Last week marked another round in the seemingly endless feud between conservative firebrand Ann Coulter and Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards. Many on the Left view this as a one-dimensional morality play pitting Good (Edwards) against Evil (Coulter). I have a much different take on it.
Ann Coulter has made her mark on the political landscape as a conservative “shock jock,” sort of a blonde Howard Stern in a mini-skirt (am I dating myself with that term?). Her comments about radical Muslims would have gotten her beheaded (or worse) in Copenhagen or Amsterdam, and her personal invectives against the widows of 9-11 victims known collectively as the “Jersey Girls” were so incredibly cruel and insensitive that even Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham distanced themselves from them.
Why does she do this? The cynic in me says it’s just to sell books. Since many of her media appearances are in conjunction with the release of a new book (or the paperback edition of an old one), and since she has had a fairly large number of best-selling works, the easy conclusion to draw is that there’s a cause and effect. The old adage that there’s no such thing as bad publicity may hold true in the short run, but Coulter’s books wouldn’t consistently sell like they do if they weren’t well written and meticulously researched. The gratuitous barbs that are thrown in get her the attention, but the quality of her work gives her the staying power.
Another reason may be because her outrageous comments tweak the Left. Like the Right’s visceral reaction to Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore, if Ann Coulter’s comments are designed to send liberals into fits of apoplexy, she does not disappoint. She can play the Left like a fiddle any time she opens her caustic mouth.
How does Coulter get away with all this? I believe there are at least two reasons: 1) Her physical attractiveness. Like the villians in the movie ”Mean Girls,” Coulter may be cruel, but at least her svelt body, long legs, flowing locks and pleasant face are easier on the eyes than a Rosie O’Donnell or Michael Moore; and 2) Her timing. Unlike Rosie, Ann knows how to sneak on the scene, throw her bomb, and high tail it into the tall grass before the public tires of her. O’Donnell’s constant exposure on the TV show “The View” and her inability to shut up were her ultimate undoing.
Coulter has taken on her share of liberal icons over the years, but no one person has been the brunt of more of Coulter’s scathing attacks than John Edwards. Whether it’s his penchant for capitalizing on personal tragedy or his near obsession with his personal appearance, Coulter has pulled no punches in her attacks on Edwards. The context of two recent swipes (the “faggot” comment and the assassination wish) each contained a meta-message that was at once ignored and/or discounted by the media and the Left. In the former, Coulter was poking fun at the ridiculous promise of actor Isaiah Washington to go into rehab to deal with his “homophobia” (Washington recently admitted that the whole thing was made up to put him back in the good graces of politically correct Hollywood). In the latter, she was alluding to the Bill Maher’s comments that had the jihadists’ attempt to assassinate Vice President Cheney, it might not have been a bad thing. The latter meta-message was clearly expressed by Coulter in the context of her comments; the former was so obtuse that even many conservatives missed it.
This time, faced with a floundering campaign, the Edwards camp decided to fight back. During an appearence by Coulter on MSNBC’s Hard Ball, Elizabeth Edwards called and all but told Coulter to stop exercising her First Amendment rights. Coulter asked her a very important question, for which Mrs. Edwards didn’t have a believable answer. Why was it she, and not her candidate husband, who called?
The answer is obvious: In the public’s eye, Edwards could have been perceived as the male bullying the female. He also could have run the risk of giving Coulter’s comments more importance than they should have had for someone who would be leader of the Free World. But Elizabeth Edwards was the perfect foil for Coulter. Not only was this the kind of female-to-female cat fight that plays well in venues like mud wrestling, in the eyes of the Left, Elizabeth had the same unassailability as Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls before her. How dare anyone engage poor Mrs. Edwards in a fair exchange of ideas? After all, she has the double whammy of losing a loved one and suffering from cancer.
But the Edward campaign didn’t stop there. Coulter was too good an opportunity so close to the end of the second quarter of political fundraising. So he did what he knows best from his days as a medical malpractice plaintiffs’ attorney: he played to the sympathies of the “jury” of potential contributors for his campaign’s financial gain. Coulter played the role of the arrogant doctor to his “client’s” (Elizabeth’s) pain and suffering. They even posted video clips of Coulter on their website to drum up contributions.
Why was this so important? Because the Edwards campaign is in deep trouble. Hillary Clinton has gravitas, but her political baggage of eight years as co-president is a liability. Obama is a political lightweight, but at least he has the charisma to inspire potential voters. Edwards has neither gravitas nor charisma. And to make matters worse, Bill Richardson, the candidate with the most impressive resume in the field from years of legislative, executive and diplomatic experience, was breathing down the neck of Edwards. When the fundraising numbers came in, Edwards had raised around $9 million to Richardson’s $7 million. So depending on who’s rating these things, Edwards hung on by his finger nails to the bottom of the first tier, and Richardson had to settle for the top of the second tier.
Would Richardson have outdone Edwards were it not for the Coulter bounce in contributions? Will sales of the paperback version of Coulter’s “Godless” benefit as a result of the publicity she received? We may never know for sure. But both Coulter and Edwards are playing off of each other in a classic example of codependency.
In a recent interview with the New York Times, Elizabeth Edwards said the following:
“It was Nietzsche or Kierkegaard who said you have to believe in something so strongly that you don’t acknowledge another’s point of view: That’s what real belief is.”
There was a moment of silence on the telephone. “Now I don’t go that far,” Mrs. Edwards said.
You and John had better not, Elizabeth. That would be biting the hand that feeds your coffers.
Go here for many answers to your excellent post.
http://globalpolitician.com/articles.asp?ID=2981&print=true
Having just gotten back from Germany on Thursday evening, I started browsing through the Fjordman essay. But it didn’t take me long to realize that I couldn’t fully appreciate it while suffering from a seven-hour jet lag, so I postponed reading it in full until today.
There is so much substance in what Fjordman has to say, I didn’t know quite where to begin commenting. I finally decided that this sentence was most germane to the topic at hand:
The culture of debate, which is absolutely essential for politics of reason to be possible, has been declining in the West for decades into a shouting match where the most aggressive groups frequently win.
A fascinating example of this can be witnessed in a recent thread at the Panhandle Truth Squad that was the inspiration for this post.
In the 06/28/07 post entitled “Ann Coulter On John Edwards,” calamus venenum posted a link to a YouTube excerpt of Ann Coulter saying the following about John Edwards:
“I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
In the second comment, Dio (a former commenter on this blog who had previously shown the ability to engage in serious debate) drew an analogy between Coulter’s remarks and something I had posted on Ivory Dome. Since both were taken out of context, I took the bait and attempted to explain that Coulter was satirizing those on the Left who regretted that the assassination attempt on Vice President Cheney was unsuccessful.
That’s when the fireworks began. Before you read the actual thread, consider this brief analysis:
1) I provided an alternative explanation – they ridiculed the messenger;
2) I provided evidence – they dismissed it as insignificant and speculated that it was the work of conservative agent provocateurs;
3) I provided video of a liberal icon Bill Maher eseentially agreeing with the original bloggers who wished Cheney dead, they said it was boring;
4) I provided the entire Coulter quote in context (showing Coulter making the connection to Maher’s comments) as well as a link to the entire interview from which it was excerpted, and I was first called an idiot and then accused of merely spouting conservative “talking points.”
At that point, they changed the subject to Coulter’s “faggot” comment from last March. I could have gone through the same routine a second time, but having already saracasticly conceded that I had lost the argument through Dio’s argumentum ad hominem (“You’re still an idiot”), I left the fray.
How do you debate with people who, when presented with primary source evidence, call it “talking points” and deal with feelings rather than substance?
Here’s the thread:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/panhandletruthsquad/5912637326235532970/
The irony of all this is that I’m engaging in the same kind of codependency that Coulter and Edwards do. Had I not commented on the PTS post, they wouldn’t have drawn the 46 comments (as of 07/07/07 at 3:31 p.m. CDT) that they have. Conversely, I suspect the number of hits at Ivory Dome will go up as a result of my previous comment.
In the case of Coulter and Edwards, however, Edwards needs Coulter a lot more than she needs him. Long after John Edwards joins the ranks of Harold Stassen et al. as a boy-wonder presidential hopeful who never amounted to anything, Coulter will still be writing best-selling books.
It appears that my favorite pro-choice lesbian, Tammy Bruce, has come to many of the same conclusions that I have regarding the latest round of Coulter-Edwards:
http://tammybruce.com/2007/06/ann_coulter_answers.php
You’ve got to love Tammy for her common sense!
How do you debate with people who, when presented with primary source evidence, call it “talking points” and deal with feelings rather than substance?
You hit the nail on the head here, liberals are about feelings. Substance is beyond the grasp of folks who through genetic make up, are incapable of suppressing the animal/feelings. The human/intellect just doesn’t get to rise to the surface.
This is not to say they are stupid or incapable of graduating, “magna cum laude” as SD is so apt to point out as he does his peacock strut through cyber space. (what does your ranking upon graduation matter when getting married anyway? Well at least it is a woman, or at least is now. LOL) Any way he can learn, his writing is technically precise, but his inability to see substance, makes his writing irrelevant. He feels Bush was wrong to commute Libby. He would also feel that Clinton’s pardons were good. He’s not capable of seeing the substance of Libby being railroaded, while Clinton’s pardons ensured Hillary’s election to the Senate through ingratiation of the large Puerto Rican and Jewish communities in her district. (the rest were but camouflage)
I write and post at other Lib sites. While PTS for some odd reason, is particularly venomous in responses, as I saw in the hatred directed at you for merely saying congratulations to SD, they are all much the same. I would recommend Grits for Breakfast. While some of the posters are much like those in PTS the guy who runs it is very decent.
But my goal on lib sites is giving the fence sitting passer bye’s, an alternative perspective. I’ve no illusion of reasoned debate in an emotional arena.
There is so much substance in what Fjordman has to say, I didn’t know quite where to begin commenting. I finally decided that this sentence was most germane to the topic at hand:
Amazing that a man who speaks English as a second language can put to paper such powerful thought. I use this signature at a site I write at;
It is the soldier, not the priest, who protects freedom of religion; the soldier, not the journalist, who protects freedom of speech. History teaches that a society that does not value its warriors will be destroyed by a society that does.
Someone on that site had asked where I got it. Well I ripped it off a guy on a different site. So I got to looking for the roots of it, and found Fjordman.
When I read your post I remembered the very thing you picked out of it, and knew you might enjoy the entire read. I consider it a proverbial needle in a hay stack. So much garbage on the net, then you run into a treasure like his post. To bad the guy is no longer writing. I would like to have found more by him.
It seems to me that the whole key to reasoned debate is the kind of Hegelian “give and take” that moves things forward. It’s a focused, step-by-step process: I state a thesis, someone else offers an antithesis, and the result is a synthesis of ideas. Name-calling short circuits that process. We’re all guilty of it from time to time, but when I see buzz words like “rethug,” “pathological liar” and “idiot,” I realize that my opponent is starting to run out of relevant contributions to the debate.
Another strategy that breaks down the process is the cut-and-paste, shotgun approach (i.e. posting someone else’s exhaustive list of “lies” to “prove” a point). It was my frustration with this approach that inspired the now infamous post “We’ve Done It!”
Taking quotes out of context is a third strategy that can thwart debate. This is why I like to go back to the original source rather than rely on sound bites or short excerpts. If a person does this out of ignorance and is willing to concede when confronted with the full context, the debate can still move forward.
The ultimate purpose of debate is to persuade the other person of your point of view, but there are times when the best the parties can hope for is to agree to disagree. If this can be done without rancor, both parties can at least come away with mutual respect and an appreciation of the other person’s point of view.
You hit the nail on the head here, liberals are about feelings.
Based on this article, I expect this to get worse before it ever gets better.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-guru9jul09,0,3671214.story?coll=la-home-center
That is absolutely incredible read. The message in all of this is inflame passions with lies, and avoid facts.
I’d say the folks at PTS are way ahead in this game as well as most Democrapt in Congress. I feel a need to repost this on the main page, but with some “dispassionate conservative facts” and commentary. What do you think?
By the way I had sent you an e-mail while you were in Germany. Let me know what you think of it.
I feel a need to repost this on the main page, but with some “dispassionate conservative facts” and commentary. What do you think?
Go for it! This thread is getting a little long.
I realized something not too long ago just before I went on vacation. PTS and their ilk are on the order of extreme leftists in the same class and Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter. My point is illustrated in the comments you link to, CT. They care not of anyone but themselves or other points of view. In contrast I have said several times of how much I think the liberal point of view is needed in our legislative process.
LOL Right you are Bo, with perhaps the exception of Jimmie Carter. He’s way to stupid to be able to inflame passion lies or not. Sheehan I’m not sure where to place as I suspect she has many handlers along the line of Drew Westen controlling her strings. Moore is a master of the very thing Westen pushes. A master liar and expert in inflaming passion of the less educated, and those in touch with, instead of in control of, their emotions. But I guess you have to be pretty smart to do either.
As far as the lib/emotional point of veiw, I think it either needs to be back in the cave man days or in the trash.
I have another post about to hit. I meant to have it up before the fourth but life has conspired against me. But in it you will read of men in control of, not led by emotion.
Hope you both had a good vacation.
PTS and their ilk are on the order of extreme leftists in the same class and Cindy Sheehan or Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter.
To be fair, there are varying degrees of extremism among them. Newsguygeorge and spacedark seem to be more reasonable, as was Dio while s/he posted on this blog. It’s a pity that s/he responded so irrationally to my little parody, especially since I portrayed him/her as the voice of reason. Unless, of course … no, I’m not going to go there again!
Another pity is that if I recall my history correctly, spacedark was one of the co-founders of PTS, along with prodigal son, who was the more radical of the two. If you look over some of their threads from last year after prodigal son’s departure (I’m not sure who prodigL son [sic]is), there used to be the kind of “give and take” I mentioned above. Sadly, the inmates have taken over the asylum. If ever there was a case for moderated blogs, PTS is surely it.
“If ever there was a case for moderated blogs, PTS is surely it.
Moderated and moderate. None of either, at PTS. Therein lies the true nature of the founder.
In browsing PTS for bygone examples of more civil discourse, I found this classic post from 11/22/05:
http://panhandletruthsquad.blogspot.com/2005/11/rock-and-hard-place-scylla-and.html
As I read over the comments, I found something totally absent today – concessions from both conservatives and liberals, and even a touch of self-deprecation on the part of spacedark (see the comment about “hypocracy” and English teachers).
But the comment that bears singling out – a comment so astute and candid I almost fell out of my chair when I read it – is this one by spacedark:
Not to tip my hand, but I’ve been mulling over a post in which I attribute the increase numbers of assholes, hypocrites and morons on the liberal boards of late to the fact that the momentum of the zeitgeist is turning in our direction. [Emphasis added]
Spacedark’s observations have proven to be even more correct than when he made them over a year and a half ago. I just happen to disagree with his conclusions.
Not to tip my hand, but I’ve been mulling over a post in which I attribute the increase numbers of assholes, hypocrites and morons on the liberal boards of late to the fact that the momentum of the zeitgeist is turning in our direction. [Emphasis added]
ROTFLMAO! I think perhaps he would not acknowledge that as, “self-deprecation”.
Another surprising confessional in that thread by MR. God himself, is this “Welcome to our Socialist Revolution.” True intent personified.
You know after reading the first link about Ann C. you provided earlier, and seeing the sudden mean streak exhibited by Dio I started thinking about two things.
If Dio is a individual, and if liberalism is a mental disorder, implying (as stated by SD)that you are an a,h,or m, is it contagious? The remarkably similar behavior exhibited by all the “frequent” posters and responders at PTS, certainly could be construed as symptoms of a disease. First they become a’s, then h’s and then, inevitably and sadly, all that is left is a m.
But if Dio is just one of many persona’s, then are the a’s, h’s, and m’s at PTS really all, SD? Again the remarkably similar behavior exhibited by all there, indicate some type of commonality. His self righteous ego certainly is sizable enough to manifest that hoard of groupies who adore him. Is he in a world of his own creation?
If he does suffer from, dissociative identity disorder, does he, as the head m, allow his other persona’s to progress beyond the h phase? Would his world be shattered if anyone else approached his level (is that the correct term) of m’ness. Actually I think he doesn’t even allow them to the h phase. He seems to prefer most of his persona’s to remain a’s.
Hmmmm! Perhaps I should consult a doctor. But should it be a specialist in physical or mental health? I’m stumped. I need your advice CT!
I think perhaps he would not acknowledge that as, “self-deprecation”.
Probably not, but this is the example to which I was referring:
I pretty much expect abject hypocracy from conservatives.
Just from conservatives?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product…283155& v=glance
Curious Texan | 11.22.05 – 1:10 pm | #
————————————————————
No, not just conservatives. Also English teachers who can’t spell “hypocrisy”. [Emphasis added]
SPACEDARK | 11.22.05 – 1:34 pm | #
If Dio is a individual, and if liberalism is a mental disorder, implying (as stated by SD)that you are an a,h,or m, is it contagious?
This is something I hadn’t thought about to explain Dio’s dramatic turnabout in behavior, but it makes sense.
I think the “mental disorder” characterization is a bit overstated (but then Michael Savage has never been known for his understatement). However, the idea that Dio picked up his/her newly found bad behavior from the others at PTS is a plausible one. There’s an old German proverb that goes, “Böse Gesellschaft verdirbt gute Sitten” (Bad company spoils good manners). Some call this “mob mentality.”
Your theory about spacedark being the source of all the personas at PTS is an amusing one. As I’ve stated in the past, I’ve had suspicions that Clint/Rivethead, Vyse and Dio are all one person, but at least there is some forensic evidence that would seem to support this hypothesis.
But your scenario portrays a maniacal English teacher sitting at his computer, creating ever increasing numbers of characters to inhabit his blogosphere. As I’m writing this, I’m reminded of the great German writer Goethe who, in the introduction to his epic “Faust” describes how the characters in his play (Faust, Mephistopheles, Gretchen et al.) return to him as takes up the Faust legend again (Goethe wrote his original manuscript in his 20’s, only to pick it up again in middle age). Given spacedark’s literary background, perhaps the scenario described above isn’t that far fetched after all.
Taking this concept to the extreme, one can imagine one solitary mega-liberal, sitting at a super-computer and creating all the liberal personas on the Internet, not unlike the Borg from Star Trek. I’ve speculated in the past that beside you and Bo, no one else who reads what Curious Texan writes has any real evidence that there’s really a human being behind all this. Eons and eons from now, when some scientist examines the O’s and 1’s that comprise my posts and comments, he may see patterns there, but he’ll probably dismiss it as the random coming together of electrons with no purpose or message behind it.
Today, we call such scientists evolutionists.
One final comment about Ann Coulter’s physical appearance. When I mentioned her attractiveness as a reason for why she gets away with what she does, I was basing that on her television appearances. Looking at her picture on the cover of her book “Godless” recently, I realized that the old adage that TV adds 20 pounds to a person is indeed true, and in Ann’s case, it’s an improvement. That picture makes her look positively anorexic.
If I were to give Ms. Coulter any advice (as if she’d listen to me), it would be 1) don’t be quite so mean; and 2) don’t starve yourself to death – we conservatives need you!
[...] http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/07/03/coulter-edwards-and-codependency/ [...]