um, Drudge is gay.

Prak -- Yes, but it all makes sense when you read this.

Ok, the passion for his hat is indeed rare in one so young, to paraphrase Douglas Adams, but i dont know if that makes him gay.

Her words seem terribly cavalier... and either a) a complete disregard of the effects of McCarthy, or b) an endorsement of his actions. In other words, exactly what we have come to expect from Ann Coulter.

Proposed: that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore share many prejudices against their respective opposition, as well as many strategic and tactical methodologies. Discuss.

Ace of Spades HQ doesn't have a transcript, just his best paraphrase of Coulter & Drudge as he typed furiously. Ace of Spades HQ on Coulter

It captures the mocking tone of her presentation well, and may put a different spin on exactly what Coulter said (which made no sense to me until I read this - now it's at least coherent). Mind you, Al Franken is coherent, too. It doesn't make him smart, or right (or in Al's case, even funny).

Coulter has looks, and balls, and a firm grasp of the art of provocation. In a TV-driven celebrity age, that's enough. She's more coherent than the Dixie Chicks, but can't sing as well. Choices, choices, all around our media universe.

Me, I'd rather watch Iron Chef. Or put on Black Sabbath and read a good book.

"Coulter has looks, and balls"

Ah, now it all makes sense.

You betcha she's got balls. And the remains of a vestigial cock to boot.

Note the contradiction between:

Ann Coulter: Make 'treason' unpopular

And:

Drudge and Coulter note that "conservatives are talking about issues."

Elucidation (In case it isn't obvious):

Ann Counter's use of the the word 'treason' is not 'issues.' It is namecalling. It sheds no light whatsoever on anything.

Ann Coulter brought out Matt Drudge to help her launch "the new McCarthyism" she is urging (i.e. for conservatives to push back aggressively against liberals). "Define, attack, destroy." Make 'treason' as unpopular as racism now is.

Fifty years ago Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) was thoroughly discredited. What had he done? He had accused numerous loyal Americans of being communists. Most of his "evidence" was bogus, fraudulent malarky. Sure, he attempted to define, attack, and destroy, but ultimately he destroyed himself.

And now, Ann Coulter proposes to drag my beloved Country America throught this again? It was bad enough the first time, thanks. And ultimately, it wasn't good for Democrats or Republicans. It was bad for America. If conservatives have any sanity, they will talk her out of this.

I offered a little friendly advice to her young conservative fans in and around the Blogger Corner along those lines.

Haven't been here for over a year. Haven't missed diddly. Here's wishing you a server outage.

Anomalocaris,

As you correctly note, even looking beyond her methods I've never found much content in Coulter that will help the right to build anything substantial. If the right has become the side of ideas - and it has - well, let's just say that Ann isn't exactly on the gratitude list for that achievement.

I made similar comments in another Coulter-related thread, but... don't waste your breath convincing her. She's gonna do whatever she's gonna do, and in our celebrity-driven soundbyte age, she'll have coverage and a platform to do it.

You know, I can piss and moan about that, but why? That's the way it is. Free country, and human nature, and all that. Some people like Ann. Some people like the Dixie Chicks. Heck, some twisted perverts even liked Disco.

Fortunately, free countries give others more and more opportunities to find a platform of our own, and to use it in whatever way we see fit.

The point isn't to talk her out of this, therefore (hopeless), but to talk conservatives out of taking her too seriously - or (better) help them turn their energies to more positive pursuits that might advance both their movement and the country at large. It's not like there's a shortage of things to do on the agenda...

If the right has become the side of ideas - and it has...

Well, here's part of the problem. You use the term "right," but you're describing Ann Coulter. Is she for massive budget deficits? Lying to the country? Massive expansion of the surveillance powers of the State? Just imagine if Janet Reno were still AG and the powers of the Patriot Act were in her hands. Still sanguine about the "right" and its "new ideas?"

If Mann Coulter is calling for a "new McCarthyism," then yes, she must be for all that un-American stuff. But what the hell does "right" mean in this context? Unless you mean the "Franco was on the right track" right.

And, by the way, didn't Ms. Coulter get bigger applause than Karl Rove?

If you have the balls to condemn Jimmy Carter for sitting next to Michael Moore -- but you still claim this CPAC thing is hunky-dory what with Ann Coulter getting standing O's -- then you're close to becoming a hypocrite.

Obviously, the movement can traffic in ideas and gain great leverage from that, even if some of its partisans do not play that game.

I've said I'm not enamored of Coulter, and that conservatives should be disabused of following her lead and channeled into more constructive pursuits. Would that the Dems might do the same for Moore, instead of having the DNC Chairman praise his lying movie while the caucus attends it and lauds it en masse. Unlike the Democrats, at least the GOP didn't give Coulter a seat of honour at their convention.

As for Coulter's "McCarthyism" comments, it's still not entirely clear to me. Based on Ace's paraphrase, she seems to be saying "the right should make the liberals' accusations come true." Is she serious? Is it a mocking point, like many of her other lines? I can't tell based on what's in front of me, because there's no transcript and no tone. I'm assuming that Coulter is saying something foolish here, but how foolish and how deserving of censure is impossible to say without a video.

Come to think of it, just like Eason Jordan at Davos, I really wouldn't mind seeing that....

Perhaps its has something to do with McCarthy having been vindicated by history, and that "red scare" was about the most evil regime in the history of planet earth, 61,911,000 murdered

We did after all, have spies in the state dept, in hollywood and universities KGB agents and the spies we accused and executed and jailed was guilty.

And up untill the Berlin wall fell, liberals here in the USA gave aid and confort to the soviets, the regime of mass murder and the idology of mass murder, and the iron boot,

I still remember the gore-gasms of the media when they fell down and worshiped at the feet of Gorbachov their holy leftist rock star.

Sigh. Raymond, you are free to express your ideas here. But that last sentence comes really close to crossing the line WRT the language you choose to express those ideas.

The truth unacceptable ?

I still remember, I havent forgotten.

I even remember AL Gores speach on the floor the day after the berlin wall was breached.

I remember how America was fed the Potemkin village vision of the most evil of all evils on earth.

I remember how the USSR was held up as the model we should emulate.

Even today, it still happens, DSA democrats fly down to partake of the service of Castros slaves on his island prison.

Even the recent Eason Jordan covered up crimes against humanity in Iraq, and only did they let it leak that they held back information, because they knew what kind of things we would find there.

They still cover for leftist butchers.

Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy was a patrot, who railed agaist the most evil regime that has ever been on planet earth .. his detractors denied the evil and belittled his warnings

But McCarthy was right

Today the leftist media continue in the tradition of Walter Durranty

Good and evil is inverted in them, they worship the butchers and sneer at those who dare question their blood stained religion.

You know this is true, so why do you protest?

I still remember.

Raymond, you persist in (willfully?) Not Getting It.

A sentence like the following corrodes the tone of discussion here:

I still remember the gore-gasms of the media when they fell down and worshiped at the feet of Gorbachov their holy leftist rock star.

There's a fine line between impassioned language and warping a discussion. You cross that line pretty often. Please don't do it here.

That also, is recorded history, Gorbachovs first visut to the United States

And yes, he was fawned over by our leftist media

and the term gore-gasms was coined by Rush, his commentary as we all watched the leftist media fall at his feet worshiping their great leftist socialist mass murdering holy diety, that they loved and adored.

Its a quite famous historical event, not so much the maximum ruler of gulag-land, but the fawning leftist media, it was like watching throngs of 14 year old 60s elvis groupies fall at heir sir maximum Murders feet

Their holy deity, in the flesh, and they gushed and gushed.

They hated Reagan, but their glorius socialist god from the wonderfull utopian land of wonders they did worship.

I still remember.

The fact that Rush Limbaugh coined a phrase does not mean it is suitable for Winds of Change. Comments that repeat it, or similar language, will be deleted from now on.

Well ..
that was unexpected

# 1235 and esp 6 and 7 leave me in the dust as far as spicy expression goes.

compared to those .,, im a bit tame

heh

I was at CPAC and saw Drudge and Coulter together. If you read Ann's book Treason you'd understand that she blames the perception of McCarthy as evil as a lie perpetrated by the traitorous left. Therefore, b/c she does not hate McCarthy actually she agrees with him and praises him in her book she did call for a new McCarthyism. And I plan to bring some of that to the left myself.

Joe Katzman:

You endorse the CPAC event, but have "doubts" about Ann Coulter's rhetoric?

Ann Coulter has called for the USA to invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert their citizens to Christianity. She has publicly lamented the fact that Timothy McVeigh didn't bomb the headquarters of the New York Times. She's right now calling for a "new McCarthyism," presumably emulating that misbegotten witchhunt which resulted in tens of thousands of broken careers but left Stalin's spy network untouched.

She is not making "mocking points," she is flinging hate speech. She is a serial liar who clearly hates the Constitution.

The CPAC conference gave her headline billing and its attendees cheered her. Thus, obviously, the CPAC endorses her nutball ravings. If they didn't, they would at the very least not have invited her, and at best publicly disassociated themselves from her anti-American antics.

Will you publicly reject Ann Coulter? Will you demand that the CPAC do the same?

CPAC is like any other political event in the USA. I'm sure there's a liberal counterpart, and if so I hope we send someone.

I have doubts about exactly what Coulter said, and in what tone. Doubts that could be clarified by a transcript or video, which I've requested. Testimony of people present at the event would also be helpful, and I've emailed some conference goers to ask.

Coulter has said a number of nutty things. She is also a political satirist, and so its important to establish in this case whether she's serious or just engaging in partisan mockery based on "what if we made liberals' oft-stated paranoias true?" Ace's paraphrase leaves that unclear.

If the evidence and consensus from participants are that she was serious, a number of people will have some 'splaining to do.

I've said that the right needs to avoid following Coulter, ensure she has little influence on serious policy or campaigns, and certainly not offer the kind of official endorsements DNC party officials ive people like Michael Moore. The right ought to be better than that.

I will add a universal rule of thumb:

If it's hard to tell when certain political satirists are joking or doing serious advocacy they believe in, don't follow those people.

This applies across all ideologies, I think.

Sarcasm. Look into it, its Coulter's shtick. When she says outrageous things she does it tongue in cheek, and usually she is simply pretending to be advocating the things some in the left claim Bush is trying to do, such as Christianize the Middle East. Its meant to look absurd.

I'm not so sure. I was there and heard her.

I think Coulter deliberately blurs the question of her intent. My suspicion is that she's quite happy to have her listeners take her seriously, though, and to the degree that anyone does, I think it's divisive and potentially dangerous.

I was particularly angry at her TV comments that the problem with Eason Jordan's remarks is that US troops haven't killed enough journalists. She repeated it several times and made no attempt (despite being given an opportunity) to clarify or moderate those comments.

So they stand as her meaning. And that meaning quite possibly will result in more attacks on our military by both the press and by those who believe the press criticisms of our troops as unprincipled killer.

Which is one reason I dislike Coulter a great deal.

If the Jornalist ememies of today is what we had in WWII, one wonders if we could have won that war.

One does wonder.

With that said, is Coulter helping us win this war? One wonders just as much.

Did she not say the same thing I just did ?

She did , just that.

Simply put, many tire of those whose efforts are to undermine and subterfuge to get people killed, and do not accept the protests of those who are called out for doing so.

If our enemy had their own formal propaganda force, would it look any different from the leftist media?

Its like cops catching a burglar running out the front of the bank with his gun and bag of money, and then him protesting that anyone dare call him a bank robber.

The protestations of our enemies within have gotten that outlandish, both what they do, and their protest that anyone dare point out what they are doing infront of everybody in broad daylight.

The left and their media have become accustomed to their former ability to create a fake reality by control of information, and control of whos version of history becomes estabished.

They dont have that control anymore, they dont like it, ..... tough.

The difference in them demonising us, and us demonising them, is that they deserve it.

All views are not equal, the religion of 174 Million skulls is not equal with American principle.

One is superior on every level, and the other is inferior in all cases where it isnt evil.

They are wrong. we are right

Its thats simple.

Even the UN is seen as flawed for that very same type of perversity, the idea that mass murdering thugs should have an equal vote with liberal democratic republics is perverse

Its the same argument

BTW in the news .....

Another One Bites the Dust

Final count (around midnight Feb 20): christian democrats 30 seats, free democrats 4, social democrats 29, greens 4, Danish minority 2 - so a minority government of social democrats and greens, supported by the Danes, seems likely.
Still, all other conclusions of my posting are still valid: election loss of Schroeder's social democrats, no longer a majority red-green government in Schleswig-Holstein, looming defeat for Schroeder/Fischer in North-Rhine Westfalia in May.

Seems the leftist grip on germany might be getting a bit slippery.

I hope that the german lefts dependably irresponsible stance on recent issues have something to do with that.

I haven't thought much of Ann Coulter in a while:

here

A.L.

AL, Ted Rall is the left-wing equivalent of Ann Coulter

Yes.

Evidently Coulter is a whore.

It matters not who she tarnishes, who gets hurt, who gets killed if she can sell a few more books or get an invite to another high paid speaking gig.

At this point I'd put her in the same category as Ward "Little Eichmans" Churchill.

I apologize for my poor choice of language. Just substitute prostitute for whore and I think that will cover it. No?

Well perhaps I should use a religious term. Judas.

Provided it doesn't offend any Jews. Or Christians.

I sincerely apologize for going over the line.

Oh, yeah. Coulter. Bad mojo.

That in fact was the trouble with McCarthy.

What he said was not designed to solve problems but to enflame passions.

The same technique a little corporal from Germany used to gain power. It works. For a while. Then it causes its own backlash.

McCarthy discredited his cause. Despite being on the correct side.

BTW Tailgunner Joe was a heroin addict supplied by the precursor of the DEA. In order to keep the commies from using that fact against him.

So maybe it is time for a new McCarthy era. Free heroin for those on the right. Let the lefties suffer. Let us jail them for resorting to the black market.

Wooooooo Hoooooooo.

If we can do the same for the pot heads on the right and the paranoid meth tweakers of similar political persuasion I think we could have the basis for a movement.