He just slavishly promotes their “books”.
(By the way, this is the only post I’m going to make relating to It’s new book and It in general. I’ll just note that the right claims that It isn’t a spokesperson for them, yet they can’t help promoting It’s ideas.)
It’s InstaCracker.
The only reason you’ll ever need to not send your kids to school in Tennessee.
Wonder if ann is a virgin, or a fornicating whore who has sex outside of holy matrimony. Sorry if this gives anyone a bad visual.
Instapusillanimous, once again, fails to express any criticism for the ‘boneyard’ other than his usual tepid and bloodless ‘coincidence?’.
Reynolds is just a Republican.
He sure as hell isn’t a libertarian.
Enough about It.
Superman starts June 28, two days earlier! IMAX 3D! (I know, it’s only 20 minutes 3D…)
Yeah, we have a few Imaxes around (especially in DC), I’m trying to find out which one has it.
Massachusetts
Comcast IMAX 3D Theatre at Jordan’s Furniture – Natick
1 Underprice Way
Natick, 01760
508-424-0088
Comcast IMAX 3D Theatre at Jordan’s Furniture – Reading
50 Walkers Brook Road
Reading, 01867
Virginia
Ethyl IMAX Dome
2500 W. Broad Street
Richmond, 23220
804-864-1400
http://www.imax.com
Posts like this about Renyolds continue to be pathetic. He also linked to Helen Thomas’ new book. He links to famous Democrats all the time. Why don’t you claim he is promoting their ideas?
Please provide his stances on stem cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, and any other individual rights issue.
Normally, the IMAXes at the Smithsonian don’t show anything but the standard documentaries. When the Matrix 2 Imax came out, the closest showings were in Richmond and Philly.
He “promotes” her book by comparing her to the Antichrist?
You can do better.
I used to think AC was just another opinionated conservative pundit. However the unbased opinions and outright lies that she spouts in this book makes Michael Moore’s movie ” Farenheit 911″, that the right was so obsessed with, sound like a children’s movie. There are plenty of intelligent, well respected conservatives whom I may disagree with but enjoy listening to their opinion because they are based on their values and do not personally attack liberals, progressives or any other group. Hers is based on her narrow-minded opinion and just plain bullshit.
“…..evidenced by her book sales.”
But i thought conservative groups bought them in bulk and that skewed the sales figures.
Can you guys get your talking points straight?
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.”
This is what passes for mainstream conservative thought, evidenced by her book sales.
Uhhh, Mr Reynolds posted:
Yeah, that’s a great promo!
Mainstream Conservative Thought? I think not.
Oh, looke at the comments. The hard right wing base seems to be taking Coulter’s side. They are all yours, cons. So cons, are you for Ann Coulters comments or against them? Seems you guys never quite got around to condemning her comments.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007145.php
“I totally agree with Ann. Losing someone is hard and hurtful. These women have made martyrs of themselves and taken the mantle of righteouseness over everything about 9/11.That is not right. These women raked everyone over the coals about everything and no one has had the breasticles to say anything to them or disagree with these women as “they lost so much.” ”
“What Ann said is true. These dames are also involved in the paean to socialism and bashing everything American that has become the WTC memorial. Check them out before you defend them.”
“Captain, I know the daughter of a 9/11 victim, and she herself shares Coulter’s views on the mileage some of the widows have gotten out of the deaths of their husbands. And she is appalled by it.”
“Cappy, I totally disagree with you. I understand your personal situation at the moment and, perhaps, Anne’s comment hit a nerve with you. Her observation of the FACTS are completely accurate and were not meant to demean the EMOTIONAL tragedy those women experienced”
“I don’t think that Ann’s comments were over the top at all. A bit harsh perhaps, but not over the top. The 9/11 widows, especially the far left 9/11 widows for Kerry are no different in my mind than Code Pink star Cindy Sheehan. Their motives and actions were transparently political and economic. Shame on them – and thanks Ann for having the courage to point this out.”
To borrow Oliver’s logic from the Rush/Moore thread:
Whose more representative of “Mainstream Conservatives”: the guy with the blog that ranks Top 100 or 5 Anonymous commenters?
No comdenation. Telling, but not unexpected.
I like Ann Coulter and think she is an excellent polemicist. But not for one second is she a prime conservative thinker or originator. She’s a critic, a commenter – for conservatives only. A guilty pleasure. I can see an inteliigent progressive thinking Moore is actually full of sh*t, but secretly enjoying his over the top assault of the conservative world. Same for me w/Coulter.
Dugger, Like Rush for the same reason, now hate me
factcheck,
What’s to condemn? I’ve never bought one of her books, I disagree with her on abortion, gay marriage, and I’m sure all sorts of other things.
The fact is, this post wasn’t about Coulter as much as it was Oliver stupidly saying Instapundit was “slavishly” praising her book, when he basically compared her to the anti-christ.
But, just so you can get the condemnation you’re looking for and get back to your undoubtedly full life, the comment about them “enjoying” their husbands deaths was over the line.
Happy?
polemicist – a writer who argues in opposition to others (especially in theology)
Interesting use of words, Dugger. However, she does a little more than just arguing opposition. There a some conservatives that I actually enjoying listening to their opinion, because it is stated as a matter of conviction about what is right. Pat Buchannan and Bill Buckley are two examples. But to my knowledge they do not routinely make ad hominem attacks on all progressive or liberals (whichever you prefer) as in the case of AC.
“A guilty pleasure.”
What about what she says brings you people pleasure?
Except, of course, that he wasn’t.
I see that Dugger is the only honest con on this thread.
The fact that Coulter is promoted by bulk book buys proves that her views are part of mainstream conservative thought, not disproves it.
The right wing foundations such as the Scaifes and Olins who buy up her screeds are the same organizations who finance the Heritage Foundation, CNS news, World Nut Daily, and other right wing outlets. They drive the conservative agenda, which cons lap up like milk.
I’m not asking for the right to denounce Coulter (nor am I waiting for the flying pigs), but they are actively promoting her which is even worse.
And the right operates differently, I take it? Jay C, are you somehow so delusional that you can’t see this is a tactic both sides use? Or is it just convenient?
Cyrus, that’s the way the left operates. Unless you denounce somebody for something, it means you automatically agree with everything they say.
Of course, the same rationale does not apply to them in any way shape or form.
Unlike the liberals buying tickets (for school kids in beverly hills no less, cause those poor schmo’s can’t afford a ticket) for Gore’s latest cinematic fantasy?
Please point to eliminationist rhetoric from Howard Dean, Dugger. Please show me where Howard Dean and the more “strident” voices have said that dead relatives are walking on the graves of the war dead.
I will give you one thing, Dugger, at least you are not stupid enough to compare a movie on global warming to the rhetoric of human refuse like Anne Coulter. Maybe you can become a “Doctor” too by that standard.
BW,
I don’t disagree w/you on Coulter negative. But she is over the top and an assault warrior only. Don’t expect you to like anything she says. I don’t Moore (though I still think Franken, a biased attack dog, is a funny person).
mjb
Its mostly the way she says things and the way she couches her monlogue. She’s escapist for conservatives of a certain ilk (I expect she’s not really that popular with the religious right)- not substance.
factcheck,
Of course her views are popular within the conservative world. Its the same balancing act liberals have to perform with Hodean and other more strident voices in the ‘movement”. You want them there and their votes and resources, and they are useful as attack dogs, but you really don’t intend ot follow up on all their proposals.
Dugger
Again Oliver, comparing someone to the Anti-Christ IS NOT “promoting” them.
Unless, of course, you’re rooting for the other team…
Is eliminationist rhetoric the only ‘extreme”?
I have to ask: why is the lovely Miss Coulter “over the top” (Dugger) and an “it,” (our esteemed host), but our host calls Michelle Malkin “unhinged,” people who oppose homosexual “marriage” “rubes,” and the President of the United States too many derogatory things to ever list, and he’s an OK dude?
Mr Willis, you have a fairly popular blog (heck, I wish mine had your traffic!) in which you pull no punches in your opinions of people with whom you disagree. So, other than the fact she is on the other side of the political spectrum, looks a whole lot better than you do, and makes a lot more money expressing her opinions, how are Miss Coulter and you different?
Whoops…OW caught Hewitt promoting “It” again…not:
http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/06/04-week/index.php#a002376
You mean because even Hewitt realized she’s gone too far? It didn’t stop his co-blogger from promoting her.
I call Malkin unhinged (a name she called liberals for her book) – Coulter calls all liberals godless sodomites. I call people who keep getting suckered by the RNC “rubes”, Coulter calls the 9/11 widows attention whores.
Yeah, same thing.
Christ.
Dana,
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, revelling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I ve never seen people enjoying their husbands death so much.
Do you agree with this statement? Very simple, yes or no.
It’s not as simple as yes or no. I certainly would not have expressed myself that way, and what Miss Coulter said applies, at best, to a reltively small minority of the victims’ families. But yes, some have treated their loss as a cash cow, and that has lessened public sympathy for the entire group.
Y’all act as though every conservative who doesn’t immediately denounce what Miss Coulter said is somehow supporting her. The fact is that I rarely even read what she writes; no one can read everything, and the only people ressponsible for what a person writes is the person who writes it.
Our esteemed host seems to think that the names he calls those he opposes are somehow less offensive and, I suppose, more mature than what those on the conservative side who employ various epithets use; I see no difference. If you can’t make an argument without trying to label your opponents with derogatory terms, you don’t have much of an argument.
“But yes, some have treated their loss as a cash cow, and that has lessened public sympathy for the entire group.”
*douchechills*
That’s all I needed to know. You don’t have to agree with the 9/11 families, but you do need to respect them. You do not. You take the side of Coulter, over people who have legitimate questions about the governments involvement in 9/11.
I disagree with some of their objections over some of the uses of the WTC property, but I respect their grievances. By allying yourself with the likes of Coulter, you do not.
Not really. These widows are sort of like Nick Berg’s father blaming his son’s beheading on Bush.
BDS pure and simple.
The widows would have been extraordinarily effective if they had remained apolitical. Criticism about the government would then be seen to be truly unbiased. But no. Limelight, talk shows, spouting off agaisnt the sitting president, stumping for a presidential challenger. That is partisan politics. Not looking out for the good of the country.
Dana:
One way in which Oliver Willis and Ann Coulter are different is that Mr. Willis did not (even jokingly) suggest that someone should have bombed the New York Times building or that John Paul Stevens (a Supreme Court Justice) should be killed.
This is likely not the only difference, but it is one that sticks out in front of all others.
Roche, I certainly can’t claim to have read every word our honored host has typed, but it woulod have been interesting to see his condemnation of the liberal lady who said that she hoped that Clarence Thomas’ wife would feed him lots of greasy food, so that he’d have a heart attack.
Is your defense of our host that he’s not as over the top as the lovely Miss Coulter? I guess such would be a matter of judgement.
Ann Coulter gets paid, very well it seems, for being outrageous: her books and columns sell, her public appearances draw large crowds, along with the whackos who want to protest her appearance. (They give Miss Coulter just what she wants, more publicity.)
Patterico condemned her words, Sister Toldjah did the same, and I’m sure a lot of other conservative sites have. I said that I’d never have expressed myself the way she did (which might explain why I have so few hits, and she’s making a ton of money). For our host, that’s not good enough. Perhaps when I read his condemnation of how the lovely Cindy Sheehan or the magnificent Michael Moore express themselves, I’ll take his comments on this subject more seriously.
The widows would have been extraordinarily effective if they had remained apolitical. Criticism about the government would then be seen to be truly unbiased. But no. Limelight, talk shows, spouting off agaisnt the sitting president, stumping for a presidential challenger. That is partisan politics. Not looking out for the good of the country.
But if they were bashing liberals or democrats and “singing the praises” of W, that would be fine with you Annie, wouldn’t it?
Bushwacked, I don’t really think that the problem is that some of the families have gone political, but that a few of them have tried to milk the whole situation as a cash cow. The government was extraordinarily generous in giving these families money, to ease the financial burdens of having lost primary breadwinners, above insurance money that they were due, yet some of the families protested (and even sued, if memory serves) that it wasn’t good enough. Had the same people been killed in car crashes, they’d have gotten their insurance, period.