I never said that none did. Please don’t read between the lines; there are no hidden implications, only inferences. Here’s a good example of both sides aping w/out thinking: www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html (It takes a while to load–it’s an amusing video.)
Indeed.
Also, if this is a typical college, realize that a good portion of the room will be trying to make her look bad in a similar fashion. Colleges aren’t exactly hotbeds of conservative thinking, and if there’s any sort of local liberal/progressive group, they’ll probably show up as a matter of principle.
Even if all of that is true, and I’m not say it is, it doesn’t change that fact that she is criticizing liberals for attacking conservatives by attacking liberals. Doesn’t that strike you as textbook hypocrisy? Wouldn’t her time be better spent exploring the value of her own beliefs, rather than pandering to a hot-tempered fringe and stoking the fires of partisan discord?
**
I specifically cite an esteemed conservative source that panned her book to show that she has been disowned by respectable organizations within her own party. What is the relation to the sources I go to support my own ideology (btw you might want to check this thread and this one
**
Maybe you didn’t hear, but he has a new panel show on HBO. He made that comment on the inaugural show, she looked none too pleased. I loved it.
Cain,
You missed the point. If it’s a largely conservative audience, they’ll love barbs (factual or otherwise), at people like Bill Maher. You may not feel stupid, but you will feel intellectually lonely, which beleive me, is just as bad if not worse. Personally, I think the guy is brilliant (all the more so because I don’t always agree w/ him.)
She also will not see her work as attacking Liberals. You’ll have to cite ch. & vs. to get that far & she just won’t let you do that there. Sorry, but no dice.
For your 2nd question, you’ll have to do better. Are you trying to imply that all conservatives think alike & blindly follow the leader? I hope not (Most of Bush Jr’s loudest critics are conservatives that think they can do better…)
Again, best of luck to you, but refinement is the order of the day…
cainxinth: If you really want to embarass her, ask her if she swallows or sprits.
Of course, make sure you are standing near an exit and can run fast.
I have an idea…disagree with her on the substance of her arguments. Many liberals want to attack the person instead defend there own positions.
One question for you…Do you see any inherent hypocrisy in addressing a perceived conservative attack on liberal values that is in response to liberal attacks on conservative values?
Seems like instead of discussing anything of meaning, you are content with insulting or attempting to humiliate someone with whom you disagree…so you have jumped on the hipocracy bandwagon you attempt to lampoon. Round and round she goes!
If you really want to annoying her, instead of attacking her politically, why not engage in the game of “Bizarre Questions”? She’ll be prepared for personal attacks, but not for “Whatever can be done about the pudding shortage?”, or “Why has no one successfully juggled 4 pianos at once?”, or “What is your personal opinion on Ed Zotti’s attack on that great American, Charles Hirsch Barris?”. It would be entertaining to see how she handles off-kilter questions.
I’m not the one who wrote the book newcrasher. I reserve every right to lampoon the conservative agenda for any reason of my choosing, personal or public. But, if Ann’s going to get all high and mighty on us she should expect people to question her motives and her methods.
Also, as has been mentioned Ann holds a stunningly 2-mentional view of the world where liberals are the bane of existence and conservatives can do little wrong. Both liberals and conservative politicians take bribes from big business, lobby for constituency pork, and sling mud at each other, that’s part and parcel with the good stuff they do, like building highways and putting GI’s in school. There is no good guy or bad guy, just guys, but Coulter couldn’t be farther from that conclusion.
There’s where my trick works. She has set forms of reacting to questions. However, if you ask the right question, she won’t be able to handle it. Therefore, my goofy questions will work better than all those “be mean to the person in front of you” questions, because she’ll have no way of handling them!
(Now, if only I could get her and (ugh) Chomsky in the same room, handling my questions, we could have real fun)
I love Anne Coulter, because she adds some counter-weight to the liberal media (the liberal part of the media).
I’m conservative on some things, and while Anne gets a bit out of line, it is very contrived, very intentional and she appreciates being met with hostility.
Trying to nail her to the wall, or atttempting corner her is just you falling for the bait. She is glad to provide this nasty free for all approach to the Republican party.
And this comes from me, a huge Anne Coulter fan.
She is very effective, because Liberals tend to get quite out of line with her, and do nothing but discredit themselves.
I think DMark has made the best suggestion so far
It doesn’t have to even be old. The one thing that’s missing from this thread are direct quotes from her writings making definitive statements which can be posed to her (and can’t be denied – it’s in black and white).
For instance you could ask,
"Anne, in your column you recently said
Anne, is this passage comparing journalists reporting on the shuttle explosion to terrorists? Is it comparing the american citizenry who mourned or were scared or were otherwise “crying in the streets” to terrorists? Exactly how do you justify taking this event and saying it’s a “more demure” version of “terrorists cheering?”
That’s a question she’ll have trouble wriggling out of. It’s a comparison that has made even some pretty conservative folks (e.g. ME) squirm and think Anne Coulter’s off the deep end… And it’s neither silly nor flippant nor tossed off with a joke.
I think if you really want to challenge her, you need to do so based on things she’s said publicly, in writing, not by throwing up a straw man and asking her to comment on (i.e. verbally destroy) both it and you at the same time.
There’s also a pretty heavily trafficked Yahoo message board populated by many pro- and con- Anne folks; Might be worth your while to check it out and see what others are saying.
Not quite, I like Rush’s show, when I get a chance to listen to it, usually driving to and from lunch. But not by any stretch of the imagination do I agree with everything he says, which seems to be your interpretation of the phrase “ditto-head”. The meaning of “ditto-head” is as stated by Texican, your own interpretation of it is just that, your own.
You know I would love to make fun of any conservative woman I run across. Would you mind pointing out where in the conservative-with-traditional-values manual is this role ascribed to women? Or in other words, cite?
Regarding the OP’s point #3: I was watching Bill Mahers show when he accused Anne of “just making shit up.”
The point in question was that George W Bush had a SAT score in the 600’s for both math and english.
Seems easy enough to verify/refute. Anybody know if this is true?
Very muchin the ballpark especially when averaged.
Can’t do the cite thing, evidently I’m no Bush, but seems Bush scored 566 in verbal, 640 in Math.
Not only am I no Bush, but apparently I also don’t know how to just post once. Where is that list of excuses? Oh yeah, here it is, sorry my cat just stepped on the keyboard! Bad kitty!
As my last comment on the subject:
Anne Coulter is the sort of conservative that William Bucklry and his peers were trying to purge when they formed the modern conservative movement in the 1960’s: the ill-informed, almost deranged (and often racist) cranks that were hurting the movement (such as the Birchers).
By the way, in the column DrLizardo cited, Anne went on to say this:
So here she directly suggests that “liberals” were happy to have this tragedy occur. Sorry. Uh-uh. Anybody who would feel that way is a cold hearted bastard or bitch.
The big night has come and gone, here’s how it played out.
First off, the title of the event was, “Liberalism and Terrorism: Two Stages of the Same Disease.”
The night started off peaceably enough, the room was an even mix of liberals and conservatives. The hawks applauded when she said we should bomb Iraq and take their oil. They cheered when she said American life was in fact more precious than other life, because she was an American. And they gave a standing ovation when she called Clinton, “the pot smoking, philanderer.” Alright that last point was valid.
She wasn’t the most polished speaker. She was reciting a prewritten speech word for word, poorly. She blandly spluttered out her hate-filled litany of the evils of liberalism, and as the night progressed heckles started emanating from the crowd. By the time she wrapped up the audience was engaged in a battle of applaud and boos. Then the question and answer period arrived.
The first questions were from the liberal quarter, someone asked if she was worried about Pakistan’s radical Islamists gaining more power due to Bush’s hard line, especially since they had nukes, which worked. Others asked why she failed to mention North Korea. As predicted here, each question was answered flippantly, derided the author whenever possible, and concluded with a transparent retreat to the comfort zone of her unending scapegoating of liberals.
The conservatives kissed her ass and repeated her call for war. She ate it up and applauded their patriotism. But, then the mic got to me, I’m proud to say I had a doozy all lined up and managed to get it out with a reasonable amount of composure. I asked (as best I can recall it):
“You said tonight that Thomas Friedman, who you apparently feel is the archetypical liberal, believes that the US’s decision to not sign the Kyoto treaty is one of the major reasons for international terrorism and that liberals are obsessed with the meaningless question of ‘why they hate us.’ [She actually said all that] To the contrary, I think most liberals here would agree that the rise of anti-American terrorism is a response to US foreign policy in the past 50 years, including our support for men like the Shah in Iran, Saddam in Iraq, and bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the suppression of populist movements that interfered with our political and economic goals worldwide. My first question is, what do you attribute the rise of terrorism to?”
“Second, you’ve also said that the solution to this war is overwhelming, demoralizing force of the variety that eventually defeated the Nazis. How do you explain the failure of overwhelming force to change the ideology of a resistant culture in Viet Nam?"
Her response was first to stare blankly, like a deer in the headlights while the applause died down, then to stammer out the words, “We didn’t use overwhelming force in Viet Nam.” The rest of her statement, which was something like liberal’s always want to know why they hate us, isn’t that adorable, was drowned out by boos and heckles.
It was glorious. It was all downhill for her from there, less and less repubs spoke up, and more and more people put her on the spot. To say she took a lashing would be an understatement.
I think it’s safe to say Ann Coulter won’t be coming back to Syracuse University anytime soon.
Cainxinth:
First of all, thanks for following up. Most threads like this you never hear the outcome… I appreciate your diligence in letting us know how it turned out.
A couple thoughts, at risk of offending:
Your characterization sounds a bit skewed… “Deer in the headlights”…? Consider if some bias is creeping in.
Fact is she’s right, we didn’t use overwhelming force in Vietnam by any means. Happy to discuss in a new thread about such if you care to start it.
If what you say about her response is accurate, I’m disappointed in her. But I wonder if her response to your voluminous question was truly as confused and brief as you describe? As someone who has heard her speak before, I’m really doubtful. I agree with you that she’s a better writer than speaker, but I’ve not seen her (in two appearances I’ve witnessed) at a loss for words in the face of much tougher questions than yours.
I have to disagree with you that drowning someone out with “boos and heckles” is a positive. I’d expect better from Syracuse students (I’ve hired more than a few and have great respect for the U). That sort of 'shout ‘em down’ mentality is usually a raving conservative tactic (e.g. on Hannity & Colmes) and I’m disappointed that the opportunity to hear her response was overridden (regardless of whether you all agreed with it or not). If someone pulled that sort of YOU SUCK I’M NOT LISTENING TO YOU NYAH NYAH thing here EVERYONE would jump all over them – and rightly so.
Congrats, nevertheless, for taking this one on in the face of much advice to “sit down and shut up, she’ll bulldoze you.” Wherever you end up, I hope you keep that fire in the belly and refusal to lay off and let well enough alone…
Doc, I stand by all my characterizations, the women was just not as quick on her toes. She was nervous, her rebuttals were flimsy, and she lost control of the crowd. At points she couldn’t even get the conservatives to laugh at her barbs. Coulter represents a fringe viewpoint. If Elwoodcuse or another dopers from SU happened to be there, maybe they can verify my story.
Second, you’re right jeers aren’t the nicest response to an invited guests. But what did she expect? She went to a very liberal school (Daniel Patrick Moynihan teaches here and Clinton is my commencement speaker) and literally called us anti-American, baby killers, that’s a direct quote. We’re on Indian territory for crying out loud, and no one ever forgets it. She’s lucky she didn’t spark a riot.