Except that the premise of his book isn’t that white men are stupid; it’s that our country is ruled by stupid white men. Draw a Venn diagram: the two ideas are very different.
Some samples, taken from your Amazon link, of this premise as it plays out in the book:
Hmm…I thought I’d be able to find more samples, but the excerpted part on Amazon is from the 2000 election chapter, not from the Introduction.
At any rate, he’s not saying we’re ruled by White Men, Who Are Stupid; he’s saying we’re ruled by White Men Who Are Stupid.
Let’s leave fame aside for the time being, and talk about something far more important.
Which of these two has more of an influence over national events? Ann Coulter has her books and her bully pulpit. Cynthia McKinney has the bully pulpit plus elected office in the House of Representatives. She sits on both the Budget and Armed Services committees, and numerous subcommittees.
Again, like I said, no pissing matches here. Just don’t dress your whores in white and call them vestal virgins.
In other words: We are being ruled by Republicans.
I don’t need to read Moore’s book to know that he’s bashing republicans in it. That much is clear just from reading the free stuff on Amazon. So it is fair to say that the book is “partisan”.
First, leaving fame aside means we’ve changed the thread of conversation: you set up McKinney as a refutation of MaxTheVool’s point that:
So if we want to change threads here, that’s fine, but McKinney doesn’t counter Max’s point.
Second, I’d still argue that Coulter’s more powerful. McKinney is a member of a minority party in a Congress notorious for riding roughshod over the minority party; she’s marginalized even by a huge chunk of her own party. She don’t get no respect. And true, she’s got a vote in Congress, which is a tremendous kind of power; but if she’s consistently voted down, it’s no power at all.
Coulter’s got a pulpit that far overshadows McKinney’s: her voice is heard by an order of magnitude more people than McKinney’s. She uses that voice to influence public policy by advocating specific public policies, and by advocating citizens to vote in a specific manner.
If you gave me the choice of wielding McKinney’s power or wielding Coulter’s, I’d choose Coulter’s in a heartbeat.
That doesn’t mean McKinney’s a vestal virgin. I think she’s a crackpot. She’s just a crackpot without much power.
I don’t deny for a second that it’s partisan–but that’s not the point. The point is that Moore doesn’t say (at least not here) that Republicans are Traitors; he says that we’re ruled by Stupid White Men (who are, admittedly, Republican). Max was (correct me if I’m wrong, Max) arguing that Moore doesn’t make insulting generalizations about Republicans the way that Coulter does about liberals, and certainly doesn’t do so as the thesis of his book.
I wouldn’t be surprised to hear a Moore quote in which he insults Republicans in general; I don’t really want to defend him. But I will defend him against the idea that he’s as scurrilous and contemptible as Coulter, and will continue to do so until he starts making comments about how we should execute a few conservatives just to show them it can be done.
I’m only vaguely familiar with Cynthia McKinney. What has she said that’s so objectionable?
As for Moore’s book, it’s been a while since I read it, but IIRC, the title refers to specific politicians, named in the body of the book itself, who are white (mostly), male (mostly), and stupid (at least in Moore’s estimation). Regardless of the accuracy of the charge, there’s a clear diffence between saying, “These specific individuals, with whom I disagree politically, are stupid,” and “Everyone with whom I disagree politically is stupid.” And, needless to say, there is an even bigger gap between that and “Everyone with whom I disagree politically is a traitor to their country.”
I’m not defending Moore and his book (which was crap, anyway), I’m just saying, as bad as he is, he’s not even in the same league as Coulter.
(McKinney, IIRC, suggested that George Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time and conspired to let them happen in order to justify the Iraq War. Or something like that.
Ah, here it is. Google “Cynthia McKinney 9/11” and the first page and a half of results are from conspiracy websites. But a Washington Post article gives the non-kook breakdown of her kookiness:
As opposed to “Republicans are the folks in power when the book was written”? Because I remember a lot of Democrat-bashing in Moore’s earlier book, Downsize This!
Nice job of changing the point. McKinney is pretty much a certifiable nutcase, agreed. I don’t care for Moore’s style or methods.
The point is that Coulter has made a specific and explicit accusation that all liberals in this country have engaged in levying War against the United States, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. (Plus the other interesting shit she’s spread; I can just imagine what a typical Canadian must think of us, if our elected leaders are backed by a woman who advocates taking over Canada unless they back the Bush adventurism.)
Given that she devotes much of Treason to praising Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy, and that you seem ready to defend her and her vitriol here, let me ask you gentlemen a question you may have heard before: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” :mad:
I know this is almost impossible to measure, but does A.C. really have much influence on the body politic? Sure, she sells a lot of books and is on the talk shows all the time, but how much is she responsible for any particular policy? When was the last time you heard a politician quoting her? Even Bill O’Reilly rags on her all the time.
Limbaugh I can see as having a lot of influence, but Coulter? I just don’t see it.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression she’s got a pretty large audience, in newspaper columns and in books and in TV appearances. Other folks might rag on her, but if she’s got a nontrivial number of people who view her positively or at least uncritically in these various media, then I’d say she’s got some serious influence.
No doubt. But limiting ourselves to the slightly nebulous category of “pundits”, there are at least two relatively prominent conservative pundits (Coulter and Michael Savage) who are FAR worse than any liberal pundit I’ve ever heard of.
She’s certainly not very famous, in that I’m constantly getting her confused with some woman named McKinnon or MacKinnon who once collaborated with Andrea Dworkin. And in any case, the quote from her about 9/11 is, once again, NOT AN ATTACK ON EVERY REPUBLICAN CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY. It might be idiotic and hateful and stupid and wrong. But it’s not saying “not just your leaders, but you, everyone one of you, are traitors”.
Unless you’re talking about a different thread than I saw, the thread was asking to what extent it is possible to hold individuals responsible for the actions of an organization of which they’re a member. The most likely reason for this thread even existing was that Evil Captor found the republican party, as an organization, to be contemptible, but didn’t immediately leap from that to saying that all conservatives, or even all members of that party (an important distinction) were contemptible. In fact, I think the question he asked was a good and interesting one. And one far more subtle than I’ve ever seen Ann Coulter raise.
Not in the slighest bit. When have I ever said anything general about conversatives over-generalizing and liberals not? (Hint: I haven’t, and it’s sure as hell not my “usual shtick”. If I have a usual shtick it’s flirting with female dopers who don’t live near me…) I’m making the following main point: Ann Coulter is evil. I’m making the following secondary point: Your claim that certain dopers are basically equivalent to Ann Coulter is wrong. I’m not claiming that no dopers are stupider or eviler than her, although I’d have to be convinced of that if you think it’s true.
Agreed
Why? Why should it automatically be the case that there’s a precisely even moron, fool, and sociopath distribution? Just because that would be “fair and balanced”?
Admittedly, I don’t watch much TV. But I have to ask…is Ann Coulter’s constutuency the conservatives who agree with her, or the TV producers who know she’ll say outrageous controversial stuff and get ratings for their show?
The people I know are not a random sample of America. But I’ve never heard anyone, ever, agree with Coulter’s more outrageous comments. Is she truly popular and influential among certain conservative circles? Or is she a media freak who can be brought on to make freak comments on TV freak shows? In other words, the editorial page/talking head equivalent of the guy who bites the heads off chickens and eats lightbulbs? The people sitting at home watching don’t want to bite the heads off chickens themselves, but they are willing to pay to watch someone else do it. The producers don’t just have her on to get ratings from conservatives who like her, but also to get ratings from non-conservatives who hate her.
I realize the two aren’t mutually exclusive, but it seems to me that Ann Coulter primary claim to fame isn’t being an extreme conservative pundit, but rather a media whore who can be relied upon to say vile things. And she knows she’s in a freak show and has willingly chosen this career path for herself. She’s a media whore first, an ultraconservative talking head a distant second.
Ditto on this; Ted Rall is every bit the despicable human being Ann Coulter is. But Coulter is also clearly more well-known.
The fact that half of what she says is insincere hyperbole makes it worse. Limbaugh deliberatly says things to needle the libs and get some cheap laughs. Coulter is passing out torches and pitchforks to the mob for giggles.
I look forward to career sagging when her breasts do.
She sells LOTS of books, do doubt. But do people buy them for the same reason they stop to look at traffic accidents? I just don’t know. I have never, ever heard anyone of any substance use her as a source or quote her. Let’s just say she’s no George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, or Bill Buckley even if she sells more books than all of them together (not counting Buckley’s novels, of course).
But if McKinney is in Congress, she is in a position to influence the actual law more, is she not?
