Brutus, maybe? 
She is the unrestrained inner id of the Republican ideology. They might denounce her tactics, but I’d wager a fair portion of her fanbase also silently nod and agree with the verbal firebombs she throws out.
I don’t think you have any grounds to be accusing John Mace of what you seem to be accusing him of.
As to the question of whether anyone actually agrees with her, Polycarp seems to think so.
Yeah. cringe = silently nodding and agreeing. :rolleyes: You ARE the left wing equivalent Coutler you worthless piece of shit.
Not if she’s a Democrat.
[/snark]
Actually, could you or anyone comparing Mckinney to Coulter please explain to me how a member of a legislative body–a democratically elected body whose purpose is to provide voice for the diverse views of the populace at large–could compare to a wingnut who only has to answer to her editors?
Wouldn’t the influence of an individual member of Congress be moderated by its inherently pluralistic composition? While Congress obviously gives Mckinney a bully pulpit from which to espouse her views, claiming that as a member of a lawmaking body gives her more “influence” is disingenuous at best, especially when that influence as a member of a minority opinion is akin to pee in the ocean.
And Max, while I agree with you re: John Mace, I think rjung’s point is valid WRT to the large number of Coulterites who lap up her crap.
Lemur866: I don’t think she’s a media whore whose politics are secondary to her need to appear on camera wherever she can. It occurs to me that her pulpit is the bestseller list. The best that can be said about her is that she’s able to exploit her media savvy in a loathsome, violent manner. Like Britney Spears, except that she appeals to the anger streaks of smug conservatives instead of horny boys who don’t notice that she can’t sing.
Who is Ted Rall?
“The other thing that bothers me about Coulter is that I probably agree with her politics at least 80% of the time. But I just cringe at the arguments she uses to defend her positions.”
–John Mace, April 8, 2005
He cringes when she speaks, but he also agrees with her most of the time. His words, not mine.
See? He even uses her “debate” tactics.
I see you’ve got Ann’s intellectual honesty, too.
Had the patient had a truly life-or-limb-threatening injury that required immediate treatment, and had the clinic been able to provide it, then it would not have mattered how he was going to pay for it or even whether he was going to pay for it. They had a responsibility to stabilize him and see that he was able to get treatment.
This is why I figure the injury was not as serious as the patient thought it was. This is true of approximately 99.9% of people who show up at the emergency room. Our ER used to have a Major Side and a Minor Side; they changed this because so many patients (with clearly minor issues) were pissed off about being on the Minor Side.
It’s a good thing you’re here, DoctorJ. This looks ready to come to blows.
Hi DoctorJ! It’s just down the hall, third door on your left.
I don’t know McKinney, but the comparison is simple. We’re talking about who has more influence over politics. I’m not comparing tactics, just results. It’s in the same sense that I could compare Einstein to me. He had more of an effect on physics than I did.
The thing is, despite her over-the-top comments quoted above, McKinney might well have demonstrated herself to be, in general, a competent and vigorous representative on behalf of her constituents. For all i know (which, regarding McKinney, is virtually zero), she might be a great advocate for the things that they tell her they want, and she might also be a strong supporter of many worthwhile causes.
I’ve listened to Ann Coulter interviewed on a variety of shows, i’ve seen her speak at my university, and i even actually dared to read Treason, and i lilterally have yet to hear her utter an intelligent observation; indeed, i’ve yet to hear her say anything that doesn’t sound like a deliberate attempt merely to inflame her opponents and incite hatred of them among her supporters.
How the bloody hell did that happen?
(Please ignore above post. A mod could delete it, if one felt inclined.)
As a republican (barely), I have to say I dislike her as much as you guys, but I’d tap that ass no doubt.
Well, if you read anything in my posts to imply that couldn’t be true, then let me know-- I certainly didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Again, the question was raised as to who had more influence on politics, not whether that influence was good or bad.
More… Yes, the person who first brought up McKinney did imply that she is a bomb thrower on par with Coulter. Then I asked if Coulter is really as influential as McKinney. So I guess I can see how it could be read that I and others have been comparing tactics. I didn’t mean to, as I had veered off from the original discussion about McKinney. Maybe others have tried to continue the negative comparison, but as I said I know nothing about McKinney’s politics. I’m just assuming that almost anyone in Congress would have more influence than Coulter (who I don’t think does anything more than preach to her choir).
Sure, but the very fact that McKinney was being considered in the question of influence rested on an assumption that she was a left-wing equivalent of Coulter.
I’m just saying that, knowing virtually nothing about her, i’d have to see more than just the one or two unsavoury quotations in this thread in order to accept that the comparison between her and Coulter was valid in the first place.
I agree with this. I’ve always wondered how anyone with functioning neurons could actually agree with Coulter’s methods of “argumentation,” even if they agree with her policies.
She came to my university a couple of years ago and gave a speech. I transcribed the main points and posted them in a thread i started here on SDMB, but i can’t seem to find it now. I guess it must have been eaten by the server at some stage. Anyway, during that speech one of her key points was the benefit of racial profiling. I disagree strongly with the practice, but i can also see that some reasonably intelligent arguments can be made in support of it. The problem was that she didn’t make any of them, and she also failed to address any of the dozens of arguments against the practice. She refused even to consider that it was actually a trade-off of any sort; it was merely beneficial in her eyes. This was topped off be referring to all terrorists as “swarthy,” and saying that their skin color is so similar we could use paint chips to identifiy them.
What amazed me more than anything, i think, was how many people in the audience lapped it all up. How many cheered wildly every time she made a “point.” And how many gave her a standing ovation at the end. I used to believe that she must be used by the media as nothing more than a caricature, a diversion, an amusing dolt who might provide some light relief from serious discussion. But it seems that a lot of people—American voters—listen to her and take her rants into consideration when making their decisions.
If McKinney were a Senator, i’d be more inclined to believe that her influence is greater than that of Coulter. But while a position in the House of Representatives is not chopped liver, only a certain powerful few really have a presence and a strong influence on the national scene the way that Coulter does. I mean, i like to think that i’m probably considerably more in touch with the political landscape than the average American, and i don’t think i’d ever even heard of McKinney before this thread. That’s not to say that she’s not influential in certain areas, or that her vote doesn’t matter. I think, though, that influence on the public is something not to be underestimated, and Coulter has much more of it than i’m comfortable with.
I don’t know how you would set about proving that about real life, but on the SDMB it is pretty evidently wrong.
Probably wrong in real life as well. I expect the problem is the relative amount of attention you (and I) pay to those who discourse from our own side of the political plate. I pay little attention to Ann Coulter, think Michael Savage is a dolt, and listen to and enjoy Michael Medved, Bill Buckley, Thomas Sowell, Bill Bennett, and others. Therefore I notice the interesting and rational debate coming from conservatives (as well as from folks like Mr. Moto, Bricker, Sam Stone, and the other intelligent conservatives on the SDMB).
You, I presume, pay more attention to what you consider intelligent voices from the Left, whoever they might be. Thus I would tend to miss the conservative half-wits agreeing with each other, and you would tend to miss the liberals ones doing the same with each other.
It is just harder to miss the liberally-oriented circle jerks here on the SDMB.
Well, I don’t find Coulter particularly attractive, but I don’t care for skinny women. But it probably doesn’t hurt her appeal.
But I suspect you are missing part of the problem by mischaracterizing one side of the political debate. Ann Coulter is a troll often enough, no doubt about it. But her appeal is not based solely and entirely on either her physical attractiveness nor her trollery.
There is a case to be made for what she says. And if you discount everything she says by implying that conservatives find evil sexy, you are missing it. Read Coulter’s book, Slander. God knows I don’t find it particularly appealing to call all liberals traitors, but if you want a mountain of quotes from liberals saying that same things about conservatives, or worse, she certainly provides it. Does that make what she does OK? Certainly not. But it also certainly does not make it OK to call Bush Hitler, or say that conservatives are happy when Africans die of AIDS, either.
So if anyone wants to discount insults leveled at one side or the other based on whether or not you agree with the insulter politically, you are missing the point. There is more to it than that.
Take talk radio, if you like. I heard some liberals welcoming the premiere of Air America because they thought that now liberals could regain the advantage by insulting and denigrating conservatives. And there have been some examples of Air America hosts saying things that are at least as objectionable as anything Ann Coulter has said. And yet, somehow, Air America has not enjoyed the kind of success that, say, Bill Bennett has found. Bennett’s show, “Morning in America”, has been on the air about two weeks less than Air America, and is currently in over twice as many markets as they are. And he doesn’t, by and large, insult people.
So if you are saying, “Nope, conservatives only succeed because they lie about and insult their opponents”, you make two mistakes. One, you are missing a good deal of the appeal on which the conservative movement is really founded. And two, if you try to emulate the worst aspects of your opponents, you lose the respect of everyone decent on any side of the aisle.
So screw Ann Coulter. And screw anyone else, left or right, who takes her approach.
You know who you are.
Regards,
Shodan
[quote]
*originally posted by *Shodan
if you try to emulate the worst aspects of your opponents, you lose the respect of everyone decent on any side of the aisle.[/quote}
YES.
Thankyou Scyla and Shodan. The political fight has been so polorised lately, and both sides have so willing to live with the attitude that the ends of winning justify any means. Maybe if each of us can admit where our own have gone astray, there is hope.
Now if my party would just grow a fucking spine.
gah. I hate it when I do that.
Also, I am not sure that the liberals tend so much to the mean, as to the attitude of smug intellectual superiority that is in its own way, worse. It certainly doesn’t win many converts.