Saturday, March 03, 2007

The Soul of Popular Conservativism

TPM's Greg Sargent wonders "Why, Why, Why" conservatives would be so eager to hear Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference. In fact, the depth of Ann Coulter's appeal to the right-wing is hard for people on the left to understand.

So, I'm going to take my shot at explaining Coulter's appeal here.

In fact, Ann Coulter is the soul of popular conservatism. To understand Coulter's appeal, it is important to emphasize that right-wingers think they're morally and intellectually superior to white liberals and minority advocates. Conservatives believe that their morality of taboo breaking on race, gender, and sexuality is superior to liberal "goodness" on these issues. Right-wingers also think they're smarter, more rational (as opposed to emotional), and tougher than liberals. This is why Ann Coulter is idolized by the right. She represents the superiority of conservativism in the minds of conservatives.

Coulter gained this status because she is the grand priestess of a particular right-wing rhetorical game in relation to "political correctness." From the right-wing point of view, making racist, sexist, and homophobic statements is a demonstration of moral and intellectual superior. The idea of bigoted talk about "lawn jockeys," "ragheads," "faggots," etc., is to defy norms of political correctness and then laugh at the "outrage" with which liberals respond. Dick Cheney was playing this kind of rhetorical game when he told John Kerry to "fuck yourself." In this context, the "morality" is in the defiance of social convention while the "intelligence" is in manipulating liberal emotions. The right-wing short-hand for this rhetorical game is "driving liberals crazy" and right-wingers derive enormous satisfaction from playing it.

Now, it should be obvious where Ann Coulter fits. Having surpassed Limbaugh as a high-wire artist of calculated bigotry, fencing "outraged" liberals, and laughing all the way to the bank, Coulter is fervently admired because she captures the core of right-wing morality in a way that's extremely pleasing to conservatives. If Martin Luther King was the lens through which Americans were able to see the ugliness of segregation and racism, Coulter is the lens through which conservatives can view their bigotries as a sign of their intellectual and moral goodness.

From the conservative point of view, that's invaluable.

28 comments:

viper10 said...

The purpose of this article is to try and explain why conservitives think they are the superior political party in the United States. As Greg Sargent points out about Ann Coulter, "right-wingers think they're morally and intellectually superior to white liberals and minority advocates." This could be one reason for some consevitives to move to the far right and become neo-conservitives(because they think they are better than everyone else). These neo-conservitives think that they are above everyone and can do and say whatever they want without having to worry about consequences. Some of the arguments Sargent puts forth in this aricle about Coulter, make it sound as if she is a feminist(because what he says about her sounds like what we discussed in class). Sargent also makes it sound like a game the conservitives are playing with the liberals. Getting pleasure out of being politicaly incorrect and defiant of social norms. And after doing this they just laugh at the responses of the liberals they just pissed off. So the way it sounds, conservitives are the epitamy of the wrong way to do things and liberals are the right. Personally, I think Sargent is from the far left side if liberals, so anything he says is going to be biased in that direction.

liberalforlife said...

I must say that Ann Coulter makes me upset. The way she goes about on her conservative pedestal and mocks liberals is extremely upsetting to me. This article is an explanation and justification for the way that neo-conservatives act. In a way this article is trying to makes these people seem as rational but they are not. Coulter has gained much popularity in the conservative ring. First with her book “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” and now by going around and calling people “faggots” at the Conservative Political Action Committee. This article goes on to explain the way that conservatives think and how they think they are smarter than liberals. She goes out on the conservative fore front and plays the game front and center. She has become the queen of conservative comments and the leader of conservatives everywhere. She is a way for conservatives to feel good about what they say even when they know it is wrong.

Tim Engle said...

So Coulter is that kid with a stick poking the angry dog in the cage and laughing? Makes sense.

Anonymous said...

MagoffinMcMuffin--"Somewhere over the rainbow"

no_names_available said...

I would have to say that I also am upset by Ann Coulter. She brings me no joy in life what so ever. I think her views are extreme and she puts too much on the emphasis on how much liberals suck.
I do not see however; how because of Ann Coulter’s extreme conservatism views make everyone think she thinks she is better than everyone else. I do not see conservatives thinking that way. Geeze, I do not think Conservatives hate us that much…
I would have to say, though, she really hates Liberals. Downright thinks we are disgusting. She herself may even possibly think she is morally and educationally superior to liberals, but I do not think all conservatives feel this way.
I think this whole “I hate Liberals” or “I have conservatives” crap has gone on too long. I mean listen… those of us who believe we are Liberals are probably closer to the center than we think. The same goes for Conservatives. Neither group is superior to the other; we just have different visions for our country, which is good, because that gives the people something to vote on…..
I guess what I am trying to get at is… Why can’t we all just try a little harder to get along?

gorefan said...

I believe Ann Coulter's actions clearly display the authoritarian conservative notion that the ends justify the means no matter what outlandish deed is being done to stop the enemy (Conservatives have all sorts of enemies, from communists, to terrorists, to France, to the United Nations,and of course liberals). This attitude is not only reflected in the irrational and fanatical rants of that insane, raving pundit who had the audacity to defend Joseph McCarthy (one of the most indefensible in the world) but also in the people who have been running our government from 2001 onward. This is seen in Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales displaying a willingness to blatantly disregard such basic constitutional guidelines as habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment's guarantee of freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures. Another similarity between Ann Coulter and the regime she defends is the fact that when people provide reasonable disagreements with a radical means of defeating an enemy, Coutler and the officials falsely accuse those people of being allied with the enemy. For example, when Democratic congressmen (along with some decent Republicans like Arlen Specter) voiced opposition to the Bush Administration's trampling of civil liberties, John Ashcroft alleged that they were "aid[ing] terrorists" and "giv[ing] ammunition to America's enemies" and Ann Coulter bluntly stated that liberals were guilty of treason (In fact, the word "treason" was the title of one her liberal-bashing books). Of course, nobody in Congress was intent on aiding the terrorists or committing treason against America. If they were, then why did they vote almost unaninimously for the war in Afghanistan? These two examples make it quite clear that authoritarianism breeds irrationality.

Lokanda said...

When asking why conservatives would be so eager to hear Ann Coulter at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference, I believe the answer is simple. Conservatives want to get their agendas accomplished and for their goals to be reached. A goal of conservatives is to attain more votes from their democratic foe as is a goal for any political party. If republicans can put someone out there to speak that is somewhat feminist and is a women, that helps in taking away some of the votes. That is why I believe conservatives wanted to see her speak. Also since Limbaugh was ruined by the media and this women has not had her reputation tainted and she shares the same views as him, she is really replacing him in his role. On the topic of conservatives feeling superior to liberals, I believe it starts with their ideas on certain issues. It seems as if conservatives take a stand on issues and stay by them, right or wrong. Liberals tend to do more flip flopping on issues and to not be as strong about their issues. This may have something to do with why conservatives see themselves as the political superior and as liberals to be the weak. Given these ideas all that of the neoconservatives and the democratic ideas are really of the more moderate liberals.

GreatAmerican said...

I wanted to comment on what no_names_available said in his or her blog. I am a conservative and feel very strongly on many issues. I have heard Ann Coulter speak and some of the things she say's I agree with, but other things I do not. I think people try to put "conservatives" in a group and people think all conservatives are like Ann Coulter. That is just not true. He say's in his blog that to much emphasis is put on "liberal and conservative" he say's we just have different views of the way our country should be ran. Like I say I am a strong conservative but that does not mean I hate liberals like Anne Coulter does. I think everyone’s opinions are just as important as mine are even if I do not agree with them. As far as conservatives feeling superior to liberals I just do not see it. I do not feel that I am superior to liberals. I feel that I am “right” and liberals are wrong but that does not mean that I hate them.

spiegelglanz said...

The only glaring, outstanding result I can see from Coulter's very existence in the media is how beautifully she gets people hung up on trivial garbage.

You have to understand, I personally see the struggle between mainstream conservatism and liberalism, that is, Democrats and Republicans, as the traditional Pepsi vs. Coke war. The two are really no different and get their lobbyist paychecks from the same sources. The only difference is the label, and people are proud to live in a place they get to "choose."

And so, Coulter does a great job of being outstandingly abrasive to liberals, propagating the idea that the two are separate entities that are wholly at odds with one another. The reality, masked by the controversy she and all the other fundamentalists and radicals (on both sides) bring to the table is healthy for a diluted republic.

Liberal-heavy media giants are surely no better. The name of the game for Coulter and others is to extend the facade that the two controlling parties provide voters a deep, meaningful decision to make. The reality is that the centrism of the common voter (and the financial backing, or any other number of systems of control) keeps the two parties nearly identical.

The more you can think your opponents are "dirty liberals" or "conservative nutjobs," the better you feel about yourself and the more willing you are to go along with that system. And that's why it's sickening.

mckendree5454 said...

This article is completely unfair, bias, and really just plain mean to all people who consider themselves conservative. This article is trying to portray conservatives as the big bad wolves who hate minorities and people who don’t think as they do. This article claims that conservatives pride themselves on bigotry and intellectualism. I’m not saying that the conservatives are smarter, but the ideas are more practical than liberal ideas. Take affirmative action as an example. The liberals will call someone like William Bennett a racist. When Bennett’s main idea is he wants a color blind society where everyone is treated equally. That sounds familiar; I think I’ve heard someone say that before. “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Ow yea, Martin Luther King Jr. said that. The article says that The right-wing short-hand for this rhetorical game is "driving liberals crazy" and right-wingers derive enormous satisfaction from playing it. I think liberals enjoy much more trying to get under the skin of conservatives. Another point I’d like to make is liberals are personally blaming Bush and calling him an idiot for going into Iraq, which turned out to be a terrible idea, but Bush didn’t go alone. A vast majority of congress voted to go into Iraq and said Saddam has WMD’s. Including the darling of the democratic part, Hilary Clinton.

mckendree5454 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
God.Reagan.Rush said...

I believe Dr. Caric missed the mark when he tried to interpret conservative interest in Ann Coulter at CPAC. (Unfortunately I missed Ms. Coulter’s speech because I was waiting in line for her book-signing.) It is outrageous to assert that conservatives demonstrate an air of supremacy over liberals. “Intellectual Superiority” is not listed on the Republican Party Platform. We are undeniably, however, the party of more traditional, rational, and organized thought. In Coulter’s book, “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),” she discusses the flaws in a liberal’s argument. Newsmagazines, television, and blogs such as this are littered with accusations that sound like a broken record: “Bush Lied!” “Fire Rush!” “No war for oil!” In Sean Hannity’s speech at CPAC, which was by far the most worthwhile part of the trip, he recalled an argument with Paul Begala in which Begala claimed Bush lied about every issue he encountered since he took office in 2001. Hannity quoted several rather conservative comments and attributed them to Bush, which Begala claimed were all lies Bush had made. These comments were, in fact, made by Senator John Kerry. When faced with this realization, Begala rationalized his ignorance by stating, “You tricked me!” Liberals are too eager to jump on a Bush-bashing (or Coulter-bashing, in this case) bandwagon without learning facts. I can guarantee several students who have commented on this blog have never read any literature by Ann Coulter. Coulter is revered by conservatives in the same way we consider figures like Al Sharpton to be ridiculous. Ann Coulter’s ranting is about as entertaining as the liberal idea of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy…

Mr.Liberal said...

This article is so political correct that it is funny. Conservatives are so concerned with themselves that they forget about all the other people in the world. People like blue collar Americans that make up the majority of the population, not white collar assholes that think they run the United States. I am sick and tired of hearing about how conservatives are upset. As Greg Sargent says " Ann Coulter is the lens that we see conservatives." This is true, because Ann Coulter is so far to the right. Coulter is what is wrong with the politics in this country, she thinks that she and other conservatives are superior in every way to everyone else. And as to the comment that Dick Cheney made to John Kerry; At least John never shot anybody in the face Dick.

Mr.Liberal said...

Why do conservatives like Ann Coulter so much? Its because she is "the core of right-wing morality, in a way that is pleasing to conservatives." Sargent points this out and goes on to make the point that this "drives liberals crazy." All the bigotry that Coulter dishes out is unreal. It is hard to imagine that someone could be so far to the right on every issue that comes into hand. This makes me sick to my stomach.

liberalforlife said...

liberalforlife said...

REPLY:
I have read Coulters works and for a fact I see her as a narrow minded conservative. She is jumping around screaming that liberals are stupid and don’t talk to them unless you HAVE too. How rational of a woman does this seem? Not very rational to me. This is not an unfair article this is just speaking the facts of Coulters narrow-minded world and how she is spreading her sickness along the conservative world. About William Bennett how can he not be seen as racist? If someone asked me to take on the ideals of any group of people and forget my history I would tell them to go screw themselves. Conservatives like William Bennett expect African Americans to just give up their heritage and that’s bull. About Martin Luther King, Jr. Yeah he said to be judged on the content of their character but he did not say that they wouldn’t know and accept they were a different color. He was just stating that people should not be judged on the color of their skin not that we shouldn’t recognize this and accept people as EQUALS. Yes, democrats may have voted to go to Iraq but only because Bush fed them and the American people with so many lies.

Lindsay said...

From what I have experienced outside of the media, most conservatives do not seem to like Ann Coulter, and do not approve of most of the things she says. Having said that, this article does seem to fit for those who DO approve of the things she says. For the conservatives who find her appealing, they seem to share a common value of anti-political correctness. Apparently, this entails blatant statements of bigotry, racism, sexism, and the like. They find her appealing in that she says all of the things that liberals disagree with, and takes it to a point that is often ridiculous. The more anti-liberal the better, right?! Though I must give credit where credit is due, and admit that most conservatives that I have encountered find her to be vile and even embarassing.

As for her mindset, I don't think she actually believes half of the things she says. Having read two of her books, and seen many of her appearances, it seems obvious that she merely says the things she does for shock value. "Oh my, did she really say that? I have to buy her book and see what other ridiculous and obscene things she has to say, if only for my own entertainment." And ta-da!! Paycheck.

clintbanks said...

I must actually agree with Dr. Cairic on this one (sigh). Republicans and conservatives do have an attitude of moral superiority that stems from what I would see as a certain religious indoctrination into this. They are taught certain fundamental christian principles congruent to faiths like baptist and such, and taught that you can believe this or go to hell, because you must be bad to believe this.
Their intelectual superiority complex stems from this. If I believe in god and I am going to heaven, I must know something that other people do not, so I am smarter than them. IF God exists and I amm arguing for god then I cannot be wrong. I have actually seen this when christian fundamentalists have argued evolutiion with me (I'm a biology major and have had evolution classes). They felt their knowledge was not only more compelling than mine, but though I was dumb for believing the mainstream scientific views.
In conclusion, sadly enough I have seen what Dr. Cairic talked about, although i don't know that he got the why right. But then again I could have got the why wrong.

retro_liberal said...

Oh Ann, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways!

One. You show me through every action, every media appearance, every interview and book that you write, just how wrong the neo-cons really are. Your arrogance and assuredness that you're right proves only one thing; that you're wrong. It’s easy for me to come to that conclusion. Why? Because every time I see you, every time I read about you, I get an underlying sense of disingenuousness from you. It’s like you say only those things that you know will further your “cause” and not so much what you truly believe.

Two. You are the ideological savior and spokesperson of an entire generation. You’ve usurped Rush Limbaugh’s seat, and rest comfortable upon his throne! How mighty you are! What a sight it is to see! And, you eat it up. You, like Rush before you, have created a media-caricature that equates to big bucks, and the promotion of neo-con ideals. How romantic!

Three. You are a symbol, a symbol of conservative ideology! Many of my friends and family simply adore you, and why? Because you say what’s on their mind. Affirmative Action? Well that just reverse discrimination. Iraq? Just nuke ‘em, they aren’t real people anyway! Welfare? We need to stop giving hand outs to everybody, and make ‘em work for what they get, I mean, I had to, so why shouldn’t they!

Yes, yes, Ann Coulter is my hero. She is to me, what Jesus is to the Christians! A savior! She saved my liberal leaning soul, because there for just a second, I actually considered becoming a conservative, and then I was introduced to Ann Coulter. Thanks Ann, I’m a better person because of you.

MaxTurmoil said...

I wanted to stay away from this article because it was short and I didn't think I wanted to write anything about it. But I disagree with one main points. Conservatives may be able to piss liberals off because of their moral righteousness. But all a Liberal has to do to piss off any conservative is say Bill Clinton's name and before you get the last syllable out of Clinton's name off, tempers will be flaring. I am not defending former President Clinton. I am stating a fact. The only momentum the conservative movement has for an 08 election is that Hillary is running. And its pissing them off. Whats better yet is that their apparent fore rummer options suck. Rudy Guliani? Hell hes for civil unions, gun control and hes a prochoicer. Newt Gingrich is a joke with his scandal. Oh how I loved his crusade against the past president meanwhile hes concealing his own adulterous acts of joy. And John McCain is losing major points by trying to brown nose GWB and supporting policies that doesn't work – atleast in public opinion polls. Conservatives can have Ann Coulter. We have Steven Colbert and Jon Stewart to wet our desires. They are especially glad because since Rush is preaching tougher laws for drug addicts and dealers hes hooked on pills. A few more scandals like this and eventually the conservative word will be synonymous with a paradox.

Mr. Moneybags said...

Reagan once told a joke...
A Republican senator was running for election in Texas and was working door-to-door when he came upon a ranch at which many potential voters where working. He eventually got their attention and then began to look for a podium to give his speech. Upon doing so all he saw around was what northerners like to refer to as fertilizer. Once the senator was finished giving his speech he made the remark to the rancher that it was the first time he had gave a speech from a liberal platform.

The reason for conservative distaste of Senator Clinton is because she has already had her presidency. She polarizes her audience with her New York-style politics. She even had the audacity to "develop" a southern accent at a Mississippi fundraiser. She has no definite platform (the reason Obama is closing in the polls and Edwards is becoming a viable choice). She, like her husband, never answers a question ergo she might have not inhaled. Furthermore, the conservative momentum entering '08 is better than expected. Sure the entire base isn't going to be astounded with a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, but he’s the best chance conservatives have of controlling the White House.

I will keep a syndicated radio host with approximately 13.5 million listeners. You can have late-night fake news and be sure you have a towel to dry you off after the show since you’re so “wet” afterwards, I might even buy it for you if you can’t afford it. On Newt Gingrich, I would say you would be hard pressed that you can find somebody who could tell you exactly what the scandal he was involved in was about, or even care. However, if you bring up Bill Clinton most people will be able to tell you about his morality. John McCain has denounced the war and is not supporting Bush’s foreign policy ideas; you need to watch the news. If anything McCain has left the Bush camp all together allowing him to appeal to a broader audience, his nose is anything but brown.

raiden5060 said...

The thing that is most disconcerting to me (as a liberal) about Ann Coulter is how formidable she has proved to be throughout the years as an opponent. Many on the left take for granted that someone as uncompromising and gleefully anti-PC as Ann Coulter would be marginalized by the American public. Unfortunately, just like George W. Bush, we’ve misunderestimated her, or at least her uncanny ability to market herself. She is cold, raw conservatism wrapped up in a pretty package with blonde hair extensions. She presents herself as an intellectual as she uses the most fundamental school yard bully tactics to assault her opponents. It proves very effective. What better way to dismiss your opponents arguments (however valid or effective they may be) than to denounce them as a “faggot” or a “terrorist.” Who needs rationality when demagoguery is so much easier and more effective? There is a reason that cold hard conservatism will never die, and it is because when juxtaposed against liberalism, conservatism is clearly the more lucrative ideology. You get to call your opponents “faggots” rather than argue logically, you get to sell more and more books as you laugh at your opponents when they become indignant, and ultimately you get to drag the whole public discourse into the mud, where you thrive. Liberalism is hard work, but people like Ann Coulter really go the extra mile to polish the image of our more base and primitive conservatism.

Anonymous said...

Wrote by: jrhorne

I like to think of myself as an individual who is open to hear what everyside has to say, and with that being said I am not much of a fan of Coulter's constant liberal bashing but nor am i a fan on the author of this article saying that people who call themselves conservative all see themselves as superior to people on the other side of the ticket. Well i hate to be the barron of bad new but that air of supperiority works on both sides of the tickets. Where as SOME conservatives do consider themselvers supperior far in fact many of the reasons mentioned in the article, in a same like manner some who considers themselves Liberal do they same thing the only difference is being what they feel makes them supperior to conservatives. This is a common mistake that honestly i believe both sides of frequently make, dismissing each other out of prinicple.

Some on mentioned above about Adgenda's and goals that one side or another has. Well i hate to break the nice little illusion here, but ALL sides of the ticket has goals and adgendas that they want accomplished. To me this clearly demonstrates why is always good to keep a nice open mind to hear what any political figure says, and then judge them for both what they say and what they do. People take alot of pride in considering themselves liberal or conservative to a point where in many cases that is where the battle lines are drawn. It folly to support or oppose a candidate such due to such a title, instead of judging of their merrit and what they are bringing to the table. To quote shakespear "A rose under any name would smell just as sweet" in the like manner great govermental policy IS just as great no matter what of the ticket it orriginates from.

12:18 AM

MaxTurmoil said...

To Moneybags:

You make a couple good points but if you decide to spout off rhetoric you are bound to make a few good ones here and there. Why is it always conservatives who say Hillary already had her presidency, get over it. Whats this mean? Furthermore, you point out she had a fake accent. This is laughable, GWB doesn't have a southern accent but he still uses a crap one. Even Ann Richards pointed out his dad cheesy accent. And on the subject, what politician gives you straight answers? Clinton isn't the only on in this camp. GWB takes the cake in this one on not answering direct questions. Same for his staff. And how is Guiliani going to be the best conservative choice? Hes not even conservative. Last time I checked, pro-choice, gun control, and civil unions are not traditional values. Edwards, does have a legitimate shot at winning just by simply being everyone's second favorite. Mitt Romney did throw up some impressive numbers in fund raising as well. The McCain camp is all but going to fizzle out unless he does a 180. And you say I need to watch the news? Take your own advice. Just yesterday he was on CNN spouting off about how we need to get behind GWB and his failed foreign policy. And speaking of foreign policy, how is the White House going to tell Nancy Pelosi not to visit Syria. She is the highest ranking member of US. Gov't to visit Syria, yet 3 members of the GOP went the White House didn't say anything about them either. And o the syndicated radio show, no argument there. Liberals tried it and failed. Its all yours to get riled up about. You can get all riled up and listen to a hypocrite and I'll relax and take a chill pill in the evening.

420ComfortablyNumb said...

Of course Ann Coulter is invaluable to the Republican Party. She is saying all the things that most Republicans would say would it not be for being reelected (which constitutes about ninety percent of all politicians time, but that is another story altogether.) The method in which Coulter presents her views is, in my opinion, done merely for the shock value. I have no doubt in my mind that Coulter and her staff understand completely that by “shocking” her viewers she is simply gaining more ratings. Coulter and her producing staff also fully comprehend and plan on the response made by left wingers, democrats, liberals or whatever. This is done so that she and other conservatives can come back and say, “Well these people obviously can’t handle talking about real issues and would rather just ignore them.” It is my opinion that the best way for liberals to combat someone like Ann Coulter would simply be to change the channel.

Mr. Moneybags said...

In response to Maxturmoil:

When stating that Hillary already had her presidency I meant that she placed herself in a position of power when her husband was president. She actually was criticized for stepping outside the bounds of her title as first lady. We didn’t elect her; she has no rights. If anything she has pillow-talk rights. It is a criticism that means she stepped outside of her position and assumed the role of first lady, but began to think she was commander and chief. This tendency is not good considering liberals believe that Bush does the same thing. Is she going to do the same thing? Is she going to push her agenda too hard upon everybody else? Her stint as first lady would give us clear evidence that she has the tendency to do so. Sorry I had to explain that to you; I figured your conservative mind powers would have given you some insight. Bush is from the south; ergo he’s allowed to use an accent. People like you are the kind of people who go to a foreign country after having a few Spanish classes and try to speak in the same dialect as the natives. This in turn labels Americans as snobs. Hillary, being from the north, should speak with a northern tongue. Produce images of Bush speaking with a northern accent then we will have an argument. Now as for Clinton never answering a question, it’s clear that he never did truthfully and when he did it was never about the question asked. I stated that Giuliani was the best chance the Conservatives have of controlling the white house, not that he himself was a conservative on the core issues. The point is that the conservative in name that has the best chance is Giuliani. I said you need to watch the news because you stated that McCain was going to lose because he was using the same rhetoric as Bush about the War in Iraq when he was denouncing it. Like most liberals, you read everything I’m saying try to twist into a pretty painting of pain, anger, and destruction and throw it back in everybody’s face with incorrect connotations. In fact, it is you who stated an incorrect fact; that’s why I said you need to watch the news. I don’t listen to Rush. I listen to John Gibson. Speaking of hypocrites, would you call a person who has rehabilitated from cocaine going around speaking in schools a hypocrite? Would you call Magic Johnson speaking about how AIDS is going to destroy your life hypocritical? At least the topics and stories Rush covers are real not fake.

browneyedsoul06 said...

Oh, Ann Coulter.

As the author of the article states, I just don’t get it. Despite the fact that conservatives in American put themselves on a much higher plane, due to their supposed morality, you have to wonder why they would want this PR nightmare bellowing sluts from the rooftops, making them look even worse than they already do. It seems that conservatives are generally self-serving and pull these kind of stunts not only for airtime (that the media is seemingly ecstatic to give them) but to please themselves and their peers. Coulter is no different, as she continually looks for approval from the conservative masses while mocking anything that remotely resembles liberalism.

It seems that Coulter makes some ridiculous statement and then goes into hiding for months at a time, laughing at how riled up that we are at her bigotry and insensitive rambling. It even makes me long for the days of Limbaugh, which is sad. However, we all know that she says this stuff for book sales and television coverage, though. I agree with the author of this article, in that the only thing right-wingers really take pleasure in is driving the liberals of this country crazy. The right-wingers are stuck in permanent 6th grade class clown mode, a mode that liberals need to focus on bringing them out of ASAP.

factcheck said...

The suggestion that McCain opposes the Iraq War is far from the truth. In fact, he is one of the champions of the troop surge which has made our country more involved in Iraq rather than less involved. In fact, McCain said that thanks to the surge, there were parts of Baghdad that "you or I could walk through," (Michael Ware, a CNN journalist posted in Iraq, responded by saying "I don't know what part of Neverland John McCain is living in").

Joe Gray said...

Hey what’s the difference from a racists bitch and Ann Coulter? Nothing! And that’s why conservatives love her. Honestly I haven’t ever heard about Ann Coulter before but I believe this article really gets to the face of right wing conservatives. I just can’t think of the right word or concept that can fit a person who thinks their smarter, more rational, quicker, and ironically more morality than those other than conservatives and who feeds off the uncomfortableness of liberals. But what do you expect; we have Bush running the White House and Cheney running the U.S.