The Wall St. Journal mentioned this in its review of Brian Anderson's "South Park Conservatives" (was that hippie festival episode a work of utter genius, or what?). Really?!?
The difference, by the way, is that South Park intentionally aims for over the top ridiculousness.
My question: what the heck is she doing on the cover of the American edition of TIME Magazine? I think I'll actually be reassured if it's some kind of scare-piece about American conservatives...
Here are some quick tips for adding simple Textile formatting to your comments, though you can also use proper HTML tags:
*This* puts text in bold.
_This_ puts text in italics.
bq. This "bq." at the beginning of a paragraph, flush with the left hand side and with a space after it, is the code to indent one paragraph of text as a block quote.
To add a live URL, "Text to display":http://windsofchange.net/ (no spaces between) will show up as Text to display. Always use this for links - otherwise you will screw up the columns on our main blog page.
Ann Coulter (distored on Time Mag cover)
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3act.htm
Ann Coulter undistorted:
http://feedlot.blogspot.com/2005/04/time-mag-not-ann-coulter-distorted.html
Is there an online copy of the article anywhere?
I've found no online version (doesn't mean there isn't one), but I've heard that it is a fairly friendly fluff piece. This whole controversy over the cover is just a little too contrived for me. Time magazine puts a fish-eyed image of Ann Coulter on the cover of their magazine, and she gets to hit all the conservative talk radio shows, and all the conservative shows on Fox to complain about it (and plug Time magazine coincidentally, wink, wink).
Yeah, I don't really think the fish eye pic makes her look bad. The "undistorted" one makes her legs look stumpy.
So that's what the witch looked like before the house fell on her.
She's a personality. All the big hitters make the cover of Time.
(Best check out her book sales or something. Maybe she set a record of some kind, was selected "Sexiest Conservative of the Year" or something.)
Who cares?
BTW, forgot to mention that those photos (both of them) could just as easily have been shot with a 20-28mm lens as a fisheye lens. Deliberately using a fisheye lens for anything resembling portraiture (including satire) seems pointless to me, not to mention the fact that there's not enough distortion. Distort too much and your point, if any, goes out the window.
Bet Instapundit weighs in on this issue.
If there is any question that hate and bigotry are now the hallmark of the American right wing, Time's decision to put Coulter on the cover shows that the answer is in the affirmative.
Coulter has advocated the mass murder and forced conversion of Muslims, and the killing of political opponents.
...and for her efforts, she winds up on the cover of Time magazine, and is showered with attention and praise by the entire right wing for her "frank" and "honest" opinions.
May I adopt your style of conversation?
Yes. Many questions remain. It is only your uninquisitive nature, laziness, and downright bigotry that prevents you from seeing this. Your worldview is frozen in a kind of pre New World Order ™ amber. This makes you intriguing as a kind of anthropological relic, but otherwise boring.
You may move along now. I'm going to do something more interesting like stare at a blank wall.
Tootles!
Bottom line is increased sales after all that is the American way isn't it?
People certainly wouldn't publish anything they don't believe in, would they?
I didn't vote for Democrats because some of their representatives (like Howard Dean) openly state that they hate Republicans. Many Dem representatives call the GOP the 'enemy'. Why should I vote for a party whose representatives openly and proudly hate more than half of America?
51% of Democrats also believed that America was in some way to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Ann Coulter also justifies terrorism and hates Americans. Fortunately she's not an elected representative or a majority of the Republican party. (17% of Republicans believe that America is in some way to blame for 9/11)
The Left does seem to be obsessed with Coulter. I've never read her articles, so I can't say why.
And they were surprisingly kind to her in the article (too much so, I'd say). The hilarious thing is that all she could do was complain about the photo. "Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?!" She's not even an ideologue, she just likes having things to bitch about.
The hilarious thing is that all she could do was complain about the photo. "Why can't they just photograph conservatives straight?!"
maybe because so many of them are self-loathing closeted homosexuals, and its hard to shoot a picture straight through a closet door? :)
I didn't vote for Democrats because some of their representatives (like Howard Dean) openly state that they hate Republicans.
don't try justifying your vote for warmongerers and liars based on the views of a single candidate for President who lost the nomination decisively.
It was difficult for any rational person not to hate the GOP in 2004, considering what it had done to the nation. The GOP fully deserved the contempt it has recieved from thinking people, especially given its hate campaign against gays and lesbians designed to exploit homophobia. When the country is at war, real wages are declining as the nation for the first time since the depression loses private sector jobs during a four-year presidential term, and massive federal surpluses have been converted to massive and structural deficits thanks to fat cat tax cuts, what difference does it make if John marries Steve or not?
Gay marriage isn't, never was, and never will be a critical issue for this nation --- it is only a critical issue for bigots. The GOP's deliberate exploitation of bigotry to divert attention from its extraordinary failures on issues of critical importance to America is all the justification any thinking person needs to treat the GOP, and those who support its bigotry, with the contempt it so fully deserves.
Yet again getting off the topic of TIME and Ann Coulter and whether or not she deserved an appearance. I could argue again it is economic sense to increase or maintain the status quo of sales.
Perhaps reading the book Economic Sense by Murray N. Rothbard might shed some light on all factions of our government. Democrats and Republicans alike he plays no favorites and pulls no punches. The chapter dedicated to OIL might be amusing if not enlightening to all.
As well as the exploits of affirmative action and every other governmental organization such as WIC, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, the list goes on and on. Pay attention to the dollar and then tell me where real wages are going and why?
As for thinking people, there are just as many as the population can possibly tolerate.
Is Coulter the Ted Rall of the Right? That's been my impression. My local newspaper runs their edititorials next to each other every Saturday. I don't read them. Have I missed much?
Patrick
For those who havent got it: Ann Coulter is an intentional parody. Its a part of the sickness of the far left in this country that they cant differentiate between satire aimed at them and their sick dellusions of Amerikkka.
Hey, so she's no Jonathan Swift. But she has better legs.
PD Shaw
My personal opinion is Ann Coulter is no worse than any other political pundit out there today. All have their talking points but my most favorite one of all is the attacks on morality and personal character.
The argument always reverts to why some one gets a free pass and some else doesn't. No one states the obvious answer of problem resolution which is throw them all out period.
"The difference, by the way, is that South Park intentionally aims for over the top ridiculousness."
And Ann Coulter does not?
For those who havent got it: Ann Coulter is an intentional parody. Its a part of the sickness of the far left in this country that they cant differentiate between satire aimed at them and their sick dellusions of Amerikkka.
Oh, I get it now! Advocating the mass murder of the people who work in the New York Times building is FUNNY! HA-HA-HA! Look! Body Parts! HO-HO-HO! I'm about to bust a gut --- just like that pile of entrails over there! HA-HA-HA!
sheesh... please don't project your own sick "dellusional" psychopathologies on others...
According to party President Howard Dean, the Democrats are the party of hate.
"Oh, I get it now! Advocating the mass murder of the people who work in the New York Times building is FUNNY! "
One, eating Irish babies isnt funny either. Two, the purpose of satire isnt always to make you laugh. It is to focus on the absurd by being absurd.
It is terrible that Ann Coulter advocated the death of everyone in the New York Times building. Such rhetoric is the sole provenance of tenured fake native-american academic frauds from Boulder Colorado, of course.
How dare she write such without tenure?
Eating Irish babies is freaking hysterical.
For those who havent got it: Ann Coulter is an intentional parody.
p.lukasiak wrote on April 21, 2005 04:17 PM
OK, let's see a link to her words and we can decide for ourselves if she is/was satirizing Ward Churchill who DID applaud the real-world slaughter of 9/11.
Ann takes the "right" and left position and puts it in the most stark (and funny) terms. When she does this it is offends the left and amuses the right.
I personally don't have any problem saying we should kill Bin Ladin and his folks. I don't think the "Kill Terrorists" position has moral equivalance with Ward Churchill
saying the people in the WTC deserved to die.
I am not aware of Ann saying anything morally repugnant -- care to quote her to prove your point?
--Fred
OK, let's see a link to her words and we can decide for ourselves if she is/was satirizing Ward Churchill who DID applaud the real-world slaughter of 9/11.
gee, you claim that Coulter is supposedly a parodist, but you don't even know what she's said, or to whom she was referring to, when she said "My only regret with XXXXXXXX is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
This was not some part of a brilliant Swiftian parody aimed at skewering government policies. It was Ann Counter, wishing a terrorist attack on the New York Times building...
I am not aware of Ann saying anything morally repugnant -- care to quote her to prove your point?
here's another classic (in reference to the fact that Senator Max Cleland was a triple amputee as a result of his VietNam service...)
Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam.
What BRILLIANT parody, huh?
Here's a clue... Ann Coulter is not a parodist --- at least she is not parodying Democrats. She is, instead, operating as the id of the GOP (of course, she's not alone in spewing the true nature of GOP policies, Limbaugh, Savage, Malkin, and a host of others are also mouthpieces for the real Republican agenda.)
"This was not some part of a brilliant Swiftian parody aimed at skewering government policies. It was Ann Counter, wishing a terrorist attack on the New York Times building..."
Because you say so? What is more reasonable, that Coulter is parodying the charachature of Conservatives held by the moonbats, or that she honestly wants to see the NYT building blow up and the Middle East converted to Christianity? Get real. All you are doing is proving her point.
"What BRILLIANT parody, huh?"
Apparently so. Its worked on you to a T.
"Here's a clue... Ann Coulter is not a parodist --- at least she is not parodying Democrats. She is, instead, operating as the id of the GOP "
You arent getting it. She isnt parodying democrats. She is parodying what far left wingers claim republicans really believe. What makes it work is the fact that Bush-haters have no sense of humor left, as you are so admirably demonstrating.
Get real. All you are doing is proving her point.
there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that suggests that Coulter is doing parody. NOTHING.
What she is doing is openly expressing the hate and bigotry that motivates the Republican Party. She is refusing to be "politically correct" to the point where she exposes the ugly underbelly of the right-wing.
The next thing I expect to hear from you is that you really aren't as stupid as you come off, and you are just doing parody in this thread.
Thank you ladies and gentlemen, but he really makes it too easy.
Coulter is intentional parody? How can anyone tell the difference?
Well, I got my answer. It's depressing, but I got it. Amazingly, p.l. (something of a controversial celebrity figure himself) has it pretty close to right.
Coulter is very pretty, and in an age of media whores (and here I'm referring to TIME and its ilk), I guess that puts you on the cover of TIME eventually if you're much of a well known figure. With a puff-piece, yet.
I know I shouldn't be surprised, but still, it kind of depresses me to see it live.
Coulter is intelligent - no-one could write the way she does and be dumb (for the record, Michael Moore is also intelligent). And, she's funny. Sorry, but she is. Gets off quite a few good lines.
Anyway, Coulter's problem, as Buehner & lukasiak have alluded to, is that she doesn't push her parody far enough. If she was the way out there, Swiftian type, with the satire as clear as South Park, there'd be no problem. If she wrote what she did and billed herself openly as a satirist, she'd probably have fascinated readers on the left, who would be debating whether she was a satire of the left or of the right.
You've gotta wonder if it's the pretty blonde wanting to be taken seriously thing going, because she keeps billing herself as a columnist and commentator - and using a style that makes it hard to tell when (if) she's joking.
Which is, of course, where all the trouble starts. And given some of the stuff she writes, it ought to. Hence her ejection from National Review, etc. But her gig is to be controversial and attention grabbing, and I guess each kerfuffle plays into that.
What a waste.
Moral of the story: You can be an idiot, but if you're a pretty idiot and make enough noise, the cover of TIME is yours in our celebrity culture. We await, with dread, the infamous "Cover of the Rolling Stone".
Matt: Coulter is intentional parody? How can anyone tell the difference?
Beats me, but I think that Ann Coulter must be the anti-Lenny Bruce. What she says is not so important as the massive secondary explosions it sets off.
Observe her effect on our friend, Mr. Lukasiak. He has already exhausted an entire encyclopedia of inflamed invective on the former Cardinal Ratzinger, including the two-syllable words like "Nazi". What does he have left for Ann Coulter, who is deliberately out to provoke him? Already up to his neck in spent shell casings, what new resources must he draw upon to attack this even more outrageous threat?
What are the theoretical limits of impotent rage? Is this a question for Semantics, Psychology, Physiology, or Metaphysics? Is there an equivalent of a light-speed barrier, or an Incompleteness Theorem? Can you make people's heads blow up, like in that movie Scanners? The R&D nerds at Vast Right-Wing Enterprises obviously want to know, but I think it's kind of irresponsible.
Limbaugh got the cover of Time and he's certainly not pretty.
Frankly, I don't think she is attractive at all. If you look at some of the photos of her younger years in Time, she was very easy on the eyes, but I suspect she has developed an eating disorder or some unhealthy habit to make her too thin. Just an observation.
Regarding her actual material, Glen Wishard is spot on. She wants to taunt and belittle and demonize to provoke a reaction. P.L. is way off in terms of the weight he gives her material. What shall we do? Gather a mob and protest to have her arrested for hate speech? Oh how she would relish such a victory. On the other hand, to ignore her utterly and completely would probably send her off on a near fatal binge-and-purge bender.
Her tactics and her invective are nothing new, even for television.
Moral of the story: You can be an idiot, but if you're a pretty idiot and make enough noise, the cover of TIME is yours in our celebrity culture.
Ann Coulter isn't Charo....
And I'll be the first one to admit that she can be funny. But it is the goal of her humor that is disturbing, because it is the humor of cruelty and denigration, lacking any sense of humanity. Its insult comedy....but its comedy in service of the insult, rather than the insult in the service of comedy.
For instance, take this excerpt from here writings...
Like many of you, I carefully reviewed the lawsuits against the airlines in order to determine which airlines had engaged in the most egregious discrimination, so I could fly only that airline. But oddly, rather than bragging about the charges, the airlines heatedly denied discriminating against Middle Eastern passengers. What a wasted marketing opportunity! Imagine the great slogans the airlines could use:
"Now Frisking All Arabs -- Twice!"
"More Civil-Rights Lawsuits Brought by Arabs Than Any Other Airline!"
"The Friendly Skies -- Unless You're an Arab"
"You Are Now Free to Move About the Cabin -- Not So Fast, Mohammed!"
Now, a couple of these the "slogans" are actually pretty fun in a "sick humor" way.....but what is Coulter's point here? She's not mocking racial discrimination, she's applauding it.
Serious conservatives who agree with racial profiling tactics acknowledge that it is best characterized as a "necessary evil." They realize that racial profiling is a form of racial discrimination. Coulter, on the other hand, celebrates the racism inherent in racial profiling.
Beats me, but I think that Ann Coulter must be the anti-Lenny Bruce. What she says is not so important as the massive secondary explosions it sets off.
You are obviously ignorant of Lenny Bruce and his work. Bruce's humor was aimed at exposing the hypocrisy of American society. He said on stage what Americans said in neighborhood bars, and peoples bedrooms --- and what they didn't say about themselves because the truth was too painful. Bruce exposed the American id, then dissected it for everyone to see, revealing its absurd, stupid, and ugly nature.
Coulter also exposes the American id, but does so uncritically, and approvingly. There is no sense when reading or listening to Coulter that she is the least bit critical of anyone who would agree with the her (supposedly humorous) pronouncements.
Coulter's ethos (aesthetic?) is that of an outrageous drag queen "flaunting" himself in public. There are, of course, elements of "parody" in the presentation of an outrageous drag queen, but the bottom line truth on that drag queen is that he is someone who likes to dress up in women's clothes. Ann Coulter may contain some parody and exaggeration, but the bottom line on her is that she is what she pretends to be --- perhaps not quite as outrageous as the public persona, but the hate, bigotry, and intolerance that she expresses is part and parcel of who she is, and she exploits it to the hilt. And just as large parts of the gay audience will approve of an outrageous drag queen because they "get" him, large parts of the conservative audience approve of Ann Coulter because they "get" her --- and what they "get" and approve of is utterly dispicable.
And now after all of that, obtuse to the irony radiating at the level of force 11 takes issue with Ann, and he isnt even funny.
Well, just wait untill he lectures us about our sin of looking at the world in terms of black and white instead of shades of gray.
The observed projection and the internal pressures behind it, ive got in mind the Ghost in the Shell animations of those bots popping open.
Well, I got my answer. It's depressing, but I got it. Amazingly, p.l. (something of a controversial celebrity figure himself) has it pretty close to right.
just a note, joe.
My research and conclusions have been verified by numerous military experts, including an assistant Secretary of Defense under Reagan whose portfolio included the National Guard. When confronted by a mainstream media outlet with my research, Bush's chief defender and the primary "official" source of the opinion that Bush "fulfilled his duty" (Albert Lloyd) had to acknowledge that my conclusions were correct, and that Bush failed to fulfill his requirements as established by US law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force Policies and Procedures.
I'm a lousy prose stylist, and in my efforts to make my critique bulletproof, I found it necessary to include far more detail and explanatory material than was required to make the case that "Bush was AWOL". The link you provided was to someone who has absolutely no credibility --- whose "critique" is simply a series of ad hominem attacks, empty of anything approaching an attempt to dispute facts I cited, or conclusions I've drawn based on those facts.
Jokes with footnotes even.
You will forgive me if i dont embrace the leftist dictate of how I should perceive her.
Yup, she is good at what she does, the south park method is also good.
The media sure covers up the moonbats to help the democrats in avoiding the stain of too much light being focused upon them.
If the media wasnt smoothing over, hiding, the nature of the leftist moonbats the democrats cant win elections without, Anns books would look rather tame by compare.
Ann never took a trip to Iraq to get a photo op standing atop mass graves of kids (with CNN using good camera angles to keep the mass graves out of the picture) Like Bagdad McDermot did, or paint the killing fields of bablylon as a childrens paradise while those same kids was used for sex toys and live tiger food, just out of his documentary cameras view.
Wheras Ann's books show a lack of flaws that are the envy of school textbooks for accuracy.
This is what a fraud book looks like when it gets enough interest.
To compare Ann and Moore is fake equality.
Her books have stood up to scrutiny and the invective at her has been reduced to carping about her tone and the bite in her parody.
Not the same thing.
There you go again, pushing that fraud again.
You lost that argument long ago, and the question is now moot (when will Kerry sign form 180?) so perhaps you will forgive us if we dont reconsider.
Funny how the so called progressives are the first to attack a woman based on her looks, much less her sexual orientation. Way to fight for equality!
I am no expert on Ann Coulter. However, I was at CPAC this year, and realized the effect she had on the College Republican crowd that was there. When an older colleague asked me what I thought of her I told him: "I haven't read her stuff, but it seems to me that she is the new Red Meat." I'm not sure if that group catches her satire, or heck, even if she entirely knows when shes joking around or not, and THAT is a frightening statement. The truth is, sometimes we're not attaching to reality and along the way we've determined somehow that that's ok. We're then willing to give fluffable figures our full attention sometimes when they don't deserve it.
It seems that my generation (I am a recent college grad), a group that has either been raised in the last of the nuclear families, by single parents or any blend there of, is looking for all kinds of leadership when they actually look, or are completely turned off by the entire dramatic run of it. The good part, about those who are looking and those who will become more invested as they grow up, is that they will be more focused on the individuality of a candidate that they can I dentify with.
Right now, for one segment of the generation they can identify with Ann. The Democrats have no true equivalent to RedState.org or Ann Coulter. Liberals are still looking for their place in the world or are in mourning. Despite the mocking of the "Rock the Vote" effort, the generation has been made aware that they will need to participate in the political scene of a country as all out wars are challenged.
As for Ann, I'm not impressed by the way she's handling the Time situation. It's an honor to be on the cover of Time magazine, or at least it used to be. You seem to forget that she's going to be bound in a coffee table book in about 20 years with the likes of Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul, several presidents, and many other people who, according to Time, have made a significant mark on the world.
Right now, for one segment of the generation they can identify with Ann. The Democrats have no true equivalent to RedState.org or Ann Coulter. Liberals are still looking for their place in the world or are in mourning. Despite the mocking of the "Rock the Vote" effort, the generation has been made aware that they will need to participate in the political scene of a country as all out wars are challenged.
Redstate.org is actually modelled on Dailykos, but the closest thing to Redstate on the left is Democratic Underground (i.e. a place where wacko leftists mingle with non-wacko leftists.)
The reason there is no left wing version of Ann Coulter is that someone like her would be considered an embarrassment to the left-wing. Unlike the right, the left admits that, despite any truth they may be telling, people like Ward Churchill have perspectives that are too ideologically driven to be useful in public debate, and "entertaining" people like Al Sharpton who are far more concerned with self-aggrandizement that facts and issues provide no value to the discussion.
The left's biggest "problem" is that it hasn't adapted to the debasement of the public discussion of ideas, and resists reducing complex issues to sound bites that can be endlessly repeated by telegenic spokesmodels. Ego plays a role as well --- Democrats who get asked for their opinions by the media don't realize that the media doesn't care about that person's opinion --- all the media is seeking is "balanced" opinion. So, while the "conservative" spokesperson will spew talking points designed to promote a specific agenda using words specifically chosen to advance that agenda, the Democrats will offer up some Senator who actually knows the issue at hand, and respond in a nuanced and intelligent fashion.
(For a current example of this, look at how the administration is dealing with the Bolton nomination controversy. The talking points they present are that this whole thing is nothing more than unsubtantiated allegations motivated by partisan politics. The problem, of course, is that many of the allegations have been substantiated, and that the opposition is not motivated by partisanship, but by sincere concern for america's standing in the international community. But you can say "unsubstantiated allegations motivated by partisanship" quickly, you cannot explain the allegations, and detail the substantiation, in a soundbite --- leaving the Democrats at a decided disadvantage. ANd if they resort to "soundbite" opposition, it comes off as partisan....)
"and "entertaining" people like Al Sharpton who are far more concerned with self-aggrandizement that facts and issues provide no value to the discussion."
Oh, so that explains why Ann Coulter got a featured slot at the Republican Convention and participated in all the primary debates. Wait a minute, that was Al Sharpton I was thinking of. Doh!
Don't know what world you're living in p, but it sure ain't this one.
I hereby nominate Mr. p.lukasiak as the Ann Coulter of the left. Any seconds?
It's been a LONG time since that was true. Groucho's remark should apply here, "I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member." Maybe. If so, it'll just be a celebrity book and her photo will be balanced by one of Micheal Moore. More likely she'll have been long forgotten by then.
Does anyone really, truly think that Ann Coulter is a member of the Republican party inner circle, making policy and picking issues. She's a provocateur, nothing more. That people take her seriously says more about them than it does about her. Michael Moore does the samething from the left. Except he does it even better!
Shelly
Why do think this is so? More importantly what do you think has caused this and how would you fix it?
I hereby nominate Mr. p.lukasiak as the Ann Coulter of the left. Any seconds?
No chance. It'd take some humor, and lefties just can't properly flame (except that one directed at Zell after the RNC, that was very good).
The Already up to his neck in spent shell casings, however, was good reading.
p.luk
I'm curious now. From what I've seen and heard coming out of the mouths of some of the participants of the left-wing whom would you consider embarrassments at this point?
Indeed there is no one left wing version of Ann Coulter.
Instead, there are hundreds.
Oh, so that explains why Ann Coulter got a featured slot at the Republican Convention and participated in all the primary debates. Wait a minute, that was Al Sharpton I was thinking of. Doh!
here is a clue. The left did not control the agenda of the Democratic National Convention.
And Coulter was too busy making the rounds of the TV networks to show up on stage.
Instead, they gave us the Zell Miller, who seems to have stepped straight out of the Two Minute Hate from 1984....and then ran long.
Not even Kim Jong Il, Castro, or even Bagdad McDermot and M Moore embarasses the left wing.
And the two sides are not moral equals.
And notice they cant actually attack the substance anything that Ann says.
That really seems to chaffe them.
But they call Bush Hitler, so it puts all their name calling in context.
Something Glen pointed out to you by directing your vew to the mountain of spent brass
This also shows you, and i mean this in a very real sense, how they was able to mass murder 174 Million "enemies of the people."
Anyone that dont agree with them are candidates for extermination.
And exterminate them they did, and will do.
What we have all seen, writ large, is how they justify their crimes against humanity. both past present, and future.
as said ... irony at force 11.
See ... we see the moonbats, the most extreame of the extreame, and the media helping the democrats by keeping them off the screen.
But to this fellow, he has not yet gone far enough.
And Glen, just how much firther can you go, the languange already is of the type you see just before there is gunfire.
(Well there is already some gunfire into our volunteer offices)
The only next step beyond is shooting at us.
Behold this creature ... and learn.
And Glen, just how much firther can you go, the languange already is of the type you see just before there is gunfire.
Not much, wasn't there a drive by on a Repub election place? Bricks through windows? Broken bones?
And notice they cant actually attack the substance anything that Ann says.
as if...
Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it [i.e. lose three limbs] while in Vietnam.
requires a substantive response!
Apt words for that political stunt.
Even more ridicule is due for those that sent him down there.
But, gotta hand it to the feckless democrats, not only did they provide Ann material, but that stunt helped Bush get elected.
Thats perhaps the most funny part.