It was either Laura Ingraham or Ann Coulter that was David Brock’s fag hag for a while, according to Blinded By The Right. I can’t find the reference though.
According to brock like half of the conservative movement in DC is in the closet, so it wouldn’t be much of a surprise. I’d prefer if she’s straight; it’s less embarassing to those of the gay persuasion.
Yeah, I’m not buying it.
My thread has the Malkin diss!
Ann Coulter lost it a long, long time ago. In fact, I’m not sure she ever really had it. She is an old-school troll; she says what she says to get a rise out of people, not because it makes any sense or has any tact.
Romney even told the croud how lucky they were to be able to hear from her.
At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Mitt Romney introduced Ann Coulter enthusiastically, saying, “I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”
Of course he went on to denounce what she said aftwards. Does he not know what kind of person she is, what candidate in their right mind would gudh over Ann Coulter?
I despise Coulter but she’s not alone in hateful utterances:
http://patterico.com/2007/03/05/5901/leftist-hate-speech/
This stuff isn’t confined to the right or the left.
I think we can safely hate on Coulter without having to be reminded that there are assholes on both sides of the aisle.
As pointed out already here and in the other thread on CPAC, the point isn’t that Coulter is a hateful, venomous hosebeast. We all knew that already. And it isn’t that the left doesn’t have similar vitriolic voices. The point is that she was invited to speak on the same stage with prominent Republicans, and was cheered and applauded by same for spewing out her usual tripe.
Each side has its ridiculous fringe voices. It’s when they get invited to the core’s constituency’s parties that eyebrows go up.
In the spirit of discussion - probably the closest left-wing analogue to Coulter I can think of is Al Sharpton. Maybe Jesse Jackson.
Practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted are considered mainstream liberals. They’re right in there with the core constituency all the time.
QFT…
She’s more Professional Wrasslin’ heel than legitimate commentator, she just never breaks kayfabe.
While I totally agree with Jeffd’s quote about Jesse Jackson, hate speech, and core constituency, I have disagree with this quote. I can only name 5 people on the list that have the both the name-recognition (at least to the majority of Americans) as Coulter and the direct political ties to the Democratic party: Carville, Byrd, Jackson, and Huffington.
I am not counting the Howard Dean quote because almost every person of both parties we would be considered hate-mongers if saying you “hate” the opposite was considered vile hate-speech.
On a related note, one of the big reasons politcal debate in this country has gone down the tubes is because political parties demonize the other side in an effort to pander to the “core” constituency (i.e. the fringes) (At least more so than in previous decades, demonizing your opponent has always been a political standby).
Oh, whatever Spoofy. A few out-of-context quotes does not a Coulter make.
Besides which, you’re missing the point. Obama’s not up on stage with Dan Savage, laughing and clapping as Santorum is compared to fecal matter.
Yeah. It really sucks too.
It’s instructive to note that “practically everybody on the list from the blog link I just posted…” includes such leading liberals as:
Yeah, I’m cherrypicking the absurd ones to make a point. The only people in the list who have any real influence in the Democratic party are:
I’m posting this just to highlight how again SpoofyChop is choosing to dodge the topic of discussion. The issue isn’t that “There are Republicans who spew hate filled vitriol.” Nor is anyone saying that there aren’t liberals and Democrats who do the same.
The issue -and people need to hammer on this - is that the Republicans are the ones who invite their premiere wackjob hatemonger to be a featured speaker at one of their major events where presidential hopefuls kowtow to her as she makes vile remarks while beeing enthusiastically cheered.
I love how this article about the hate speech of the other side begins:
It’s always advisable to begin your article condemning the hate speech of your rivals with an ad hominem attack. Well played!
“Liberal? Conservative? All that matters is that you’re wrong.”
-Amanpour
It’s funny how the “core” is actually the “fringe” nowadays.
When average person could care less about voting (average turnout for 2002 and 2004 presidential = 51.3/55.3%; average turnout for Congressional (state and national) in 2002/2004 = 36.4/37.0%), the parties tend to go for their rabid voting base (which are generally “fringe”) and voting independents. So in today’s fun, fun, fun world of politics what was once the “fringe” is now the “core.”
My wild guess is that if the parties thought that the 48% of non-voters actually would go out in vote that campaigns would look a little different.
I disagree; I don’t think things would change much. The underlying society has become polarized. there’s some interesting results showing a correlation between economic inequality and political polarization.