Don’t forget to vote for your favorite blogs, starting with this one!
——————————————————————-
The humor and irony of Ann Coulter’s latest column is rich. She illustrates the duplicitous nature of Democrats who claim that Condoleezza Rice is not qualified to run the State Department. Coulter notes the “qualifications” of various liberals, and zeroes in on Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State:
Apparently, liberals believe Rice compares unfavorably to Madeline Albright, whose principle accomplishment before becoming secretary of state was managing to attain the age of 60 without realizing she was Jewish. That was raw competence.I take that back: Albright also taught at Georgetown University. Of course, American universities make professors of people like Eldridge Cleaver’s wife. (Kathleen Cleaver is currently at Yale law school; Susan Rosenberg, a participant in a Brinks car robbery, teaches at Hamilton College; former Weatherman Bill Ayers is a distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago; and former Weatherman Bernardine Dohrn is the director of a legal clinic at Northwestern University.)
Or how about Clinton’s first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, a lawyer whose dazzling foreign policy experience consisted of being President Carter’s chief negotiator for the hostages in Iran? That’s almost as impressive a resume entry as “Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic,” “Senior Design Engineer, the Edsel,” “Navigator, Exxon Valdez,” or “Writer/Executive Producer, ‘Alexander.’”
Chief Iceberg Lookout, the Titanic. Thanks for the laugh, Ann. Happy Friday! 
We all noticed, too, that liberals’ fascination with skin color extends only to other like-minded liberals, not to blacks or Asians or Hispanics in general.
“In light of their reaction to the nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, I gather liberals have gotten over their enthusiasm for multiculturalist milestones. It’s interesting that they dropped their celebrations of the ‘first woman!’ ‘first black!’ ‘first Asian!’ designations at the precise moment that we are about to get our first black female secretary of state,” Coulter writes.
The rest of the column is good, especially the part about Donna Brazile and her “white boys” comments:
It’s extremely valuable for Democrats to be able to campaign in black neighborhoods while talking about the “white boys” running the Republican Party. When she was managing Al Gore’s 2000 campaign, Donna Brazile said she was not going to “let the white boys win in this election.” (If I had a nickel for every time I’ve confused Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, Terry McAuliffe, Paul Begala and James Carville for the Jackson Five…)Sure enough, Brazile was instrumental in not letting a couple of white boys “named Al and Joe” win the election. I guess that’s liberals’ idea of a “competent” black woman.
Democrats do seem to downplay Bush’s cabinet appointments. I share Coulter’s opinion that they’re afraid blacks might start to notice the Democrats’ own lack of “diversity” in high-level positions. In that regard, do you think the DNC will choose Brazile, a black woman (two diversity birds, one stone!) as it’s next leader? Not a chance.
Who do you think they are, Republicans?
Update: Check out David Limbaugh’s latest column.
Update II: Did you know that you can vote for your favorite blogs once a day until December 12? Don’t worry about forgetting. I’ll remind you every day until then!
Update III (12/4): Liberal bloggers have reached a consensus. They all hate Ann Coulter, and a few are on my case for linking to her column. I love it! But here’s a suggestion. If you want to criticize Coulter and link to me while you’re at it, at least engage in some sort of intellectual discourse you imply Coulter and I lack. What is it about her column you don’t like? Which arguments are faulty and which facts are untrue or misleading? Give me something to work with, people. The name-calling and invective is tedious!
By the way, in case you neophyte liberal bloggers (experienced bloggers not excluded) don’t know this, when you link to this blog, you cause me to rise in the blogosphere ecosystem. While you offer no reasoned critiques of the substance of my posts, at least I benefit from your sad attempts at sarcasm and ridicule. Thanks!
Baldilocks blogs about Coulter’s column.
Update IV: A commenter provides a link to a Bill Moyers video that parrots the same “Condi lied” liberal line that surfaced after her testimony before the 911 Commission. There’s nothing new in the video that hasn’t been said or written before.
The comment itself isn’t illuminating, so don’t expect rational discourse. To rebut some of the blatantly partisan remarks in this heavily-edited video, I’m posting a link to the transcript of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) that was the subject of so much contempt-disguised-as-questions at the hearing.
Thomas Patrick Carroll, former officer in the Clandestine Service of the CIA, on the PDB: “Not only was this particular PDB article not used to alert the President of an impending terrorist attack, no PDB is ever used that way. Never, ever. Not only was Ben-Veniste wrong, he could not possibly have been right.
Once you know the difference between the PDB and a threat report — and if Ben-Veniste doesn’t know the difference, he has even less business being on the Commission than is already obvious — you know his insinuations simply had to be bogus.”
Reminder: Don’t forget to vote today!
Update V (12/5): Moderate Voice on the qualities of a new DNC Chair.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 81 comments }
Starting from greatness
LaShawn bounces off a particularly funny Ann Coulter piece and whacks the left for hating on megababe…
I can’t get with Ann Coulter…her attempts at humor are shrill and childish. I much prefer your last entry on Walter Williams, whose message doesn’t get lost in a bunch of attempts to be cutesy.
She’s a caricature that needs to be muzzled.
The conservative right believes that women, african-americans and hispanics are competent only when they are conservatives. I don’t recall any conservatives praising albright, lani guinier or janet reno when they were apointed.
But DEMS are the ones preaching and lecturing everyone else about diversity this, skin color that. Republicans don’t USUALLY do that, and I hope they don’t start. That is the distinction people need to understand between Dems and Repubs.
The problem with misguided policies like race preferences is that when a black person makes it to a certain level, there’s always the suspicion that skin color preferences may be the reason. That’s the reality of wrong-headed “affirmative action” programs. And Lani Guinier was a supporter of skin color quotas, something that Republicans say they’re against. In that regard, liberal women are competent to carry out the liberal agenda. You’ll get no argument from me on that.
I’m thankful for Ann Coulter who has the courage to speak what she believes…and always in attention-getting ways. We need people on our side who aren’t afraid to be right.
Ah, Janet Reno: possibly the least competent AG ever! We all fondly remember how she overstepped her bounds and made horrible decisions re Elian and Waco. Dawn, you may want to actually read Coulter’s take on Albright. Ol’ Maddie was terrific…why???
The personal attacks by Democrats on Condi Rice are meant to be nothing more than a message to other minority Democrats. They don’t care if Condi Rice hears that they disaaprove of her. They want other minority Democrats to know that if they think differently, then they are a race traitor.
They want all minorities to believe that they should think the same, and not to worry, “we’ll tell you how to think.”
Um, not that I liked Albright, but did anyone tell Ann Coulter that Condi was a professor too?
Ann Coulter needs a giant megaphone; she uses humor as illustrated above to counter the arrogant, self-important blather democrats try to sell. She’s the perfect counterpoint.
“Or how about Clinton’s first secretary of state, Warren Christopher, a lawyer whose dazzling foreign policy experience consisted of being President Carter’s chief negotiator for the hostages in Iran?”
This is a perfect example for why her voice is needed: it’s great comedy! Someone has to keep pointing out that the more a Democrat fails, the more likely it is that they’ll be rewarded by the party, just like Bob “0 for 8″ Shrum.
Dawn,
Maybe because we didn’t see much worth praising in Albright. And aside from her gender (and fashion sense), I don’t remember many on the left praising her either.
Reno… what exactly would endear her to the right?
The beef many cons have with the libs in this regard, is that when the critized Reno and Albright, they were called sexist who weren’t ready for a woman in power. When a conservative woman gets into power, they (libs) deride her and claim she’s a token, regardless of her qualifications.
Oh, and make racist jokes and cartoons about her.
However, I can’t complain about this post; I blogged on the same article yesterday
Salim… the point was that Albright’s only qualification prior to her appointment was what? Aside from being a famous person’s daughter, that is.
To be fair, can you blame the DNC for not making Brazile its next leader? She’s incompetent, and I think they know that now.
I love your blog.. Just one question — did you perhaps mean the duplicitous nature of democrats? I can’t find the definitions of “duplicious” at dictionary.com
Thanks for your insight.
Which would be a worse appointment for the DNC? Donna Brazile or Howard Dean?
Thanks for the typo alert, Chuck!
I like the new last name, Tom.
You’re right, TT. I was actually trying my hand at humor.
Thanks for the comments, everyone!
Everytime I hear Madeline Albright’s name, all I can think of is her testamony before the 9-11 Commision, that she didn’t consider the attacks on the Kenyan Embassy and the USS Cole as attacking America.
What a freaking moron!
Tom Blogical,
Is Donna Brazile incompetent because she’s a Democrat, black, or a woman or a combination of the three?
Are you making the same assumptions that some left leaning folks might make about Condi Rice?
Donna Brazile is a highly educated woman as well.
I await your response.
Tom,
I hope there is room for both of them in the DNC leadership. Maybe they can make room for Monsiuer Moore as well.
LOL
I would luv to see that SCSI
Could they all fit?
Tiffany – If I may be so bold as to answer for Tom until he arrives, Brazile is deemed incompetent because she was hired to win the election for Gore but didn’t deliver.
With respect to Ann Coulter, I agree with LawWife. Ann is sharp and cutting but she makes great points if you look at the double-standards that she often brings up. I read her book slander and I agree with everything that was written. If one wasn’t familiar with why she says what she says or is new to politics I could certainly see why she might be distasteful to them. In these cases one might prefer milktoast sit in the middle (oh preferential treatment might be good in some cases but not in others) kind of commentators.
Salim, Please check out Dr. Rice’s biography. That isn’t her only accomplishment and certainly is Ann’s point that you seemed to miss.
Chuck, It’s a new word.
Duplicitous and Delicious. Delicious because our mouth waters at the prospect of Democrats doing these type of things (which will make many more people align with conservatives). I know it’s corrected….
I survived the education program in which Ayers teaches. He was one of the most popular professors. I never took a class with him, but I spoke with him a few times, and he is a very nice and passionate guy. He comes from a wealthy family, and, based on his writings and actions, I wonder if he somehow feels “guilty” about his background, since he seems to want to create justice in a system that has benefitted him. He sees it as a closed system that has to be overhauled via Marxist pursuits.
Where oh where have I been all this time? You mean to tell me (re; Ann Coulter) – Donna Brazile as Al Gore’s campaign manager actually said “I’m not letting white boys win this election.” (”boys” my emphasis).
Please, please DNC choose her, choose her! Watching the Democrats self-destruct is euphoric!
Renee: Scary, huh, that the Secretary of State didn’t understand that an embassy is considered the owning countires native soil in legal and diplomatic circles?
Tiffany: Donna Brazile was campaign manager or senior campaign staffer for: Dukalkis, Jackson, Gore presidential campaigns. She was kicked off Dukalkis’ for allegding George H.W. Bush had an extramarital affair (sans evidence beyond rumor).
Politics aside, I wouldn’t call her track record a winning one. But she is still on the short list to take over for McAulife.
Renee: With a wide angle lense and a large space, it could be done. Moore and Deans’ egos alone could need some space… I hear pier 57, up on the Hudson river, is happy to play host to people with their temperment and political views.
Tiffany:
Sorry it took me so long to reply, I’m being a bit naughty and reading this blog at work…I “blame” it on La Shawn, she’s got a great blog!
As for Donna Brazile’s, or anyone’s competence, the only thing that matters to me are their actions and their results, and certainly not the items on your list.
So, in addition to La Shawn’s comment (thanks!), I was actually referring to Brazile’s “white boys” comments that were mentioned in this post. They rank right up there with Corrine Brown’s “…you all look alike to me…” commment to Assistant Secretary of the State Roger Noriega.
SCSIWuzzy: Good choice, but my vote is for Bob Shrum!
albright – North Korean Now has Nukes
lani guinier – a nut
janet reno – killed a bunch of kids.
Donna Brazile’s stupid comments aside, I think that deep down she is a good woman. I have a hard time imagining the dems giving power to a black person when the chips are down, but she is democrat to the core and very capable.
I challenge YOU to get Mr. Gore elected president!
Steven made me think of some other stupid comments made by politicians that were really good people “deep down”, but whose comments eventually became their downfall (info. gathered from MSN Encarta, Wikipedia):
“There is no Soviet Domination of Eastern Europe” – by Gerald Ford on October 6, 1976 in the Presidential debate with Jimmy Carter.
“Read my lips: No new taxes.” – by George H. W. Bush on August 18, 1988 at the Rep. Nat’l. Convention.
“It depends on what the definition of is is.” – by Bill Clinton on August 17, 1998, Grand Jury testimony during the Starr investigation.
I believe all people are good people “deep down”, however, that will not prevent people from making costly mistakes, having faulty belief systems, etc.
My quoting of two Republicans and one Democrat probably won’t quell any thoughts that I’m biased against Democrats.
Steven, I agree. Donna has taken the edge off a little too, since she has ‘grown up’
. She may be the best the Dems have to offer right now, especially for the fundraising (CEO) job at the DNC.
Thanks for sharing your perspectives on the racist left.
I do think it interesting that conservatives were able to crticisize Albright without resorting to ethnic slurs or gender attacks, while the illiberal left is unable to deal with Dr. Rice without them.
For Tiffany: Ann Coulter writes better and is far funnier than Maureen Dowd, and I would suggest that the stereotype to be retired would Dowd, not Coulter.
Is Tiffany trying to get us conservatives to stop looking out the window long enough to look in the mirror a bit?
I hate it when that happens.
“Donna has taken the edge off a little too, since she has grown up.”
Maybe that’s all people like Trent Lott have to do to have their integrity restored (considering his stupid comments). Nah, never happen. Dems & Libs only get a pass. Well, at least Lott should get some credit for having enough brains to not use the lethal “boys” epithet.
Jim R,
People can be intelligent but be incompetent.
Donna would be a prime example. Paul Krugman might be another. For some reason they think that Tax cuts hurt the economy and were the wrong thing to do during a recession.
Actually, I might take back the intelligence assessment.
Let’s just say they are able to string together sentences that make Democrats like them…….. The substance leaves one scratching their heads….
Everyone go vote. We’re only third. Move people.
Rod Stanton
Cerritos
Rod,
Rod,
At 7PM, LaShawn is at 19.6%, which is a commanding 2nd place behind Captain’s Quarters.
Granted, is it possible the Vodka Pundit fans following their leader, and are busy on a friday night?
Like the Reverend Horton Heat said…
“Any taste of vermouth would be really sublime,
When you have a good martini time!”
I agree with the poster Tiffany, Ann Coulter is loud and crass. She is too feminist for my tastes, my husband shudders everytime she comes on Fox and our kids, junior high age, have to leave the room.
She certainly takes the “family” out The Factor and Hannity and Combs, two shows my sons love to watch with their Dad. She gets my husband so mad, he thinks she is an albatross around W’s neck.
Well done!
I must admit, I would not have the guts to link to an Ann Coulter quote that tries to implicitly use an age old smear against Jews in the age old race and class war against the Democrats.
With choices like this, you’re going to go far!
Too funny. Don’t forget that one of Condi’s profs was mAddledbrain Dimbright’s father.
Speaking of Dimbright, she consistently & diplomatically conceded one issue after another to other countries.
To wit, just one of many boneheaded command decisions — giving away the perfect and ultra secure Army’s Berlin Brigade Clay HQ away to the Germans and opting to spend hundreds of millions on “rebuilding” the Pre-WWII embassy at Brandenburg Gate.
Never mind that the US Consulate – Berlin (US Embassy for West Germany was in Bonn, until the Federal German Govt moved to Berlin in 96/97), has always been annexed to Clay HQ. Meanwhile the East German Embassy is still located just north of Brandenburg Gate off on a side street. Since 9/11, given the proximity of the building to the street, the Germans have had to close off everything within 50 meters of the building, hence disrupting traffic and businesses located near the embassy.
So here we are with two relatively insecure locations. And after 10 years, there’s still only a plaque at Brandenburg Gate’s Pariser Platz stating that this is the future site of the US Embassy for a reunited Germany.
Dig this!! If and when we build it, it’ll be more insecure than the existing facilities — located next door to the Adlon Hotel (where Wacko Jacko dangled his baby) and just yards from a main thoroughfare. Imagine having to block off traffic from a major tourist attraction and disrupting all sorts of hi-powered commercial enterprises — an Unten den Linden address would be sort of like having a Park or 5th Avenue address.
All this over the objections and collected wisdom of the then resident Foreign Service staff. The same local experts also recommended that the State Dept hang onto two residential facilities at Wannsee to be used by the Ambassador and VIP guest facilities, given the significantly more secure locations and multiple escape routes, including a helipad as opposed to the congested residential neighborhood and insecure houses currently in use (leased, not owned).
Yes indeed, attacks on Embassy grounds is not considered an act of war – just try that on the Russian Embassy or even the Ivory Coast Embassy and see how they’d treat such an attack /end sarcasm.
Needless to say, Dimbright has a long string of accomplishments that even Bozo the Clown could beat blindfolded. And to think that she had 1st hand experience of the tyranny of socialist dictatorships. For some people, they still remain clueless, even after being whupped upside the head by the reality stick. To me, such gullibility in the SecState is beyond the pale and proof of the fear and loathing of all that is American.
Dr. Rice, if you’re reading this, while you’re cleaning house, take back Clay HQ — the Germans don’t want it and we need it.
Coulter can be funny in some of her articles but her arrogance and lack of research before opening her mouth hurts her credibility except to those who are willing to accept it. Plus, her hatred towards anyone who doesn’t accept what she says as fact is a great example of why this country is so divided. Too many people won’t listen to the other side but would rather cut it down on deaf ears. Believe it or not and this might come as a shock to a few of you die-hards, both sides do tell the truth and fudge the facts depending on the issue/topic.
Has anyone noticed how ones political views seem to trump all else. All accomplished Democratic women who have risen, along with their human faults, to appear on the political radar screen, have been for the most part trashed here.
Yet we view our own accomplished Republican women almost without fault and are so incensed when they are trashed by the Democrats. The Democrats, on the otherhand, who so champion the ‘rights’ of women and minorities, are no where to be found if those minorities are Republican.
Point is, it isn’t about women or race or anything else except the political values, conservative or liberal, we hold. Everything else is ‘fair game’ for hunting.
Now in defense of my conservative views, of course, we don’t tend to champion one American over another based on gender, race, etc., so don’t seem to be so guilty of hypocrisy as if we did, then stand by and ignore them when they need support but don’t fit our ‘value system’.
Benny, do you know the old saying, Stand in the middle of the road for very long and you will get run over?
Duplicitous nature of Democrats? You guys are masters of the pot calling the kettle black. A few weeks ago Coulter accused Liberals of being racist! Take a walk down any small town sidewalk in any southern state and see where the racists still live. Coulter is just pure evil.
As for Rice, well lets confer with someone with brains for opinions. Someone like Bill Moyers:
http://movies.ziaspace.com/Condi%20Moyers-.wmv
Although this commenter is quite juvenile, I’ll allow the post because I want to respond. – Admin
Jim I don’t see what you see in these comments and the post. In another post I commented on the double standard in the reactions to John Ashcroft vs. Janet Reno. Can you imagine the reaction if John Ashcroft had been the AG in charge of the Waco disaster? I suspect Ms. Reno was given a pass because she was a woman. Please note she couldn’t get elected in Florida following her term as AG. Have you noticed the kind words from some for Donna Brazile? One way to assess someone is to imagine they are the opposite sex or someone else and evaluate them. If it was Colin Powell dancing with a female head of a hostile state, what would the reaction be? I can’t imagine that he would. Just because someone is a woman or a minority doesn’t mean we can’t criticize them. I rejoiced when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the court. Since then I’ve become more and more disappointed with her. I wasn’t as impressed with Clarence Thomas when he was appointed, although I didn’t think he was unqualified. Since then I’ve become more and more impressed with him. I reserve the right to have an opinion about anyone and to change it. Sometimes people choose a “middle” or so-called “neutral” position to be one-up on people who choose to affiliate with a party.
duffy – In reference to your “small town sidewalk in any southern state” comment, to which small town and southern state do you refer? I was born and raised in a small town in a southern state and I’ve lived in three other states: one northern, the other two mid-Atlantic. Newsflash: Racists exist all over the world in every country and in every political party. That’s just the human condition. Still, I’d like to know what southern state and town you’re talking about.
Don, do you know the old theory of following a philosophy or a leader blindly only leads to hardship? You might be a die-hard conservative or liberal but you can’t just take the words of your philosophical leaders without questioning it. If you do, then you might miss the truth which isn’t skewed by the personal hatred of others.
Evon, I find quite the opposite. I find people who choose to affliate with a party (the die-hards) think they stand head and shoulders over everyone else. In all political alliations you will find candidates or leaders that you like or you don’t like… this includes some Republicans or Democrats voting for a candidate on the other side… but to run straight ticket because you have sworn by your party isn’t the smartest way. Vote for the candidate who is best qualified or represents your ideals not the vote the party because you always have voted that way. And just for the record, it is the swing voters (those of us who choose the candidate over the party) that decides elections, not the sheep.
Although you’re responding to Evon, I’ll add my two cents. First of all, why do you assume we’re NOT voting for someone who represents our ideals? I happen to be an Independent Conservative Christian who typically votes for Republicans because they support views in line with my faith. I admit it.
Are you saying you don’t have strong views either way and/or vote for candidates from both parties equally? I’d love to hear the answer to that. My guess is you’re a liberal claiming to be a “moderate” or “Independent” who votes for Democrats mostly all of the time, if not always.
As for the sheep remark, be careful with comments like that on the blog of a Republican-voting hostess. While you didn’t call me a sheep directly, I take such comments as indirect offenses against me. Some take the indirect route because they know ad hominem commenters are booted off this blog.
Actually yes I do vote on the candidate rather than the party. I’ve voted for Dick Lugar for years along with local and state republicans. It depends on their stance on issues rather than what party they supposedly belong to. What percentage do I vote for each party? I have no clue, I do not keep a tally.
Your comment that you’re an Independent Conservative Christian who “typically” votes Republican is in line with my line of reasoning. You said “typically” votes Republican, so I can assume that you have voted outside the party lines, no? You are not just following the party standard since you have sense enough to realize that even if a person is backed by a certain party and you support that party, it doesn’t mean that the candidate reflects your views.
As far as the sheep comment, I am sorry I can’t see it your way. In context the sheep comment was based on people who vote by party and not the candidate, which you have already noted that you do not do that, thus it should not even be considered an attack on you.
Good enough.
Thanks for the link La Shawn. I just voted, and I’m glad to know I’m not alone in my fondness for Captain’s Quarters. I was very disappointed not to see either Powerline or Evangelical Outpost on there. They are the best in their respective categories, in my opinion.
“What is it about her column you don’t like? Which arguments are faulty and which facts are untrue or misleading? Give me something to work with, people. ”
That’s what’s so infuriating, I think, to people who disagree with Coulter (and pundits like her)… that it’s hard to point to one thing.
Comments like this: “Betty Currie – whose principal function was penciling in “Monica” on Clinton’s “To Do” list every morning.”… How does one respond? It’s closer to a schoolyard taunt than to a political opinion, and has the same effect. That is, comments like that can get one so flustered that any logical response is impossible (and useless).
Coulter is smart, but I’d rank her level of discourse pretty much on par with Michael Moore.
And while I don’t like listening to either on of them, I can’t help thinking that they both mean well and care deeply about many of the same things that we all do.
Evon, I saw comments to this post that I thought too personal. Just what we criticize the other side, Duffy as the most recent example, of doing.
Please don’t add me to the dreaded ‘neutral’ list. At least before reading my comments defense in other La Shawn Posts.
I’m scratching my head to seriously think of any, name one woman or any other minority of note put forward by the Dems. Name one that wasn’t notorious or otherwise in over their heads at the elevated position.
–Coleman Young? Give me a break, Detroit is still the armpit of the rustbelt after decades of the Young machine.
–Janet Reno? The same who rose to prominence on fabricated/steered charges of sexual abuse by pre-schoolers. Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez, yeah right.
–Geraldine Ferraro? VP wannabe. Highest position ever was Ambassador to UNCHR during genocide fiascos in African, Slavic and Pan-Pacific Rim regions.
Donna Brazille? I enjoy watching her on news talkshows defencing inanne moonbat positions with a straight face. She’s got a rare talent at making the stupid sound reasonable.
Ron Brown? Hounded by allegations of corruption in the DNC. No net result with DeptCommerce.
Peewee Frizzell, AKA Queazy Mufumi? Hounded by allegations of corruption as big city mayor.
Marion Berry? Need I say more.
Ok, maybe I can concede that perhaps 2-3% of liberal minorities have made any significant contributions to the betterment of Americana. I’ll tip my hat to Thurgood Marshall, Barbara Jordan, Ford, Jr. and umm, umm.
Oh well. As for Boxer, Pelosi, Cynthia, Moseley-Braun etc, sheer token liberalism.
Benny, Although I don’t think I’m head and shoulders above you, I do know that it is people like me and my counterparts in the Democratic, Green, etc. Party, who determine who it is you get to vote for when you finally do go to the polls in November. As I said elsewhere, I participate in the Republican Party to do my best to make sure the choice in the general election is not between the proverbial “two horse thieves.” And contrary to what you may think, people who participate in Party politics have more in common with each other many times [even though their positions on issues differ greatly] than with people who don’t participate. I once met a Democratic Party worker in a booth at a state fair. We commiserated at length about some of the trials of working within the party [nuts, people whose positions are really a way of acting out their neuroses, people who crave attention or have very strong beliefs but have no idea how to contribute or work with others]–all these things are common to any group. This is not meant to be a put down but it might sound like it. By using the word “sheep,” you betrayed that your experience working in groups with others is limited. As far as I know, official meetings of both parties are governed by Robert’s Rules of Order. In such meetings, everyone attending takes responsibility for what happens at the meeting. The process of making a motion and amending it should result in the meeting getting as close to a consensus as is possible without limiting attendance to identically-minded people [sheep]. I remember a ward meeting where I challenged a ruling of the chair and was supported by the people attending. By the way, it is the unusual election where I vote a straight ticket as I did after the impeachment fiasco. I had hoped the Democrats would have taken a position similar to John L. Lewis when asked about Jimmy Hoffa on Meet the Press years ago, “Right now the pack is after Jimmy Hoffa and I’m not going to join the pack.” Instead the Democrats all acted as though Bill Clinton was the greates thing since sliced bread. Please!
I do have a problem with Ann sometimes… She smears Cleaver’s wife, but doesn’t acknowledge the fact that Cleaver himself became a republican and renounced his former activities, nor does she seem to be able to separate the woman from her husband. Cleaver was a liberal once upon a time, so his wife must automatically be bad?
And the comment about the woman who’d participated in an armed robbery. Sorry, Ann, but that’s just callous. Criminals are human beings and deserve to be treated with some respect once they’ve done their time. People change, Ann. And the snide comment about the person who used to do the weather! Would you say David Letterman isn’t a worthy entertainer because he used to do the weather in Indianapolis?
She’s snotty and rude ALL THE TIME, and doesn’t seem to be able to stop being cruel to people who don’t deserve her rancor and bile. She’s smart, beautiful and wonderfully conservative, but she needs to learn how to keep her big mouth shut sometimes. There’s only so much one can take. Being a leggy blonde doesn’t give you a carte blanche to say whatever you want without fear of the consequences.
“Weatherman” is a reference to a group called the Weather Underground, a radical group in the 60s that set bombs.
Hello, all:
May I add a couple of cents (if not sense) about the issue of partisanship?
No thinking person can be a partisan in the sense of someone who believes “my party right or wrong.” Of course, we’re all tempted to give people we agree with a “pass” when they do or say stupid or evil things. Fallen human nature, I guess.
That having been said, I think that it’s also unreasonable to say that one “side” in a debate can’t be more right than another, at least on the issues that matter most.
Personally, I have some reservations about our two-party system. But it’s what we have. And it’s just not true that both parties are always necessarily equally wrong/right. They might become that way in the future, but they don’t have to become that way.
In a word: “either/or thinking” is bad only when the issues are more complex than either/or. But sometimes they’re just not.
For instance: I think that lowering taxes and regulating immigration are important things, but I also think that being pro-life is even more important. Thus, if the Democrats suddenly became pro-lifers, and the Republicans suddenly abandoned the pro-life ship,I’d unhesitatingly vote for the Democrats, even if the Democrats continued to be for higher taxes and were lax about enforcement of the existing immigration laws.
Why? Because a pro-abortion, etc. stance is, in my view, a disqualification, something that puts one, or one’s party, beyond the pale of what should be reasonable political discourse. On the other hand, reasonable people can debate about the best tax policy and the best immigration policy and still be reasonable. Whatever one’s intentions may be, pro-abortion, etc. are too bad to count as reasonable options.
Now, if I switched to a hypothetically pro-life Democratic party, it would be unfair of, say, a libertarian opponent who stayed with the Republican party to accuse me of “voting the party line,” or, worse, of being “hypocritical” because I gave my “side” a “free pass” on taxation and immigration. That would be a mis-reading of the situation.
Reasonable people will do what they can to protect the things that matter most within the limits that the political system imposes on us. That’s a lot different from “my party right or wrong,” and the difference needs to be seen and acknolwedged.
Cordially,
Adrian
Jim, As I said, I didn’t see the bias you said you saw in either the posts or the comments and was puzzled. Also, the people who comment in this blog do sound reflective to me. One or the things I like about this blog is that it doesn’t have that “party hack” tone so that window vs. mirror comment puzzled me also. I probably shouldn’t have gone on to guess about intentions in general when it would appear that I was directing it only at you. Also, this election season was one of the few when the major complainers weren’t the “nonpartisan” people saying how they dislike/hate “both” Parties. I once lived in the same building with a group of such people. As time went on, I discovered that probably the reason they didn’t register to vote was the same reason they had the telephone in a roommate’s name, didn’t have a bank account, etc. They were avoiding leaving a paper trail whereby they could be tracked down by debt collectors, ex-lovers or spouses, parole officers, the police, etc. One thing they were good at is coming up with superior sounding rhetoric to comment on those of us involved in the process. Because of my Christian beliefs, I know that every position I come up with will be flawed as will everyone I work with. It’s still worth the effort. We are blessed with living in one of the best countries ever. It takes not only voters but people willing to run for office and people willing to work for these people to succeed. The system isn’t perfect but I’m blessed to be a part of it.
Evon, glad you could respond but I hate the fact that anytime there seems to be a serious discussion on Internet, there are alway assumptions made about the participants. You assume that my “experience working in groups with others is limited…” and for this, you would be wrong. My using the term “sheep” may not fit everyone who is reading this blog (please see my response to La Shawn). With that said, there are people out there that vote straight ticket because they have voted straight ticket since the first time they were able to vote. Do they know the exact positions of the candidates? Probably not, but vote for that party because that is the way it has always been done. These are the sheep I speak of….
Adrian, I have question for you… let’s say that you are voting for state senator and your choices are: a) pro-choice Republican, b) pro-choice Democrat and c) pro-life American Fascist Union… who do you vote for in this case?
note on my last post to Adrian- the American Fascist Union mention along with the term pro-life is not meant as an attack on the pro-life movement at all… it was a random party of which I know very little about since they were not on the ballot here…
Thanks for the clarification, LaShawn! I was unaware of the implication of the word (though I suppose the uppercase “W” should have been a hint that it wasn’t a reference to TV forecasting!
nothing like getting egg on my face on my first comment!
Benny, Glad to hear you participate in groups. Do you make a practice of calling people in your group “sheep” in public?
You find people who vote straight party ticket exasperating–as I do. In my more optimistic moments, I believe that these people cancel each other out. Who knows? These people, also, are part of our imperfect process. When I was a member of a union, I, along with other union members, was sent a sample ballot whose alternative to endorsing a Democrat was “no endorsement.” Did most union members follow the sample ballot? Probably. Somehow to me it is better that they participate in the electoral process than opt out. Going to the polls is habit-forming. So is not going. Cheers and enjoy this happy season.
Benny,
I never meant to say that coming down on the wrong side of life issues is the only disqualification for the vote of reasonable people. I leave open the possibility that there are other ones. This is the first time I’ve ever heard of the AFU, but maybe the AFU may disqualify itself in some of these other ways. But then, you might just be trying to scare me with emotionally charged names.
If you recall, I also said that the two major parties could both end up being wrong. The example you give, if it should ever turn out to be true, is an illustration of this. I would insist, though, that, when it comes to life issues, there are “sides.” And it just so happens that the Republicans, for the time being, and for whatever odd mixture of calculation and conviction, at least profess themselves to be on the right side of those issues.
Cordially,
Adrian
Here are two actual criticisms I have of Ann.
First, her words often are indeed very hateful. I know she’s not fond of the New York Times, which is normal. However, saying that it would have been good for Timothy McVeigh to have bombed the NYT building is wrong. It is immoral. I would hope that you would agree with me, La Shawn.
(BTW, to verify that she did make this quote, one can go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
)
Second, she paints with too large of a brush. Her basic thesis of Treason was that during the Cold War, the left was too complacent in fighting communism; therefore, liberal people today are unfit for fighting Islamic terrorism. There’s a flaw in this logic, though. There were many hawks in the Democratic Party during the cold war (which Ann even admits herself), and, although many want to deny it, there still are today. Take, for instance, Joseph Lieberman. Voted for the war in Iraq. Voted for the funding the war effort.However, he’s no Zell Miller.In spite of his reputation for criticising the entertatinment industry, he is ideologically liberal. Yet, because Coulter doesn’t confine herself to “liberals on domestic policy”, this would put Liberman in the same class as radicals like Ted Rall.
I don’t happen to think this is intelligent.
Admittedly, she has her counterparts on the left- someone had already mentioned Michael Moore, who also has spoken hateful words and painted with a large brush many times. Yet… and maybe this is just me, I’ve found that there are many out there who will get extremely defensive if anyone speaks a bad word about Ann.
Just my 0.02 .
La Shawn, Thanks for the link to the Carroll article. I listened to some of those hearings and just knew in my gut that something very partisan was going on. I, too, like Ann Coulter. Sometimes she is very over the top but she is always witty and her articles are well written. I wish I could write as well as she does.
Ben, those hawk democrats you referred to weren’t liberals.
There were plenty of conservative & liberal democrats in those days. The original JFK, Robert Kennedy, Proxmire, Scoop were principally conservative. Even tho Gore Jr & Carter posed as conservative hawks, their true colors showed in office — America is so undeserving of the superpower status. Talk about self-hate and loathing.
The liberals that Ann referred to were the communisted-infiltrated liberals. They know who they are. They did what they could to undermine our standing vis a vis the Warsaw Pact and are equally clueless in WOT. Sadly, it is the moonbats that are currently holding the DNC reins and debating whether to go hard left or center-left. This is no where near where some dems have stood at center-right. Hence Zell’s DINO status. I’d suspect even JFK, not that phony, would find himself as an outcast in this day and age — tax breaks, God, Bay of Pigs, “ask not what the country can do for you…”, Ich bin ein Berliner… Moore, Boxer, Pelosi, sKerry and other moonbats would have a field day lambasting JFK as the devil incarnate, or better yet JFK=Hitler.
Andy,
Thank you for the reply, but I still gotta disagree.
Kennedy certainly would be considered more conservative in comparison to today’s Democratic party. I’m in agreement upon that. But was he considered liberal back then? There’s disagreement on that, but I think he’s no Goldwater.
And as for today… you still buy the whole “Liberman is too conservative bit”? I’ll grant that he was the most conservative of the Democratic Presidential candidates, but that’s not saying much. Do you really think his positions on the environment, gun control, economic policy, etc. are conservative? Had he won the nomination, I think the Republican activists would have tried to paint him as a traitor too.
Also, I don’t happen to think he’s the only liberal congressman like this. I certainly don’t view Senators such as Biden, Kohl, Dodd, Harkin, and the new Senate Minority leader Reid as right-wingers or even centrists (they all tend to have ADA ratings in the 80-100 range), and they all voted for giving Bush the Authority to go to war in Iraq. Among all Senate Democrats, 29 voted to, 21 didn’t. This is hardly consistent with the idea that the Democratic party is controlled by the MoveOn crowd. I’m not saying there are no hard-core doves influencing the party, but I hardly think they are as prominent as the RNC wants us to think they are.
Also, as a side note, I’m just wondering why you think Pelosi is so out there. Ever since she became House minority leader, people have been ragging on her. Yeah, she’s real liberal. Is that it? I mean, if she made outrageous comments like Michael Moore did, I’d understand. But portraying her as the devil incarnate just because of her voting record… I’d just be interested in knowing.
Take care.
Off topic: Hey, you’re in second place on the WebAwards poll. You got my vote.
Ann is in liberal’s faces and that is why they cannot stand her. It’s been a long time coming that someone get in their faces as they’ve been in ours for some 40 years now. The tide has turned.
LaShawn is well on her way to becoming the “black Ann Coulter” or should that be the other way around?
No matter. Different approaches, but it’s all good. Ann offers another model that conservatives need: a biting, devasting, scarcastic and humorous wit that returns to liberals what they so easily dish out. Her characterization of Katie Couric as an “affable Eva Braun” was priceless. She was the butt of much ridicule when after 9/11 she urged as to American enemies: “invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” I thought that was stupid and still do, but from a rhetorical, polemical standpoint, it was brilliant. Her non-apologetic follow-ups were great too, “Well two out of three ain’t bad” and this gem: “Now, more than ever”.
You can’t help but laugh at the gal’s provocative chutpah. To her credit, while she criticizes and skewers blacks like Jesse Jackson, Sharpton etc, she is an equal opportunity disser, and I have not detected any of the broad-brush race baiting some conservatives of similar style use. That in itself makes her unique. It is all too easy to go that route. For now at least, Ann racks up the laughs with hip, pithy, pointed and pungent writing while keeping the faith with black conservatives.
What makes people hate her even more is her stringy, catty, blonde vampish appearance, contradicted or perhaps enhanced, when she wears that slinky black dress. Some guys either want to kiss the woman, or smash her face. LOL!
The meetings promised by the WHITE House in April of 2001, headed by Cheney, to deal with the threat of terrorism never take place. Condoleeza shrugs off her failure to take preventative steps to stop 9/11, despite fervent warnings. The August 8th Daily Presidential Briefing warning, Osama determined to attack the US, Rice refers to as, “historical warnings” as in, “Well, we already knew about ol Osama. What else is new?”
She supports the Iraqi invasion by claiming Nigerian uranium was undoubtedly intended for nuclear WMD, knowing this to be untrue.
Intolerant republicans never accept the truth about their party. As soon as they do, they become democrats.
Hey Ben, that’s why I left Lieberman’s name out. I never said he was conservative, nor did I say Pelosi=devil, tho according to the Scriptures, she’s pretty far south with regards to her moral relativism.
I only mentioned those who by today’s standard would be considered conservative, given their positions back then — include Moinihan & Inyouye in the modern day DINOs group. I’m fully aware that there are conservatives, moderates & liberals in each party.
Liberman’s problem is that he’s too conservative for the Move-On crowd, otherwise he’s just another moderate dem — certainly not a Reagan Democrat, i.e. conservative democrat. As for reps, he’d still be too liberal.
Speaking of Reagan Democrats, it sure sounded weird, almnost offensive, to hear sKerry co-opt Reagan’s name. All the same, I’m wondering why the MSM isn’t talking now about the Bush Democrats?
I’m lucky if I can even quote a single sentence from any of my favorite movies. I just know when I hear/see it, if I like it, I do, and if I don’t, I don’t, but I may not be able to point to exactly why. This is the same with most politicians, I just have a mental gage based on certain metrics and their competence/goodness/worthiness rises and falls depending on what they say/do.
Do you reckon that sKerry inadvertantly spoke the truth that the dems voted to give Bush authority as a show of force and to suck up to the security moms, but they never intended for him to actually do so? Either Bush didn’t understand their wink-wink or chose to ignore it, thus taking unfair advantage of their political game. I guess that’s the danger of being a political weathervane — they tend to get so spun around, they no longer know which way a strong wind is blowing.
FWIW; I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, so count me as one of the 4 mil disenfranchised Evangelicals. Actually, it was only in the final stretch that I began to regret not re-registering since I came back from Europe. I also didn’t vote to re-elect his daddy, “throwing” my vote to Perot. However, in 96 I truly had to abstain, Perot was the lunatic fringe, Dole was lame and Willy was too slick, but those were the only choices on the ballot.
Anyhoo, back to the liberal/conservative dems. Long time ago, in a far away era, Biden was a POTUS contender; socially liberal, but hawkish on foreign policy.
But to hear/see him for the past 6 years, it’s obvious that his schtick is to march in lockstep on the right-most column of the dem phlanx, wherever it may roam. This tracking phenonmen remained true even when it looked like sKerry might actually win. And to think he was a serious contender in my book for a while back then, except for that pro-choice thing.
With Dodd, Kohl, Harkin & Reid, they may be moderately “conservative”, but they also have some hare-brained bills with their names on it or other issues. Besides, even Clinton was calling for regime change in Iraq, so as far as I’m concerned, going to war in Iraq is not a consevative vs liberal issue, rather survival vs letting a mad dog loose.
As for Pelosi, give me a break! She might as well be a clone of Tom Daschle. Remember him? She is constantly out there on the fringe. I checked her out when she became the first female to hold the post.
Unfortunately, there’s no there there. Just another token shrill. Do you recall her weird and incoherent post State of the Union rebuttal speech?
If anyone was in doubt about her moderatism/professionalism that speech should have sunk that notion like a pair of concrete shoes. Her performance was rather like a girl fight, albeit shadow boxing. If the dems are serious about making inroads with the red states/moral crowd, they need to shunt her out of the limelight. I love watching her talk, knowing that everytime she opens her mouth, another DINO or two bails out.
These days, I can only look at most dems and say to myself, ‘glad I didn’t vote for them’. Maybe we should blame it on PC, the more PC one tries to be the more inchorent and frustrated they become.
Where, oh where have the Tip O’Neills gone?
As an aside, going back to Scoop Jackson, I sometimes wonder if it was a communist plot to assassinate democratic hawks or if it was a long-term moonbat conspiracy towards a party takeover.
Unfortunately, no credible evidence have been forthcoming since the limited opening of Kremlin/Lubyanka files. So maybe it was just an honest mistake that the USSR shot down a Korean 747 that just happened to have Scoop and several other mid-level bureaucrats on board for looking like a NC/RC-135, despite one look-see pass.
Too bad Scoop wasn’t around to stop Clinton and Gore from wreaking damage to the Whitehouse and to prevent the moonbat takeover. Oh well, life’s full of mysteries.
RepJ,
You forgot about Nixon and Agnew.
Regarding Ann Coulter and that column she wrote directly following the Dem’s Convention, remarking how all Dems seem to be school teachers and casting a negative light on teachers in general.
I often wonder what Laura Bush thought about that particular column. She must have cringed.
Well, I guess there’s a lot there for me to digest for now. Sorry if I did imply that you thought Liberman was conservative.
Also, I didn’t see Pelosi’s rebuttal speech. If it was a bad as you say it was, then I’d say she is out there.
Anyway, I’ll go try to find a transcript.
Either way, I can see where you’re coming from a little better now, but, looking back at where we came from, I still think Ann Coulter is wrong.
Ben F. No apology needed, the commenting here has been hot and heavy and even I lose track of whom I’m responding to.
Wish I could point you to a good transcript, but check out these:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/000832.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/000830.php
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/000834.php
(I must admit that the resemblance between Pelosi & Gollum is striking)
As for Ann, she serves as a useful foil againt Moore, Franken, Garafolo. No sense in playing nice with people that specialize in ad-hominen attacks, you have to cut them off at the legs.
Come on, you have to admit that these folks are worse than hyperbolic blithering idiots, they can’t even serve up a sharp riposte with flair.
I absolutely love Ann Coulter and read everything she writes. Not having a TV, I have never watched the lady, but I really don’t care, I’m far more interested in what she says, not how she looks. After all, that’d be sexist, eh?
Ann doesn’t try to be nice to anybody, she tells it as she sees it, and is not afraid to take on the PC jerks of the world. Her points in Treason about how the Dems ran the Vietnam war were right on, and her comparison of FDR to Bush at the beginning of that book were spot on.
The lady has tremendous guts and courage to stand out there and say what she and everybody else knows, that many people think. Islamicists are not the religion of peace, they have to be dealt with. At this very moment, in the Christmas season, all we seem to see are PC groups attempting to shut down a celebration of Christianity, while basically forcing just about everything else down our throats, in the name of diversity. Who else but Ann Coulter would dare to speak out against that??
“What is it about her column you don’t like? Which arguments are faulty and which facts are untrue or misleading?”
What does Ann Coulter say that isn’t faulty and what “facts” are true? That would take a lot less time. As much as I dislike Al Franken, his criticisms of Ann Coulter are right on the money. She can’t go two paragraphs without an ad hominen attack or a blatant falsehood, and she’s a disgrace to *real* conservatism. She and the Regnery bunch are a laughingstock. If she and Michael Moore were to suddenly disappear, political discourse in this country would instantly be elevated.
Typical answer, MD. I ask a question and you answer with a question. By blanketing everything under “what isn’t faulty and untrue,” you avoid doing the work of disputing Coulter’s assertions, providing further proof that ad hominem is just about all the ammunition liberals have to use against her.
Great job.
What’s with this sudden dislike of “ad hominem” attacks? Al Franken complained about it when he was on a panel with Molly Ivens and Bill O’Reilly on CSPAN. O’Reilly pointed out that this was an interesting complaint from someone who wrote a book with the title, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” By the way on that panel Ivens and O’Reilly were like steel against steel. Franken came across as the dumb kid who could only get attention by being disruptive. Then he spent much his precious time on the panel complaining about authors whose footnotes are really “backnotes” and are found at the back of the book rather than the bottom of the page. Now there’s a history-making point! Franken does better when he’s being interviewed. I heard him on Medved and saw him on Russert and when he’s being asked intelligent questions, he acutally sounds intelligent. When he’s on his own he uses foul language and he’s not even funny.
Comments on this entry are closed.