To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, the really alarming thing is not so much that Ann Coulter exists and says the things she says, it’s that so many people buy her books, so many people seem to agree with her, T-shirts of her odious quotes are made with no irony, and so many conservatives here (like the ones in this thread) can’t seem to condemn her without hemming and hawing quite a bit.
And your claim that a bestselling author has no influence strikes me as downright silly. Even if she is, as you put it, Danielle Steele for policy wonks, how can someone reading an entire book of that kind of hate not be influenced by it? It’s like a bunch of closeted quasi-racists getting together and telling racist jokes. Suddenly, they know that there are others who agree with them, and their opinion of the respectability of their opinions rises a few notches.
The only nice thing about this thread is (tempting fate here) at least no one has yet come in and pointed out that Ann Coulter has the constitutional right to say what she does, which is something that usually happens when an author is criticized.
Last fall I was at my small, rural east Tennessee hometown’s county fair and I saw a man with an NRA t-shirt that said “Imagine what a beautiful world it would be everyone killed one liberal.” He was advocating murdering ME, right there, in public, with his three kids present. He was advocating what would in another time and another place be called a political pogrom. He wanted to murder ME for my opinions. How anti-American can you get?
John, I don’t think anyone is suggesting that George calls Ann before making any policy decisions–that’s a total straw man. What I’m suggesting is that Ann helped get George elected, that she helps popularize Republican issues.
You make an assertion. When asked to give specifics, you instead make excuses that cast your opponents in a bad light. When told that your excuses are factually incorrect, you throw up a meaningless but slightly related fact that IS right. When told that you’re twisting words, you resort to empty ad hominems.
What’s the deal–suddenly Karl Rove’s advising you, too?
Sure, share what you got once you get the book. When you said that Ann had some good points, I thought you knew that she had some good points, not that you had a book on reserve that might have some good points in it. Meanwhile, how about getting off the pot?
Since Walker wasn’t executed, liberals will turn out to be outright traitors.
Let’s see what our Attorney General, Alberto “Torquemada” Gonzalez, has said (scroll up to kaylasdad’s last post):
If you can show a truly substantive difference, let’s have it.
No, of course no talking head officially makes government policy, although this administration has paid a few to shill it. They do contribute to, and to a large extent create, the environment in which policies are defined and executed, and made acceptable. It does matter.
And yet, oddly enough, Ann Coulter gets invited to speak in front of these prominent Republicans. Ann Coulter is the type of person that groups like the CPAC use to entertain and rally their supporters, and she does so by proclaiming that college liberals…like myself…should be kept in line through the threat of execution.
The fact that there isn’t actually a Republican party hangman standing behind me at the moment doesn’t change the fact that Ann Coulter is a shrieking demagogue who regularly tells millions of people through her books, columns, and public appearances that I’m a traitor, that I’m a liar, and that the best way to talk to me is with a baseball bat. And groups like CPAC invite this harpy to speak to them. They listen to her screeds, they nod at her bile, and they applaud at her venom. And I’m supposed to “laugh that off”, just because they don’t immediately go out and propose a Kill All Liberals bill in Congress? Fuck that shit.
This kind of demagoguery is not harmless. Ann Coulter’s audience includes the same dangerous fanatics who threatened the life of Judge Greer in Florida, and if Ann Coulter doesn’t know that then she is immensely stupid. But for influential groups like CPAC to give her bullshit a patina of legitimacy by providing Coulter an audience is worse than stupid, it’s irresponsible. Their tacit approval elevates Coulter from a lone nut to a prominent political voice, even if they don’t immediately turn her screeds into policy.
And as long as that bitch has a prominent political voice I’m not going to just laugh her off.
I agree that that statement attributed to Gonzales is needlessly inflammatory (though, as I’m sure you’d agree, not as inflammatory as Ms. Coulter’s statement). I wish his comments had been more balanced. I wish he had said something like:
" Many of the most important authorities in the act are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2005. It is important that these authorities remain available, in my judgment.
Al Qaida and other terrorist groups still pose a grave threat to the security of the American people, and now is not the time to relinquish some of our most effective tools in this fight.
As Congress considers whether to renew these provisions, I am open to suggestions for clarifying and strengthening the act, and I look forward to meeting with those both inside and outside of Congress who’ve expressed concerns about the act.
But let me be clear that I will not support any proposal that would undermine our ability to combat terrorism effectively.
All of us have the same objective: ensuring the security of the American people while preserving our civil liberties."
But they weren’t and he didn’t. We deal with reality here, chum, and the reality is that this administration’s policies and attitudes are distinguishable from what Coulter advocates only in word selection.
But neither Coulter nor Bush is the problem; the problem is the number of people in the world and in this country who are willing to engage in thoughtless hatred - regardless of how it’s phrased. That includes those who apologize for it but vote that way anyway, and it especially includes those who wish so hard that it weren’t true that they engage in pointless alternate-universe descriptions in an attempt to convince at least themselves, if no one else.
Apologists like you in posts like yours sound just like battered wives protesting “But he’s a good provider, and he’s just a perfect angel when he’s not drinking, and he’s going to get straight and be a good father, he promised me just last night!” But that doesn’t fool anyone else. Like the late, blessed Ann Landers used to say, “Wake up and smell the coffee, Buttercup”.
I’m not advocating laughing her off. I agree that the danger A.C. poses is that she adds fuel to the fire of the fringe elements out there. But that’s entirely different than saying that she has any kind of role in shaping actual public policy.
I agree that she’s vile, and have said as much in earlier posts.
And no one said that the measure of her influence on policy was whether or not George called her before making said policy-- THAT is a total strawman. Some posters have said she influences GOP policy, and some of us has asked for an example. So far, none has been given.
I’m not entirely sure the Ann did help get George elected. Anyone who agrees with her would most likely have voted for Bush anyway. It’s the fence sitters that matter, and I think they’d be at least as likely to vote the other way in response to her venemous attacks as they would be to vote for Bush.
Not true. I’ve given one. The fact that you don’t believe it is something that’s probably irresolvable: neither of us has the resources to poll voters on the issue of whether Ann Coulter influenced their vote, much less conduct the marketing survey that’d be necessary to determine whether she did.
Nobody admits to liking negative ads on TV, and everyone agrees that they’re nasty and awful, but politicians use them because they’re damned effective. Ann is just one great big negative ad.
Has someone actually said that? I certainly claim that she HAS INFLUENCE, as what bestselling author doesn’t? Coming up with specific instances it which it can be clearly demonstrated that even Rush Limbaugh has shaped specific policy might not be easy… but who would claim that he has no power or influence in America?
I’m not sure about that, either. I do, however, think that she contributes strongly to the culture of divisiveness that pervades our country right now, which is a bad thing. And has been pointed out eloquently by other posters, the fact that she exists helps make other conservative viewpoints seem reasonable in comparison, and she also makes it easier to laugh off people like Al Franken who are NOT as extreme or evil as her, but who, because people like to pretend that there’s always balance in every situation, are in some sense “cancelled out” by her.
Well, I guess I was extremely clumsy in crafting my post. The point I was attempting to illustrate was that Ann saying “Let liberals know they can be killed” is the proposal (helicopter), and the USA PATRIOT Act is the outcome (project as approved once that ridiculous helicopter is axed out of it).
No, I cannot draw a direct causal chain from anything Coulter says to any policies that are enacted. But my point is that when a so-called mainstream writer is making the extremist statements she does, it has the tendency to make the merely obnoxious policies appear reasonable by comparison.
And yes, I DO intend to characterize the USA PATRIOT Act as obnoxious and wrong for the country. I do not intend to debate this; I merely offer it by way of example.
From post