Glory Be, Alan Colmes Stumps Ann Coulter

[Berzerker]

Tonight on Hannity & Colmes, Alan was asking Ann Coulter questions about her new book, "Treason", another attack from Ann on liberals. His question? Can you (Ann) identify any living liberals you'd like to accuse of treason? She went into a rant about Alger Hiss et al and when Colmes tried to re-state his question, she said she understood the question and was getting to the specifics. She never did name anyone... But she did say we'd have to wait for the Iraqi version of the Verona documents to come forth. Sorry Ann, you're funny and quick witted, but writing a book accusing liberals of treason only to ask that we wait for the alleged proof is shabby.

[MichaeltheGreat]

She's the dumb **** (at least one of them) who proclaimed we ought to go into the ME and convert everyone to Christianity.

Yeah, that'll go over well.

[Boris Godunov]

Was it Laz who made a comment about teeth in her vagina or something like that?

She's perhaps the most irritating of the right's commentators, just because of her head-twitching and bulging eyes. In that sense, I'm glad she's around, because she's so frightening you can't help but think her positions are mad...

[Meldor]

Well,

Let me just step up and be the first to say that I find her to be intelligent and well spoken. It is interesting that instead of refuting her ideas, you would rather attack her looks and personality. The only thing said against her ideas is that they are mad?

I read her column every time she posts a new one. And while I can not say that I have agreed with her 100%, I can't say that about anyone. But her ideas are well thought out and soundly put forth. But then again maybe that is the problem, you aren't used to people telling you straight facts.

The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason. To point out how they have lead America down a dangerous path. Asking to point to a specific person and prove they are treasonous is a silly ploy and Alan new it was a cheap way to get around the facts revealed in her book. If you can't argue with the facts then try and make a side issue to win points. It obviously worked with some of you. You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth.

I will now return you to your regular scheduled bashing of the right.

[SpencerH]

I've never understood how Ann Coulter has become such a frequently seen political pundit on TV. I dont think she is a particularly good spokesman for the conservatives. Much like the majority of the liberal pundits, her rants always seem to be without much substance.

I liked Barbara Olson much better.

[DaShi]

So that's what happened to AnnC.

[Guynemer]

Ann Coulter is a baffoon. There are two reasons for she celebrity pundit status:

--She says the most asinine, outrageous things, without apology, and
--Because she is thin and blonde (which automatically translates to "hot" in America, despite abundant evidence to the contrary), the hosts of these programs let her get away with it.

Her work is poorly researched, and is essentially nothing more than neo-fascist boilerplate. Each and every television program that invites her to spew her ignorance, exaggerations, and outright lies makes an instant mockery of itself and televised political debate in general. Even FoxNews becomes a parody of itself, which is rather remarkable.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Meldor
The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason. To point out how they have lead America down a dangerous path. Asking to point to a specific person and prove they are treasonous is a silly ploy and Alan new it was a cheap way to get around the facts revealed in her book. If you can't argue with the facts then try and make a side issue to win points. It obviously worked with some of you. You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth.

Bull****. Look up "Treason" in the dictionary, or better yet, seek out the legal definition. You'll see it requires a conscious act of working against a country for its enemies.

Coulter is using the word slanderously in yet another blatant attempt to demonize the left, which is her bread and butter. The fact that you salivate over her is just a sign you will swallow anything the right puts up to bash its opponents. See how nice that works?

The question was quite fair, because "treason" is an extremely serious accusation and to banter around the word as casually as Coulter does is simply absurd. He called her on it, she sputtered. If you're going to accuse people of betraying the country, you'd better have something to back it up besides a personal opinion that they are wrong. Coulter's attitude is exactly the most dangerous path in America and what is betraying American values: "If I don't like your political views, you are a traitor." I can't think of anything more fascistic than that philosophy.

[monolith94]

I hate Coulter with a depth that I never believed, when I was younger, I could hate anyone with.

[Meldor]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Bull****. Look up "Treason" in the dictionary, or better yet, seek out the legal definition. You'll see it requires a conscious act of working against a country for its enemies.

Coulter is using the word slanderously in yet another blatant attempt to demonize the left, which is her bread and butter. The fact that you salivate over her is just a sign you will swallow anything the right puts up to bash its opponents. See how nice that works?

The question was quite fair, because "treason" is an extremely serious accusation and to banter around the word as casually as Coulter does is simply absurd. He called her on it, she sputtered. If you're going to accuse people of betraying the country, you'd better have something to back it up besides a personal opinion that they are wrong. Coulter's attitude is exactly the most dangerous path in America and what is betraying American values: "If I don't like your political views, you are a traitor." I can't think of anything more fascistic than that philosophy.

Sorry, but it something done by everyone. It is an exagerration to make a point. Would you like me to list all of the quotes from the left, calling right-winger everything from treasonists to madmen.

And where in my description did I say I "salivate over her"? I believe I said I read her and didn't always agree. You claim that the right is just bashing the left without cause and yet when I post a non-bashing statement that I happen to read and sometimes enjoy Ms Coulter's writings, I am somehow an idiot right-wing dupe that believes anything and everything that is put before me from the right.

It is obvious that you didn't even bother to either read the book or any review of it. If you had even read the cover of the book, you would have realized your instant misconceptions. First, let's look at the complete title of the book: Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism. Now she is equating the liberal aganda with treachery and treason. But why would she feel this way. Here is a discreption of the book from Amazon.com:

“Liberals’ loyalty to the United States is off-limits as a subject of political debate. Why is the relative patriotism of the two parties the only issue that is out of bounds for rational discussion?”

In a stunning follow-up to her number one bestseller Slander, leading conservative pundit Ann Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign policy issue, from the fight against Communism at home and abroad, the Nixon and the Clinton presidencies, and the struggle with the Soviet empire right up to today’s war on terrorism. “Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treason,” says Coulter. “Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they don’t.” From Truman to Kennedy to Carter to Clinton, America has contained, appeased, and retreated, often sacrificing America’s best interests and security. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives.

Reexamining the sixty-year history of the Cold War and beyond—including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers–Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall,” the Gulf War, and our present war on terrorism—Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. McCarthy, exonerated by the Venona Papers if not before, was basically right about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government. Hiss turned out to be a high-ranking Soviet spy (who consulted Roosevelt at Yalta). Reagan, ridiculed throughout his presidency, ended up winning the Cold War. And George W. Bush, also an object of ridicule, has performed exceptionally in responding to America’s newest threats at home and abroad.

Coulter, who in Slander exposed a liberal bias in today’s media, also examines how history, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, has been written by liberals and, therefore, distorted by their perspective. Far from being irrelevant today, her clearheaded and piercing view of what we’ve been through informs us perfectly for challenges today and in the future.

With Slander, Ann Coulter became the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual of the year. Treason, in many ways an even more controversial and prescient book, will ignite impassioned political debate at one of the most crucial moments in our history.

The bolding is mine. Read the last sentence carefully. It is a shame that instead of trying to refute her stance on the issues she brings up, your best tactic is revealed to attack her because she is "hot".

Do you want a really scary quote, try this one

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," Gephardt

That is a very interesting choice of words from someone high up in the Democratic machine and is telling on their stance on judical checks and balances.

If you would like me to spew some really good quotes with words like "treason" and suchlet me give you some links to Carvel or Hillary....oh, but its ok, they are on the left......

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Meldor
The only thing said against her ideas is that they are mad?

But her ideas are well thought out and soundly put forth.

But then again maybe that is the problem, you aren't used to people telling you straight facts.

So at what point does a political commentator's "ideas" (to use your phrase) become "straight facts."

Of course, if you're that slack in the consistency with which you use terminology, maybe she does make sense.

The agruement that she makes in the book is to equate the ideas and desires of the liberals to treason.

Interesting, for a "conservative" to yammer on so. The very notion that "ideas" or "desires" could be equatable to treason was repugnant to the framers of the Constitution - that is why they defined the offense in a narrow and very specific way. They felt so strongly about it that it is the only criminal act in the United States defined in the Constitution.

If "ideas" could be treasonous, Coulter's premise in her book, as you've described it, is at least as fundamentally contrary to the Constitution as anything in the so-called "liberal" agenda, whether it's actually in the liberal agenda, or just in right-wing spin. Ask a liberal.

You are most likely the ones who will defend every word in Hillary's book as the complete truth.

Nice non-sequitor on a couple of levels. You'd have to tell me what's in Hillary's book, though, I don't intend to get it, and I doubt anyone will give it to me, even as a joke.

[Stefu]

When I hear the name 'Coulter', I think golden monkeys.

[GePap]

I read a little Bit of Brocks' book, and Coulter does not come out well. Brock (I forget his name) was one of the right wing folks that tarred Anita Hill to make Thomas look good, and then he was in the Arkansas project and a whole lot of other right wing activities, until his "converted" to a liberal. His book is very well written and very interesting.

Anyway, the point Brock makes about someone like Coulter is that people like her, the new spokespeople for the rght wing might be able to write OK or very well, and speak as well also, but they are intelectually empty. They are not thinkers like the conservative commentatrs of the 60's and 70's. They simply spout the given orthodoxy, even if they do it well. Someone ike Ann Coulter has never come up with an original idea whatsoever, ad all she is good for is shock value, and to make herself sound brilliant when she doesn;t actually come up with any brilliant facts. Someone can be witty and still not be a significant intelectual.

Oh, I never knew before that the Washington Times was set up by Reverend Moon.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Stefu
I think golden monkeys.

in golden showers?

Would Ann Coulter be a good source to read in order to get into understanding the American right?

[Meldor]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat So at what point does a political commentator's "ideas" (to use your phrase) become "straight facts."

Of course, if you're that slack in the consistency with which you use terminology, maybe she does make sense.

All commentators should have facts to support their opinions and ideas. To do otherwise would put them in the realm of politicans. As a side note, I would guess you went to the Dowd school of editing.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Interesting, for a "conservative" to yammer on so. The very notion that "ideas" or "desires" could be equatable to treason was repugnant to the framers of the Constitution - that is why they defined the offense in a narrow and very specific way. They felt so strongly about it that it is the only criminal act in the United States defined in the Constitution.

Sorry, but this country was founded on a series of treasons acts and ideas put forth by some of the very people who wrote the constitution. The strict definition of treason in the constitution is a protection against the state attempts to stifle political opposition. Something the good folks posting inthis thread might take note of.

BTW, how is defending her right to political speech and opinion yammering? Oh yeah, it comes not from a liberal who has every right to throw out these kinds of statements, but from a conservative. My, and you look to teh constitution for support, should you look at the whole thing?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat If "ideas" could be treasonous, Coulter's premise in her book, as you've described it, is at least as fundamentally contrary to the Constitution as anything in the so-called "liberal" agenda, whether it's actually in the liberal agenda, or just in right-wing spin. Ask a liberal.

No her book would be a classical example of political dissent. Read some of the stuff written by our founding fathers, you might be suprised at just how much the used such phrases and used the same types of techniques. What she says is right in line with everything in the constitution.

Interstingly enough, not a single person here in this thread has actually tried to refute her ideas. You have either attacked her or me. At best the book was dismissed out of hand. Very telling and something seen from the top of the liberal heap to the bottom.

[EDIT] Fixed some words. Gentlepeople this has been fun, but I will leave you to your bashfest and move on.