A long time ago, when I first started this blog, I said that this would be the one political place where you wouldn’t see any discussion of the person-like thing known as “It”. It is simply the most vile, despicable human being in all of politics, and it is reprehensible how the mainstream press continually treats It not just as if It just has an opinion but as if It has an important opinion.
But what’s funny/sad to me is how It’s latest belching of poison is being treated. The mainstream press is making an issue of it, as if this is somehow out of the norm for It. This is what It does. It calls President Clinton a rapist and a molester, It calls Arabs “rag-heads”, It calls the staff of the New York Times “queers”, It says Democrats “support[] killing, lying, adultery, thievery, envy”.
Look, I completely support Senator Clinton and what she said, but damn it this is what It says all the damn time.
(What’s the deal with always excusing It’s words by saying “it’s humor”? Shouldn’t that require them to be funny? I can laugh at humor pointed at my side of the aisle if it’s actually funny but my sense of humor doesn’t really buzz when someone calls President Clinton “a very good rapist”. Ha. Ha?)
And those “condemnations” from the right? Fake as a three dollar bill. What It said this time was beyond the pale, as It’s comments usually are, and unusually there’s some blowback from the incident this time where there’s usually none – and that’s the only reason a handful of conservative bloggers have come out against It. But they don’t really mean it. They will support It’s next column, It’s next media appearance, It’s next book and what It says because they completely believe it and support it.
Don’t be fooled for a minute.
My favorite part of the conservative “condemnation” isn’t just its insincerity, but how little of it actually is an attack on It for saying that kind of vile dreck, and how much of it is actually praising her for various other things. The RedState you link to opens with a paragraph singing her praises, shouting her accolades, working her shaft, etc., Captain Ed “usually enjoy’s her schtick” because she brings energy and excitement and a good sense of humor and all that other “If I were miss america” kind of crap, and Anchoress opens by calling her “Whip-Smart” which I suppose means she knows a high quality torture device when she sees one. I wish I could remember the name but I saw some right wing radio twit on the news talking about how what It said was wrong, but her point is actually entirely valid and totally correct so theres really nothing wrong with it. Kind of ironic that InstaDingus is the only one on the right I know of so far that doesn’t basically say “Look, normally she’s a goddess among us mortals whose feet we are not fit to lick, but this one particular instant is beyond the pale. I look forward to seeing what she has to say in the future of course because she’s just so generally wonderful happiness sunshine lollipops…” and such. I had a concluding sentence but have forgotten it since its 1:50 AM EST and I should be sleeping, but if youre reading this and havent gotten my point by now then you can feel free to go drink turpentine or something.
In other words, RM, you were expecting a total betrayal, where people who agree with her on dozens of issues, and have found her trenchant humor a potent weapon against the Mahers, the Stewarts, the Frankens, and the countless other left wing “comics” who make of Bush and Republicans an easy target, would just turn on her, and kick her to the curb?
Before that happens, I want you to name one left wing writer, cartoonist, or comic, who has gone “over – the – top” in re: Bush and / or Republicans / Conservatives, and been renounced for it…
Whoopie Goldberg, for starters, Frank. Ted Rall, for another. Both were renounced and denounced ad nauseum by lefties for their excesses. I’d come up with more, but I’ll be damned if I put more effort into a single posting than the cumulative effort you’ve expended pissing in this watering hole.
And stranding Ann on a rhetorical ice floe for her comments on 9/11 widows isn’t a betrayal. At least not in my book.
Ann is a despicable human who is begging for attention. Frank can throw words like betrayal around all he wants to deflect from the issue: She is beyond the pale. I don’t want conservatives to denounce her because I am not thier mommy. The American public are now realizing that these conservatives are off thier rocker and its just not funny to be vile and hateful. Nothing she has said is funny——BY ANY STANDARDS. I am glad that you have labeled other comics, because honestly they do send barbs at your Dead Decider, but when have they said that Bush takes pleasure in seeing loved one burn alive? This is another example of Republicans grabbing at straws. How is that gay amendment going over with the public? You guys have two years left, why the death knell now?
Here’s what I find humorous. Earlier this week, Oliver lectured us about how Democrats should be fighting mad and fighting dirty, because it’s win at all costs. Now Coulter is getting into the mud and O is now singing the “That Rhetoric is beyond the pale” tune.
Maybe Ann is simply taking a cue from Oliver and playing to win.
Both were renounced and denounced ad nauseum by lefties for their excesses.
Assuming you’re correct — although I didn’t see it, have they been “banished” from the cause? Not hardly.
That was my point, and I’m sticking to it.
By the way, I usually put more effort into my comments, when effort is required. If you didn’t want to answer the question — which you, technically, did not — then you shouldn’t have.
If stranding Ann on an ice floe isn’t “betrayal,” then what is it?
Don’t forget colbert in your litany, frank. Did you see the white house correspendents dinner? Not only was it incredibly funny, it was incredibly funny 3 feet from bush. Who didn’t appear to understand the satire. Now thats comedy. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a queer isn’t funny..its pathetic.
I actually kind of agree with you, Farris. While I hate Ann, I don’t want her to go away, because she’s useful to show the sociopathic side of conservatives. Sort of like how Drudge hates Streisand, yet clearly depends on her to maintain the narrative of “Hollyweird Liberals destroying heartland America” that’s been so profitable for him. Except plenty of conservatives adore Coulter, while I don’t know a single liberal who gives a shit about Streisand’s political views.
And what I’m getting at is that I wouldn’t mind a liberal Ann Coulter. The political discourse has been degraded for years by the Atwaterization and Rove-ization of politics — why not join it? The method is clear: attack your opponent on their greatest strength (McCain’s herioc POW experience turns into “McCain’s POW experience made him crazy; Kerry’s war heroism turns into war cowardice, etc) in the most audacious way possible, and get the media to report on the controversy, using talking head operatives like Coulter who have no shame. Of course, we don’t have an organization that effective yet, but I hope we can get there.
Ollie-
Calling her “It” is pure genius, genius!!!
Well gee, it’s not she compared them to Nazis or anything …
Regardless of Ann’s admittedly tacky rhetoric, she is absolutely 100% correct in her point: it is shameful for liberals to dig up grieving victims to use as spokespeople, and then bestow “absolute moral authority” upon them in an effort to make them — and likewise their arguments — completely bullet-proof and beyond reproach.
Like the profanity-spewing Margaret Cho, shock and controversy is Ann’s schtick. It always has been, and always will be as long as we still have freedom of speech in this country.
(BTW, Oliver, does your homepage redesign mean that you will no longer be a “liberal bomb-thrower?”)
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a queer
Who did that?
You know what’s worse than what AC said? When a comedian — whose name I have thankfully forgotten — made a remark about Barbara Bush looking like George HW Bush’s mother. Her hair turned white with grief, when she lost a child at about two or three years of age.
But to be selectively indignant is not my thing. I knew the story, I told myself he didn’t.
Here’s what AC was trying to say:
http://tinyurl.com/jc77h
TomY says: “Mike, the reason liberals have promoted advocates with personal ties to these issues (take Sheehan as an example) is from a misguided belief that Republicans have too much decency to go after them personally.”
No, the only reason the liberals promote these people is that they don’t have rational arguments to put forward. Therefore they need an emotional window dressing to try to ram their irrational ideas down our collective throats. It is the rhetorical equivalent of shooting at the enemy from a hospital, you hope they are emotional enough not to shoot back…..
If only Republicans had the moral restraint to confine themselves to Sheehan’s and the widows’ arguments. What world are you living in, Mike? Arguments have nothing to do with American politics. It’s all competing narratives these days, and whatever party offers the most self-congratulatory one tends to win. These days happens to be the “vote for me and you’re a courageous freedom lover” party.
No rational arguments, huh? Should be easy to prove, then. First tell us who exactly you’re talking about, then show they’ve made no appeals on the basis of reason. Unless, of course, you’re just lying again to score an “emotionally true” point.
Mike, the reason liberals have promoted advocates with personal ties to these issues (take Sheehan as an example) is from a misguided belief that Republicans have too much decency to go after them personally. Of course, we all know that the GOP’s go-to tactic in every election or contest of ideas is to smear them personally, and it hasn’t stopped them from doing it to Kerry, Sheehan, these widows, McCain when it suited them, ad nauseum. The funny thing is that you still hear people like you, Mike, complaining about how these spokesmen are untouchable. Obviously, they aren’t, when Michelle Malking and her ilk get to call Kerry a coward and traitor who fabircated his medals, or say that the widows enjoyed their husbands’ deaths. So what are you complaining about, Mike? You got your bloody cake and ate it too.
Pedro-
how can you say that we need emotional window dressings to cram our ideas down anybodys throats? its not an “us vs. them” argument. we arent the minority anymore. the majority of the counrty is against the war now. we dont need to , nor have we ever, crammed cindy sheehan down anybody’s throat. plus, i guess i missed the memo that said that the bush administrations lies that led us into war were actually rational. damn, you forget to watch fox news one day and your out of the loop.
Maybe Ann is simply taking a cue from Oliver and playing to win.
She is doing it the republican way – slander and lies. But if that’s fine with you guys, it really doesn’t matter to me. I dont buy her books or waste time listening to her squak.
ann coulter will become less of a factor as she ages and becomes less telegenic. A wrinkled crone spouting her hate of liberals will begin to look like a bitter old maid. This woman has little credibility speaking out against gay marriage when she has not committed to the institution herself.
wishful thinking, buma…
}, and she still cracks me up on the red carpet.
Joan Rivers is about a hundred years old {
What makes you think AC’ll never get married, or, better yet, what if it turns out she’s gay, and just happens to oppose gay marriage.
The difference, Frank, in case it has slipped by everyone here, is that Joan rivers is a comedian and entertainer (sic). Ann Coulter is not. It is supposed to be a political commentator, but instead resorts to slime and smear to get her rabid points across.
Even if It were a comedian, It wouldn’t be funny.
First of all, calling her “It” is neither efficacious, edifying, nor amusing.
Second of all, my point was that Joan Rivers and Ann Coulter amuse for the same reason — they don’t care who they “crack” on. And, their looks don’t matter.
I don’t think AC is pretty — mildly attractive, but that’s about it.
5 or 6 surgeries ago, JR was prettier than AC.
AC was entertaining when she was on Politically Incorrect opposite Bill Mahr as they seemed to work well together as opposite views. Maybe it was because she didn’t seem as offensive then.
JR always struck me as just a nut case, but I guess that’s part of her schtick. How can anyone take something she says seriously?
Maybe the point is not to take anything either of them says too seriously. AC isn’t exactly WFB, Jr., and yet he can be funny, too.
My copy arrived today. Thanks, Oliver, for the reminder.
This is an interesting viewpoint.
Some of you are clinicians, therapists, etc. Speaking from a clinical standpoint, would you admit that AC is a little unstable at this point?
and if I shouldn’t take her seriously, why does she keep talking?
(Frank, you’re point about calling AC “It” is well-taken. Doesn’t change my view that she is a repugnant human being.)
I think there is something wrong with Ann Coulter.
I was up late last night and saw a re – broadcast of John Casich’s Heartland. He announced that he would be talking to her about the book, which I had begun to read yesterday morning. I had jumped to the “offending passage” immediately, and found it unduly harsh, but no less offensive than the attitude of the “Jersey Girls” towards President Bush, Condi Rice, et. al.
Sure, it’s not nice to say widows were happy their husbands were dead, but her point in the chapter concerned the Democratic “uses of righteous indignation,” so it was more about the ability to be indignant, and perhaps “satisfied” would have been a better word.
Finally, and I’ve seen this for a while, I think she “gets on a roll”, and becomes more and more reckless, and less and less diplomatic, much in the way that people begin to embellish on a story, in direct relation to the approval of the audience, however small or large.
There is something a little off, but not terribly serious. For example, she would never admit what I believe to be true: That whether or not these controversial “landmines” are planted consciously or unconsciously, she would never back down, as long as it sells books.
On the other hand, if apologizing would boost sales, she would apologize in a heartbeat.
There’s a saying: “When people say ‘It’s not the money, it’s the principle;’ it’s the money.”
As to Ann herself, for some reason, I was watching the interview with my “therapist’s cap” on, and I noticed several unusual things: She laughed a lot, but in an “uncomfortable” way, sort of a “heh, heh”, like a chuckle. I interpreted it as, “I’m not sure if you’re going to take this properly, but I’ve got to say it anyway.”
There was an extremely awkward moment, when Casich said, “Ann, I told my wife you were going to be on the show, and she said, ‘I usually agree with Ann, but why is she so mean?’”
Now, my reaction would have been diplomatic, an attempt to ameliorate the situation.
Hers was, “Well, {chuckle} has she read the book?”
In other words, there was no attempt to personalize the situation — restore a friendly relationship with John.
Hey wingers:
Does Ann speak for you and your party? Are you going to buy her great new book?
How’s this? (Referring to the use of radiocarbon dating to uncover the ‘Piltdown Man’ hoax):
Don’t tell me you didn’t chuckle, a little bit.
I already bought it. The thesis of the book was substantially discussed, on an academic level, years ago,
The chapter which includes the piece on the “Jersey Girls” (all three pages of it), contains 47 pages, out of a 281 page book.
The thesis of the book is inside the front sleeve. You don’t have to buy the book to find what it is.
I didn’t have to buy the book, or read it, to understand what she was driving, and how true it was.
Some of the one – liners in the book, and the quotes by liberals are really funny.
And I love laughing at liberals.
OK, I’ll admit that phrase was humorous, however she could regret the “harpy” comment. I can see a cartoon coming out depicting her with wings and bird legs.