere near a Courthouse, and who insistently interfere and intrude in our daily lives, on how we raise our families, teach our children, and celebrate our Holidays!!!
Infiltrate??? How about those “Liberal Professors” who populate our finest teaching Institutions (U. of “Arkee” our finest?!?!) with the likes of Professor (a title he’s not worthy to bear) Ward Churchill and his ilk, who daily envenom and indoctrinate our children with their archaic 19th Century variations on “Social Darwinism,” and proven failed pseudo-communistic agendas?!?!
Common folks are just fed-up with all those who in the face of the Islamist Jihad that has been thrust upon us, and upon Western Civilization, by the events of 9/11 as we sat literally “sucking our thumbs” as a Nation, complaisant in our “Secular Progressive, Multi-Cultural, Politically Correct, Fairy Tales and Fantasies” of our own creation, that subsequent events have dismally proven exceedingly naive and wrong, such as the continuing riots, death, and destruction over the Mohammed caricatures, or the “Democratic Election” of Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, and other events which are being fueled exponentially by an ever more blatant and open “Culture War” on the part of Islam to overthrow Western Democratic Values, and have them replaced with a worldwide Caliphate; those who continue to immerse themselves in the Leftist, Socialistic opiate of the aforementioned “Fairy Tales,” openly fighting against the War on Terror, undermining it in every way they can, every step of the way; that wish to dismantle our Military, as San Francisco Board of Supervisors Gerardo Sandoval told the Nation on an interview with Shaun Hannity the other night; who openly want that we would loose in Iraq regardless of the young men and women of our military who have sacrificed their lives in this endeavor to free Iraqis and the rest of the world from Saddam, just to prove their “Nemesis,” Bush, wrong, and call for our “defeat,” and to “cut and run,” like Howard Dean, and Congressman John Murtha; those who proudly hail their having “Filibustered” the extension of the Patriot Act a “Victory” like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid; those who consistently oppose, and relentlessly undermine every action of the Administration like Nancy Pelosi; or who wish to tie the governments hands in fighting terrorism while “championing” the rights of the terrorists to the point of being their most ardent allies, in actuality “Ading and Abetting ” them, such as Kennedy, Boxer, Durbin and all the rest of their above demagogue ilk, who form a veritable “Fifth Column” in our midst, constantly defaming and demeaning America before the world at every turn, while providing our enemies with plenty of fodder for their “Propaganda Machine,” in a time of war, with the aid of the Left leaning-biased “Mainstream Media,” which of course will not publish the pictures of the horrors that took place in Saddam’s prisons, much less publish such pictures as those appearing in The Jawa Report, for instance:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/158187.php
about any of the executions, tortures, and all the barbarity that is proudly carried by the Islamist terrorists in front of cameras and then swiftly disseminated through the airwaves by Aljazeera all over the Muslim world, lest, as with the Mohammed cartoons, they offend “Muslim sensitivities”!
We are waging a War on Terror, and “Cultural Wars” on two fronts, and one of our “enemies,” like a “cancer,” lives amongst us! It is time that we open our eyes, and respond with our votes!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 2/16/2006 @ 11:26 pm
Althor,
I see the military industrial complex and their vast stock ownership in the main stream media has you polished into a nice useful mouthpiece for them. Here’s a quote from General Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Generals of all time 1935: “I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force..the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. And during that period I spent most of my ime being a high-class muscleman for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism. I suspected I was part of a racket all the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service.”
At this point in time, those forces that lobby the government, the military industrial complex, oil companies, war profiteers in general, that we were warned severely about from Eisenhower for one, well, it just so happens that at this point in time, they actually are the government. Bush and Cheney both are war profiteers, and lie shamelessly. It has been pointed out by numerous people within the system that generally have to deal with their lives being devastated in some way or another. Try Lt.Col. Karen Kwiatkowski for one example of a truth teller
If you do a minimum of research, you will see that our multi-national corporations, oil companies, will disregard life at a whim if it interferes with their objective for drilling in remote lands. If the indigenous people are resistant, after all, it pollutes their simple but satisfying world, well, the oil companies if they get to be a problem, they’ll just shoot them. Of course we don’t hear about it, except for some remote sources on the web that survive on dotations, like Democracy Now, whose standards for getting the truth out, are not jeapordized by their sponsors like big pharma, or Big industry in general, for example.
If you have any regard for humanity, learn what this nation in which we live have done in this world. Read the article I posted above in post #51. I believe it is crucial to understand what we are up against. It is neo-liberalism. These people running are country are not conservatives. They are neo-liberals. Look it up. It is a dangerous philosophy advocating the free reign of corporations running government, which is another name for fascism.
American Heritage Dictionary 1938: “fascism-a system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership together with beligerant nationalism.”
As far as your disrespect for gays, it just shows your disregard for humanity. People born gay did not choose to be gay. Same sex interaction occurs in nature in other species as well as humans. If you are going to blame someone or be scorning and unaccepting, then blame God. I am not going to do that, are you? I think acting with respect for all of humanity is a Godlike thing to do. Remember…Liberty and Justice for All? Or is it only liberty and Justice for people that you conservatives like?
The effect of knowledge without the influence of mainstream media, is the state those professors have come into that make their perspective being what it is. The neo-liberal with all their money have ways to try to alter public opinion. One way they did it was to buy up much of the air waves in the 80’s. Reagan loosened the laws against media consolidation, so now just a few different people own the vast majority of the networks out there, therefore controlling the defining factors of what left wing or right wing or far left wing is. They have even bought most of the PBS by way of contributing, therefore limiting the amount of information that makes it way out into people’s minds through them.
In formulating your perspectives, why don’t you ask how many people get hurt? Your perspectives hurt alot of people. Why are you dissapointed by our country losing 3,000 people in an attack and you are okay with over 100,000 (by the “Lancet” medical journal) innocent Iraqis? A plethora of lies bringing this blood-bath about. Where is your humanity? Did it get sucked up into your patriotism never to be seen again?
Comment by blubonnet — 2/17/2006 @ 12:35 am
Blubonnet,
That you should refer to the innocent victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack in such a non-chalant, and cursory way as you have referred to them, and used them as just a “number” to weigh versus other “statistics” in a manner which implies justification of their murder, is not only monstrous, but amply proves who, and what you are.
Such callousness warrants that you do not even deserve an answer. You are simply infrahuman. But I am glad you spoke your mind, so that others may see what it is that besets us as a society, and a Nation, right within our own borders, living amongst us!!!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 2/17/2006 @ 1:06 am
Ann Coulter is proof positive of the moral bankruptcy of certain elements of our society. Notice I did not say Conservative because to equate her with the conservative movement would be as great an injustice as equating terrorists with all Muslims and child molesters with priests.
She is shocking, not in her brilliant observations, but in her ignorance and hate and the fact that she receives millions for such speech is further proof of the level to which certain elements have sunk. Those who say we should support our troops and then condone the hateful words directed against some of them by this evil woman are true hypocrites. But in a strange way she does perform a service when she receives cheers as she attacks vets who disagree with the Bushmeister. She shows what we all know. To this administration and its cronies Vets are nothing but cannon fodder in the war against democracy.
Comment by Charlie — 2/17/2006 @ 4:34 am
“I once had a shot a Bill Clinton,” could also be a pun. Perhaps the “shot” was a chance to be another of Bill’s conquests. I guess it’s the “woman bites dog” syndrome that makes conservatives so outraged by Ann’s hyperbole. We are getting uppity. We expect those “crazy Dems” to insult red-staters as deranged, bigoted, zombies following the secret directions of Karl Rove. Is it only Ann who understand’s that if you’re in a street fight you don’t look for an etiquette book? Dear Ann, keep throwing those grenades!
Comment by peter mohan — 2/17/2006 @ 4:42 am
althor your comments show a complete lack of understanding of what is happening. You long for the days of a toy six shooter (and movies depicting the killing of Indians?) and lament Brokeback mountain. You forget that during those very days black folks were being lynched in the south and could not vote.
You talk about tying the Presidents hand in the war on terrorism as if obeying the law or safeguarding the Constitution is a problem or too big an inconvenience. You seem to forget that the Cold War with the Soviets presented much greater threats but somehow our freedoms and liberties were preserved.
You also ignore the obvious fact that Bush and crew have made us far less safe long term by the hate they have created and the massive debt they have saddled us with in this senseless war in Iraq which so far has cost us 400 billion dollars. ( Oh thats right.I forgot. We are billing that to the grandkids..)
I believe the main reason OBL has not attacked again in the US is because the realize that having a man like Bush in the White House is the best thing they can do to convince the Muslim world that the US is out to destroy Islam and steal their lands. Every night on Arab TV and in Arab and Muslim newspapers there is fresh news of the killing of innocents by the US. Great recruiting tool and best of all this war results in a union between Iran and Iraq and the election of radicals everywhere!! Good going George~!!
And please dont give me this line about doing this to rid the world of our former pal Sadam Hussein. No one in the Islamic world believes the US did this to help the Iraqis.Hannity may believe that. They are not stupid!!!
So Bush and crew sent US troops to die for a senseless reason and then folks like Shawn Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Annie C who never served a day in their lives, insist that anyone who questions this stupidity secretly hopes for a defeat as justification for silencing dissent and sending even more troops into the war these cowards have avoided. John Murtha is a man who really cares about the troops. He put his money where is mouth is by serving but notice the vitrol used against him when he dissented. All by those self proclaimed lovers of US troops who glowingly talk all about the sacrifices of the young people, while avoiding combat themselves and conveniently forgetting they it was Bush and Co that wanted this war for reasons now known to be false. Its complete bullshit.
Bush is the number one helper in the spread of Islamic terrorism. But since he bows his head in prayer and invokes the name of the Almighty and has a whole army of loyal robots ready to sping into action with their usual fear and smear campaign, he is able to avoid impeachment. He is an ignorant, shallow, faker. A pure creation of the media. Hell he didnt even live on a ranch until he bought one in 1999 just in time to create his cowboy image.
But hate for anything “liberal” and a well developed persecution complex and constant fear keep the masses blind to the destruction this idiot is creating. Oh but he never lied about sex in the WH so I guess that makes everything ok. George Bush is proof of how little we really believe in our values.
Comment by Charlie — 2/17/2006 @ 5:16 am
Steve wrote, a couple of days ago:
Perhaps if you’d visit our friends on The Lost Kos and look around, you’d see just how friendly they are to moderate Democrats. They are supporting the unseating of Senator Joseph Lieberman by Ned Lamont, and Rep, Henry Cuellar (D-TX) by a liberal challenger.
Comment by Dana — 2/17/2006 @ 6:06 am
Charlie wrote:
[GUFFAWS] Sorry, Charlie, but it’s pretty obvious that you don’t understand what fascism means. Are the leftists in jail? Have the Democrats not been allowed to speak? Did our current government not just subject itself to a free election in which it could have lost?
Please, do me a favor: to have a civil discussion, talk about real things, and not just leftist propaganda points.
Comment by Dana — 2/17/2006 @ 6:11 am
Blu wrote:
Back in December, Tillman asked the same question. Well, I looked at the “Fourteen characteristics,” as Mr Tillman presented them, and answered them all. It was too long (I thought) to post on Patterico’s website, so I put the article on mine (before you found my site, so I guess you never saw them), and linked it back to the then-current discussion here.
Comment by Dana — 2/17/2006 @ 6:19 am
Dana, by our willingness to recognize within our own party, the ineptitude or even betrayal of our values, in H. Clinton, and Lieberman, and some others, it shows that we are about what is best for the public, not just partisan cheerleaders, and negative spitting spinners. Dems get paid off too. We recognize it. How can you condemn us for that? It’s pricipal over party!
I hope to convey the 14 characteristics of fascism as briefly as I can to have you recognize the parallels:
1. Powerful nationalism
2. Disdain for human rights
3. Identifying of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying force (liberals, “rag heads”(disgusting bigotry).
4. Supremecy of military: at the expense of humanity’ needs domestically, even the medical care of our soldiers. Devastating the poor.
5. Sexism. Not as bad as the other characteristics of fascism, but a woman’s reproductive rights are being disregarded. It’s legal again to fire some one for being gay.
6. Controlled mass media. Paid by the government, although considered illegal, Bu$hCo, hires pundits to give their draconian policies a favorable light. There has been numerous gag orders as well. Also, many that have come into power did so because of the big money(=GOP) that owns such huge stock in media.
7. Obsession w/ national security. Most everyone knows the attempts to incite fear as a manipulative tactic by these children running our country.
8.Religion and Govt. intertwined. This administration has successfully used “Christianity” to controll the masses, while devastating the poor, by giving millions to Christian groups. Bu$hCo has given billions to what he calls “Faith based groups”. More like bribing him into voting, the population is 1/3 Evangelical Christians. Easy math.
9.Corporate power protected. Every effort is made to protect the corporations from being held responsible for the devastating destruction done to the population, be it through predatory lending or polluting, causing cancer, respiratory disease, etc.
10.Labor power suppressed.Making those fat cat so fat, they could be exploding anytime now. Middle class disappearing. Milk, use and abuse the workforce.
ll. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts. Artists from all over the world are being refused entry to the US on security grounds. The right wing has infiltrated the colleges to control the thought. Science is being suppressed in favor of big business.
12.Obsession w/ crime and punishment. There is now no reason needed to arrest someone. Patriot Act is now approaching pemanence.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
DeLay, Abramhoff, Libbey, and many others. Look at Katrina for worthless appointees.
14. Fraudulent elections. You guys will argue with me, but there is much evidence that will not and did not make it into the mainstream news. There was a gag order. There were illegally disenfranchised thousands that were supposedly mistakes, interestingly all favoring Bush. In 2004, the massives amount of irregularities didn’t make it on the mainstream media either, a gag order was sent on that subject. If you watch C-SPAN, you could get the scoop. Also, the internet gave ample information.
There is much more evidence to better make my point. However in respect for the space here, I won’t turn this into a massive piece. I would ask other lefties to add to this, reinforcing the points. God knows there are plenty.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/17/2006 @ 10:27 am
No, blubonnet, those are 14 characteristics of the old Soviet Union–the most notorious fascists in history.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/17/2006 @ 11:13 am
Beautiful Blu:
Mayhap you didn’t notice the link in my previous. I responded to each of those fourteen points, but, because that made for a very long response, attempted to show some courtesy to our honorable host, and put it on my site instead. They are right there, for you to see.
(Of course, it would never cross my mind to pimp for my own blog!
)
Comment by Dana — 2/17/2006 @ 11:31 am
Ann’s been at it again. She called the terrorists, “Jihad monkeys.”
Then she said, “Sorry, I realize that’s offensive. How about “camel jockey”? What? Now what’d I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?”
Comment by Black Jack — 2/17/2006 @ 11:36 am
blu wrote So, the political science professors, having the total perspectives of all parties comprehended well, because of their necessary studies having gotten them to that point of knowledge, they tend to be more left leaning. Gee, what does that tell you?
Logically speaking, nothing, nothing at all. It’s either a circular argument or an appeal to authority, I’m honestly not sure which, maybe both. In either case there is no logical inference to be gained from the admission that university professors of the social sciences tend to espouse leftist philosophies.
I will say that as a parent of a university student, and a taxpayer who pays the professors’ salaries, I’m not all that happy about it. Thus, I fully support any attempt by any person or organization to push university professors towards moderation.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/17/2006 @ 12:57 pm
Bush and Cheney both are war profiteers
Feel free to disagree with Bush’s policies and actions all you want. It’s America after all. However, every time I’ve read this unsubstantiated allegation, I’ve asked for supporting facts only to be left disappointed. Will you once again leave me disappointed? Michael Moore has profited more from this war than Bush and Cheney combined.
Let’s see your facts. Please don’t tell me to go the the Carlyle Group web site. I’m very familiar with it and I have yet to find the page where it lists Bush and Cheney as “war profiteers”.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/17/2006 @ 1:13 pm
One more comment on the job of the university in preparing young people to function in the “real world”. I would much rather both our public school system and our university system focus more on “how to think” rather than on “what to think”.
To me it’s simple. If we provide our young people with critical thinking skills that will allow them to research and analyse facts and logically explore arguments being formed around those facts then the job is done. They will espouse whatever political and philosophical constructs that they have reasoned through.
What we have to remember is that university professors and public school teachers are authority figures. It is very easy for them to indoctrinate rather than educate, almost without realizing what they are doing.
The truth should never fear a question. If what these professors are teaching at the university is indeed the truth then what do they have to fear from a few measly lying infiltrating republicans and their filthy money?
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/17/2006 @ 5:09 pm
Dana,
Yes I know it was a topic on your site, and I appreciate that you were up for sharing that. You disputed how we fit into that category. I didn’t have the gumption at that moment to challenge you on it. At this point in time, I just had the momentary gusto. This time when the subject came up, I took it on.
Harry,
You apparently did not look very hard at the Carlyle Group site, because you will find there that Bush Sr is one of the bigger players in it, and defense is one of their golden geese. A goose with fangs, I might add. So, the Bush family is making out quite nicely. Of course, Halliburton stock for Cheney is making him an average of 21,000 daily. Of course capitalism isn’t a bad thing, but when a war is begun on lies, it’s unconscienable.
James Baker is also a big player in the Carlyle group. He was one of those that said in 2000, “Stop counting the votes”.
They all planned this war way before the 2000 s…election.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/17/2006 @ 6:08 pm
Blu wrote:
No, he was one of those who said, “Stop letting the Democrats fabricate votes they didn’t win.”
Comment by Dana — 2/18/2006 @ 3:31 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court were the ones who said, “Stop counting the votes” in 2000–by a margin of 7-2. The seven votes to stop the insanity came from O’Connor, Breyer, Souter, Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia and Kennedy.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/18/2006 @ 3:48 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court were the ones who said, “Stop counting the votes” in 2000–by a margin of 7-2.
The 7-2 decision was in regard to different standards of counting votes.
The decision to intervene and stop the recount was 5-4.
Comment by steve — 2/18/2006 @ 4:31 pm
No, the 7-2 decision was in regard to the cessation of counting votes.
The decision not to fashion a new remedy was 5-4.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/18/2006 @ 4:38 pm
The Court voted 5-4 on December 9th to stop the Florida recounts and called for a hearing on the morning of the 11th, as to the legality of the newly ordered recount.
On December 12th, voting 7-2, the Court said that the Florida Supreme Court had erred in calling for a manual recount. There had been differening standards.
On a 5-4 vote, it declared that that amounted to a violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. While the case reverted back to Florida, there was no practicable time to effect a remedy.
It’s misleading to say a 7-2 vote directed the state to halt recounts.
Comment by steve — 2/18/2006 @ 5:42 pm
It’s not misleading at all.
The recount wasn’t stopped until the US Supreme Court decided, 7-2, that the Florida Supreme was not entitled to call for a manual recount. So, if the recount was void, the counting of votes stopped. The hearing didn’t stop the counting of votes for good; it merely halted it temporarily until the US Supreme Court could rule. And they did rule, 7-2, that the counting of votes should not continue.
Read my link in #78.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/18/2006 @ 5:54 pm
Then please explain the effect of the two 5-4 rulings. One granted injunctive relief. The other accompanied the 7-2 “inconsistent recount standards” decision.
Is it the case only 5 justices found that anomaly violated the 14th amendment?
The remand obviously carried a death sentence with that language, so it was the narrower decision that foreclosed continued recounts. No?
Comment by steve — 2/18/2006 @ 6:28 pm
No, seven justices thought that the 14th amendment had been violated, but only five wanted to leave it at that.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/18/2006 @ 6:32 pm
No, seven justices thought that the 14th amendment had been violated, but only five wanted to leave it at that. - Justice Frankfurter”
Comment by steve — 2/18/2006 @ 6:42 pm
[The system ate my follow-on.]
I think I follow your spare answer.
It’s undeniable the 7-2 Court held every state must have one statewide method of recording votes to be constitutional.
[I deny that. The Court simply held that the absurd situation in Florida, where vote-counters applied different standards at different tables in the same room, was unconstitutional. The Court did not hold that a State must use the same procedures throughout the State, and I challenge you to produce a statement by the Court to the contrary. You can't, because the Court never said any such thing. -- Patterico]
But then the Court had to address whether to allow the redo of the recount (the one that would subsequently be submitted by Florida), or stop all recounts and go with the certified results of November 26.
Five justices decided to stop all recounts.
Comment by steve — 2/18/2006 @ 6:48 pm
No, seven justices stopped the counting of votes with their 7-2 decision. We can only speculate on the remedy that could have been concocted by the liberal minority on the Court. Maybe it would have involved counting votes–or maybe they would have ordered a brand new vote. But until there was a remedy, votes were not being counted any more . . . by 7-2.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/18/2006 @ 8:45 pm
blu, Harry, You apparently did not look very hard at the Carlyle Group site, because you will find there that Bush Sr is one of the bigger players in it, and defense is one of their golden geese. A goose with fangs, I might add. So, the Bush family is making out quite nicely.
Please re-read my comment. I specifically stated that “…I have yet to find the page where it lists Bush and Cheney as ‘war profiteers’.” Once again, blu, you’ve made an unsubstantiated assertion, followed by an illogical conclusion. I’m very familiar with the Carlyle Group. They are a privately held organization that invests in companies in many areas of our economy, including defense.
You’ve moved the target by mentioning “Bush, Sr” and “the Bush family” and insinuating that this somehow implicates Bush and Cheney in “war profiteering”. Sorry, blu, but that’s illogical nonsense. And it’s also nonsense to assert that the Carlyle group is engaged in “war profiteering” unless you’d like to cite some facts that support your claim. The actual facts are that the Carlyle Group is run by honorable men who make legal investments in an assortment of industries resulting in the return of legal and reasonable profits.
“A goose with fangs …”? meaning…?
Of course, Halliburton stock for Cheney is making him an average of 21,000 daily. Of course capitalism isn’t a bad thing, but when a war is begun on lies, it’s unconscienable.
What was Halliburton’s profit last year? How much did they make in the last three years? Do you have a number? Are you comfortable with your assertion that VP Cheney makes $7,665,000 annually from Halliburton stock? Seems high to me.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/18/2006 @ 9:14 pm
Simply put, George Bush was installed. I’m tired of these circular arguments. Look somewhere besides your “boy scout, GWB is our daddy” sites, and maybe the delusions will lift a little. George Will came out recently denouncing little George’s slippery shenanigans.
It is too much work trying to fill you in.
I’ve tried to tell you, but you don’t believe me, that the mainstream media is owned by the same people that bought our government. We are living in a fascist state. Expect things to get worse. We have handed our rights over to a DICK (Cheney) tator, and the fall guy, GWB. Yeah, you laugh, but you guys are not choosing to read what is not part of the network of GOP/multi-national corporations/CIA/media. I think you are not fathoming the money and the power. You have to realize that 80% of the world’s wealth is in a very small percentage of the world’s hands. These are friends of and partners of and members of this administration. It is hard to grasp it all. No, I really am not so “out there”, you’re just “in here” isolated, because you don’t want to see. Again, I state that, “If you’re not infuriated, you’re no informed” (not mine). Yeah, go ahead and laugh.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/18/2006 @ 11:59 pm
The 7-2 Court vote didn’t decree one statewide voting system - as among punch-card, optical scan or lever machine - but one statewide recount procedure, eliminating “unjustifiably disparate standards applied in different electoral jurisdictions to otherwise identical facts.”
As I understand it, that ruling allowed for remand to the courts of Florida with instructions to establish uniform standards for evaluating the several types of ballots that prompted differing treatments.
Five justices enjoined restarting the recount.
Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter opposed, with Justice Ginsberg writing, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested.”
Comment by steve — 2/19/2006 @ 2:16 am
90, Steve
As I read the B v. G decision, you’re being too charitable. The Supreme Court in fact did not decree a uniform recount procedure. I think the Fla Supreme Court ruled for a recount, but were overruled by the Supremes.
The S. Court ruled that Florida’s recount process was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Claim. The process of recounting all the votes across all precincts was too uneven to meet Constitutional standards. Chads here, undercounts there, overcounts there. The rules of confirming a vote were not consistent. (The underlying reasoning, of course, is a bit perverse. If four counties could be counted to a higher (read: different) degree of accuracy, then that discredited the Constitutional validity of the vote counts in the rest of the state.)
The Court never hinted at a remedy. It did not trust the Florida courts to supervise a consistent remedy to a precinct-wide recount process. And, in any case, they held that a recount remedy (by a 5-4 vote) could never have been resolved by the Dec. deadlines, set by various rules and laws.
Thus, the varied voting methods in Fla prevented a constitutionally fair and legal recount of the vote, within the legal time alotted. If you cut all the BS, there was never a full and accurate hand recount of the Fla votes — in the most important election in memory — because of legaling gameplaying and imposed time limits. In other words, denied by legal bs.
The central issue has never been resolved; indeed, every state in the US includes precincts that employ different voting systems and recount methods. Each could be the focus of a Fla. ‘00-style disaster. And no state would be prepared to provide Constitutionally valid recounts, since the S. Court’s final decision overtly denied stare decisis in its ruling. Which, of course, it had to.
Comment by jmaharry — 2/19/2006 @ 5:26 am
Mr. Disinformation wrote, above:
“Thus, the varied voting methods
in Fla prevented a constitutionally
fair and legal recount of the vote,
within the legal time alotted.
No, the US Supreme Court thought that there already had been a fair and legal recount of the votes already, by machine.
“If you cut all the BS, there
was never a full and accurate
hand recount of the Fla votes. . .
No, legally, there already had been a fair an accurate machine recount, with no legal basis for a hand recount.
“The central issue has never
been resolved;”
The issue of whether the certified Florida vote was valid was indeed resolved by the US Supreme Court. As a result, George W. Bush won the presidential election of 2000, and despite the whining of the liberals and Leftists like you, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.
By the way, jmaharry, be sure to tell us today: If you were in charge, how would you reduce or eliminate the Federal budget deficit?
We look forward to your next tantrum.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/19/2006 @ 8:08 am
blubonnet said:
“We are living in
a fascist state”
And then they came for blubonnet, but I said nothing.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/19/2006 @ 8:16 am
We are living in a fascist state
blu,I’m done even trying to convince you to make a cogent argument. Apparently that is a capability you have yet to discover.
Patently and utterly ridiculous. If true, your computer would already have been cofiscated and you would be in a camp somewhere far from home. That you still have the right to make your absurd allegations is evidence in itself that they are false.
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/19/2006 @ 8:42 am
Let’s get back on track:
Ann looked terrific on TV last night, she must be working out. And, she enjoyed pointing out that watching Lefties pretend they know anything at all about quail hunting has been hilariously funny.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/19/2006 @ 9:22 am
Ann definitely looks better than Boxer, or Pelosi, I dare say!
LMAO!
Althor
Comment by Althor — 2/19/2006 @ 10:41 am
When the WaPo’s Dana Milbank appeared on MSNBC wearing an orange cap and vest no one pointed out it wasn’t a hunting vest like VP Cheney used during the quail hunt.
Milbank had on the vest highway workers use to keep from getting run over by speeding motorists, and BDS presstitutes.
Comment by Black Jack — 2/19/2006 @ 11:39 am
Steve wrote:
You have a dog named “The system?”
Comment by Dana — 2/19/2006 @ 11:54 am
Blu wrote:
I have to wonder why the left seems so incapable of understanding that George Bush won the election. Yes, the election in 2000 was extremely close, and the votes in Florida were tighter than tight. But even the media recount, done slowly and deliberately after the big fuss was over, indicated that Mr Bush won the vote, by very tight margins, depending upon what standard was used. Under only one scenario, where ballots which were clearly illegal (the so-called “overvotes”) were included, did Mr Gore prevail.
Since then, we have had another election, this time won by the President by a substantial margin. Why, then, does the left continue to cling to the hopeless mirage that President Bush was somehow “installed?”
Comment by Dana — 2/19/2006 @ 12:02 pm
Blu wrote:
If we are living in a fascist state, why are you still free?
This is a serious question, Blu. There are literally thousands of websites, originating in the United States, which publish all sorts of articles opposed to President Bush, from the reasonably respectable ones which oppose his policies to the kook sites which claim that he was responsible for 9/11 in the first place, and yet all of those people are still out there, free, and able to write anything they wish.
Of course, you’re small potatoes, Blu, so maybe they haven’t noticed you. But what about the writers of The Lost Kos, which gets half a million hits a day? Not small potatoes anymore. What about people like John Conyers, who wants to impeach the President, or Abdul al-Gore, who is using his position to criticize American policy on foreign soil? Why aren’t these people in jail, if this is a fascist state?
You have said, many times, that you’ve tried to tell us something, but we wouldn’t believe you. Well, that’s true, a lot of people haven’t believed you. Maybe you ought to ask yourself the very real question of why you are still free, why aren’t you in jail, if all of the things you have believed about the government are tru.
Comment by Dana — 2/19/2006 @ 12:12 pm
92, Frankfurter
“Mr. Disinformation,” very clever. When you’re out of your depth - and you’re clearly drowning - puerile name calling is always a handy tactic. You’ve got the rest of the hack conservative playbook down, too. Swearing. Quoting out of context. Making personal slurs and false assumptions about my beliefs. You’ve got a lot to be proud of in that post. Indeed, ‘tantrum’ is an apt description.
Back here in grown-up world, I wrote a brief note to steve summarizing how I understand the Supreme Court’s rulings and reasoning. Maybe I was wrong, but, despite your bluster, you certainly didn’t prove anything of the sort.
The court saw many problems with the machine recount, and wrote about those at length in its ruling. (For example: “This case has shown that punch card balloting machines can produce an unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean, complete way by the voter. After the current counting, it is likely legislative bodies nationwide will examine ways to improve the mechanisms and machinery for voting.”)
The court also ruled that there was no possible way to develop and implement a remedy and still make the Dec. 18 deadline for naming Electors. Would you like to refute that?
There never was a statewide hand recount of the ballots. Would you like to refute that?
And the vexing problem of varied voting tablulation methods still exists in every state. Would you like to refute that?
Please let the Oxycontin high wear down a little before replying. I could do with a few less histrionics, and a few more facts relevant to what I’m actually talking about.
Comment by jmaharry — 2/19/2006 @ 1:48 pm
Here, jmaharry, answer the question I posted above:
“By the way, jmaharry, be
sure to tell us today: If you
were in charge, how would you
reduce or eliminate the Federal
budget deficit?
Well?
By the way, your previous post wasn’t quite the tantrum we know you’re capable of. Come on, now. Let’s have one of the Left’s patented screaming, shouting, neck-veins sticking-out tantrums–you know, like the one Al Franken launched on Alan Colmes at a dinner, or like Lawrence O’Donnell did on TV while calling the Swiftboat Veterans liars over 30 times in a brief segment. Come on–you know you want to.
As it is, you have a delightfully adolescent habit of posting obvious facts which anyone would agree with, and then challenging me to refute them. For example, you said:
“The court also ruled that
there was no possible way to
develop and implement a remedy
and still make the Dec. 18
deadline for naming Electors.
Would you like to refute that?
No, because that’s what happened, and America is better off because it did!
“There never was a statewide
hand recount of the ballots.
Would you like to refute that?”
As I said, there’s no no legal basis for any hand recount, and that’s why none of the attempts to do so was accepted by the US Supreme Court. So–we agree again!
“And the vexing problem of
varied voting tablulation methods
still exists in every state.
Would you like to refute that?”
The US Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Bush v. Gore was per curiam, which means that it addressed only the case at hand. But if there are varied vote-counting methods in different states, there is no reason why they should be all the same. It’s not a “vexing problem” to anybody except you. Apparently, you get vexed easily.
Just remember: George W. Bush is President and there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Would you care to refute that?
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/19/2006 @ 2:21 pm
Per curiam means addressed by the court as a whole, rather than by a single justice. Not focusing on or taking into account a single case.
I listed those facts because those are the facts relevant to the issues I was talking about in my post to steve. It’s called a discussion.
The problem with varied voting methods within each state (not between states — you misunderstand again) is that it opens the way for a repeat of the Florida ‘00 mess. It make it impossible to get a really accurate or consistently arrived-at vote count, it brings up Equal Protection conflicts and problems, and it leads to deciding elections based on Supreme Court rulings. Most people would rather decide elections based on accurate vote counts, rather than having to rely on court decisions. It’s called democracy.
Do you suffer from some strange form of written tourette’s syndrome? Why do you keep screaming and swearing about Bush being president? I think he’s a pretty remarkable guy, and is doing a decent job as president.
Comment by jmaharry — 2/19/2006 @ 2:50 pm
Once again, jmaharry, answer the question I posted above:
“By the way, jmaharry, be
sure to tell us today: If you
were in charge, how would you
reduce or eliminate the Federal
budget deficit?
Well?
Let’s hear what you have to say about this, in your own words. That way, no one can distort what you said, or misunderstand you meaning when you’re being unclear.
Comment by Justice Frankfurter — 2/19/2006 @ 3:04 pm
jmaharry wrote:
That’s true enough, but it was never ruled that having more than one method of voting within a single state is unconstitutional. Given that it is (usually) the localities which purchase voting systems, the state can hardly mandate a single method without assuming the funding as well. And having localities being responsible for elections is the right way to go: there are far more local elections than state ones.
The biggest problem that I saw in Florida was that Palm Beach County changed its manual recount standards in the middle of the recount, because the recount wasn’t
producing enough fabricatedfinding enough additional votes for Vice President Gore.Comment by Dana — 2/19/2006 @ 3:54 pm
Ok, your Gore jibe aside, but they did say that “problems in the uneven way the votes were being recounted” in Florida was unconstitutional. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore). Also, that the “state-wide standard (if the voters intent is clear, the vote should be counted) was not sufficientto guarantee consistent voting results (thus, fair and equal representation.) (ibid.)
So Florida’s method of recount was unconsequential, but the Court didn’t extend that to other states. I wonder, did every Florida county do at least a machine recount? I saw one source that cliamed 20 counties never conducted the recount.
It reminds me of Katrina — a predictable major event occurs, and we don’t have the infrastructure, resources and response plan to properly deal with the consequences. John Fund, whom I’m not all that fond of, wrote convincingly about the problems that keep recurring because of our shabby voting system (http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005956).
Re: 102 Frankfurter:
“As I said, there’s no no legal basis for any hand recount, and that’s why none of the attempts to do so was accepted by the US Supreme Court.”
I’m afraid you’re wrong on this as well:
“Florida’s election laws allow a candidate to request a county to conduct a manual recount, and Gore requested manual recounts in four Florida counties: Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade.” (ibid.)
Further, from the US District court, southern district:
Fla. Stat. § 102.166(4) provides that any candidate or his party may file a written request with a county canvassing board for a “manual recount” within 72 hours after midnight of the date of the election or prior to the time the canvassing board adjourns, whichever occurs later.
So, there was ample legal grounds for conducting a manual recount.
Comment by jmaharry — 2/19/2006 @ 9:03 pm
Dana, there’s a level of freedom in a fascist state. We do fit those characteristics, however.
The very fact that our discussion is so varied in viewpoints, shows how all of you are relying on the common MSM, and not getting the real stories.
Example, you probably don’t know about the illegal disenfranchisement of the blacks in Florida in 2000, do you? Look up 2000 Florida illegal voter disenfranchisement. I don’t have the energy to constantly fill you guys in. The MSM is keeping you ignorant and compliant. Sounds like fascism to me. No, we are not 100% there. The Neo-Liberal (neo-con-fascists) are doing what they can to make it happen though.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/19/2006 @ 9:39 pm
Blu wrote:
Well, this is certainly a new one! We now have a fascist state in which anyone is perfectly free to criticize the government, in as harsh terms as he sees fit, and the government is subject to the approval of or removal by the voters in free elections. Add to that all sorts of legal rights to protect us from the state, due process of law, and the right to own private property.
From the Encarta online encyclopedia:
Words mean things, Blu, and tossing around words like “fascism” without knowing what they mean does you no credit.
Comment by Dana — 2/20/2006 @ 6:41 am
Blu wrote:
I know that the state of Florida prohibits convicted felons from voting — which is exactly the policy I support. Some purges of the voter registration rolls in Florida weren’t completely perfect, but that is a mistake, not fascism.
Comment by Dana — 2/20/2006 @ 6:43 am
Dana, is spying on Americans freedom? Is getting arrested for having a T shirt free? Is getting kicked out of tax payer funded events because you have an unacceptable bumper sticker(expressing disgust at Bush) free? Is trying to limit the amount of information is available on the internet free? Are rigged elections (do some reasearch) free? Is giving Bush absolute power free? (Has he proven to be honest?) Is having the job market sucked up into foreign countries by all powerful multi-national corporations, and then having what ever government assistance to help pulled out from under you, free? Is being poor, therefore unable to get medical care if you need it free? Is paying taxes to have things like FEMA in place to make sure you don’t end up homeless, only to be left homeless because of funding all in the war, free? Also, the funding to maintain the levies to prevent the expected disaster, only to be betrayed, free? I could go on and on.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/20/2006 @ 11:43 am
Dana, The disallowing of free speech is NOT a fascistic characteristic. You can legally speak objectionably and still be in a fascist state.
Comment by blubonnet — 2/20/2006 @ 8:54 pm
You can legally speak objectionably and still be in a fascist state.
… of course you can, you just won’t live very long doing so.
Fascist states allow free speech?
Who woulda thought?
Comment by Harry Arthur — 2/20/2006 @ 11:02 pm
Harry, did you read the 14 characteristics of fascism? A political science Phd. (oh that means nothing to you, I guess nothing does) by the name of Britt, wrote the article. That was what I referred to when writing above.
http://www.peace-justice.com/fascism.html
Dana,Virtually all the “mistakes” that brought about the result of the 2000 s…election favored Bush, as did the 2004. If you trust C-SPAN as a source, look it up there. John Conyers hearing on the multitude of irregularities!
Comment by blubonnet — 2/21/2006 @ 12:03 pm
[...] We’ll start with this: Shut up, already, Ann. Just shut up. After your recent remarks joking about assassinating Justice Stevens, dontcha think it’s time to cool the assassination jokes for a while — as in: forever? [...]
Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? — 7/12/2006 @ 9:33 pm
As a Delaware Republican who will hold his nose and vote for Mike Castle next week, I am grateful for Ann Coulter. Some of us do prever red meat to the thin gruel of ‘moderation’. Does she go a bit over the line at times? Perhaps.
However, she is generally on-target and down not need to be the target of a circular firing squad of squeamish Republicans who fail to understand that practical politics is often a contact sport.
Comment by Arthur Downs — 10/31/2006 @ 10:13 am