Ann Coulter caught lying by fellow conseravtive(s)!

[BlueEyedSon]

Reading this lifted my spirits so much!

From an article in FrontPage magazone by David Horowitz http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8793

Many of the inaccurate generalizations of Treason are indeed the hyperbole of Coulterian satire, but unfortunately the most crucial ones are not. I realized this when I saw Ann defending her claims on Chris Matthews’ Hardball:

Chris Matthews: What do you mean by the cover of this book?

Ann Coulter: What I mean is that the Democratic Party, as an entity, has become functionally treasonable, including what you’re talking about, turning over documents to the enemy….

Chris Matthews: Well, should they be prosecuted?

Ann Coulter: I wish it were that easy a problem, but that trivializes the point of my book, which is not that there are just a few dozen traitors out there. It is that the entire party cannot root for America.

Chris Matthews: Well, let’s talk about the leaders of the Democratic Party over the years. Was Jack Kennedy a traitor? Was he guilty of treason?

Ann Coulter: He was not as strong a president as a Republican would have been. But I’m referring, as I say again, I’m referring to a party that is functionally treasonable….

Chris Matthews: Was Jack Kennedy a traitor?

Ann Coulter: No, he was not a traitor.

Chris Matthews: Was he guilty of treason?

Ann Coulter: His heart was in the right place but he was surrounded by bad policymakers and he harm the country and its national security.

This exchange made me extremely uncomfortable. When somebody as smart and as gutsy as Ann Coulter equivocates over so direct a question – Was Jack Kennedy a traitor? -- you know (and they know) – that something is very wrong with the position they are defending. Equally disturbing was Coulter’s use of the phrase, “functionally treasonable” – as in “ has become functionally treasonable.” This is a problematic phrase on several counts. In the first place, “treasonable” is not a word but seems to suggest “capable of treason,” which is different from being actually treasonous. The distinction is important.

Much, much more... go and enjoy!

[Richardo]

1. Whorowitz gives her a major pass with the "satire" label.

And is this one of the times Ann was never on Tweety's show?

[sexybomber]

4. yeah, exactly.

That foul woman honestly and truly believes that we should all be locked up.

[zbdent]

9. If it is satire, what is it doing in Non-fiction?

To be fair, this would also include Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Dave Barry (whom I find hilarious), and others.

[skypilot]

2. Ann Coulter is the master of...

...the slippery qualifier. "Functionally", "essentially", "basically".
She's full of shit. I'm surprised she doesn't tire herself out with this crap. Although, she IS terribly skinny. Hmmm.

[LuminousX]

5. Self-hatred

her body image is a physical manifestation of her self-hatred. She doesn't even realize that she hates herself and projects that hatred onto others.

[polpilot]

30. She is one ignorant and sick woman.

Dean '04

[RandomKoolzip]

3. Whoreoitz needs to go back and read some Marx again.

Get back to his roots. It made sense once upon a time, right Dave? Now that you're seeing the hard right up close, it looks pretty ugly, doesn't it? Well, are you gonna sleep in the bed you made, or is your conscience gonna reassert itself?

How about it, Dave? (I know for a fact he trolls here.)

[tom_paine]

14. Whorowitz HAS no conscience, so far as I can tell

Jewish Totalitarians make me itch. Too much like Jewish Nazis.

And Whorowitz, YOU ARE a Jewish Totalitarian. Had you been in Germany in the 40s, you would have carried a billy club around the Auschwitz Yard for your Totalitarian Masters...

...as you do today for your Bushevik Masters

Horowitz Horowitz Horowitz (so he can find this post when he searches for his name)

[wtmusic]

6. Tweety is oft maligned but...

I think he's terrific.

I see people on DU calling him a Republican shill when he goes after their candidate, then extolling his praises when he goes after 'the other guy.'

He often frames a question in the most obnoxious way on purpose. And it forces the interviewee to reframe it in a better way--that's a good thing (sometimes it can't be done, as Ann has shown).

[library_max]

7. This illustrates something about Matthews, too.

He's biased and 'way too full of himself, but he tries to tell the truth as he sees it, and he's not mindlessly RW. He's more like Geraldo than a RW propagandist like Hannity or Rush. And before you blast Geraldo, remember that he was standing up for Clinton and talking seriously about the VRWC when nobody else on television was.

Coulter, of course, is nucking futs. But we all knew that.

[zbdent]

10. I don't know, if a company screws its employees for 11 months out

of the year, then gives them some decent booze as a Christmas bonus, does that make employee relations pretty good?

If Matthews tosses us a bone maybe ten minutes a month, and shills the rest of the time, is that "fair and balanced"?

[library_max]

31. I'm not convinced he shills.

I think he gives his honest opinion. It's a very arrogant and generally conservative opinion, however. I just don't lump him with the propagandists like Rush and Hannity.

[Maine-i-acs]

8. Treason is a Federal offense punishable by death.

Does Annie think all Dems should be sent to the gas chambers? I sure as hell won't buy her book to find out.

The 'Treason' label is getting flailed around a little too much by the RW.

[noonwitch]

12. No, but she does think that we need to be physically intimidated

I don't have the exact quote in front of me, but after the arrest of John Walker Lindh, she said that he should be shot, so that liberals will be physically intimidated before they become out and out traitors like him.
She also wishes that the 9-11 terrorists had hit the NY Times building instead of the WTC.

[leftynyc]

23. Actually she wished that McVeigh had it the NY Times

building instead of the Murrah building in OK. She ain't nothing but a skank.

[info being]

22. They keep destroying words through propaganda

Treason: once had a strong meaning, now is reduced to an opinion.

Patriot: once stood for someone who fights for his country, now stands for an Act that has destroyed the Constitution.

Freedom: now means corporate-sanctioned slavery

I could go on.

[southpaw72]

11. there's still a lot of disturbing stuff

in this article. He's basically saying, "It's too bad that Coulter goes a little too far in her rhetoric that all liberals are traitors. The truth is, only the vast majority of them are."

Plus I want to puke when he tries to present Coulter as a bona fide literati. "I regarded Coulter’s phillipic as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts." Comparing a hack like Coulter to one of the greatest satirists in the English languge... :puke:

And read the paragraph where he tries to support the claim that McCarthyism is actually the fault of the left. "The fact is that if so many liberals and Democrats had not covered so assiduously for Communists and Soviet spies like Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White, there would have been no McCarthy Era -- no wave of loyalty oaths and no congressional investigation."

And he compares the Iran-Contra hearings to the HUAC?!? "The only difference between the Iran-Contra victims of Senators Kennedy and Inouye and the Communists who were pilloried by Joe McCarthy was that the Iran-Contra witnesses were patriots and the Communists called before McCarthy’s committee were not." Actually, the "only difference" was that the "victims" of the Iran-Contra hearings had actually broken the law and abused the public trust. :grr:

[littlejoe]

13. In my opinion, Coulter is

a self-loathing bitch who says such outlandish things, no rational thinking person can take her seriously. Do you think she's a nympho?

[skypilot]

15. A nympho with no takers, no doubt.

*

[Bertha Venation]

17. there're always batteries. n/t

[skypilot]

20. You mean as in "assault and..."

:evilgrin:

[Scott Lee]

16. Coulter actually "trivializes" treason.

In fact she cheapens it and sensationalizes it for nothing more than her book sales. That, in my unholy opinion, is a new low for the skank. Treason is an extremely serious charge; I believe it's still punishable by death.

My challenge to Skankwich is this: I demand you name names, and make specific charges of treason against anyone in the Democratic party. Publically. So they can sue the living shit out of you for defamation, and take away your nice NY penthouse.

Come on Skank. I dare you. DOUBLE dare you.

[truthspeaker]

18. Kennedy harmed national security?

Was that skank even alive during the Cuban missile crisis?

The only way JFK harmed national security was by getting involved in Vietnam.

[DemoTex]

19. Why is Frontpagemag.com of 12/11/2003 running a piece dated 7/8/2003?

Strange. But timely for me. I just last night read the two "Ann Coulter" chapters in Al Franken's Lies. That it took TeamFranken two chapters (at least) to deal with Coulter's lies should tell you something.

Coulter is pathetic. Who is listening to her anymore?

[Killarney]

21. She drives me nuts

The more crazy she gets (and the more she gets called out for it) the more I hope that people discredit her and laugh her off as the nutcase she is. But people keep buying her books and emailing around her columns and believing her hysteric lies.

On a funny point, has anyone ever gone to her website? I just did. She has an entire section of several pages of pictures of herself. Pictures like... her wearing short shorts and holding a rifle, her wearing a black pleather minidress. She is in love with herself! It's hilarious.
http://www.anncoulter.com/images.html

I'd love for Michael Moore to have a parody of her pictures on his site. Him wearing a leather minidress. That would be hilarious. :)

[beanball]

24. If he make you angry kick

him/it/? in the nuts.

[snippy]

25. Ann Coulter Usually Not Truthful plays an important role in the Reich wing

by defining downward the limits of acceptable political discourse. She legitimizes the concept in the minds of the Reich wing that democrats are not good Americans just as in the 1930's the jews were not good Germans. One of the Reich wing goals is to extend that concept into the minds of more average Americans.

Horowitz is furthering this goal by criticizing an extreme example of Ann Coulter Usually Not Truthful's extremism while pointing out that she is mostly correct. Thus, according to Horowitz, although it is true that democrats are not good Americans it is not necessary to go as far as Ann Coulter Usually Not Truthful does.

Their self rightous fascism should sicken all Americans, but unfortunately propaganda is effective.

[janx]

28. Flash in the pan.

This stuff isn't working anymore. I'd wager that this kind of extremist drivel will evaporate within the next ten years. It's too sophomoric and incredible to have much staying power.

The only way any of these books will be recognized ten or more years from now will by by way of the political propaganda of an extremist and dangerous political movement.

But it is lamentable that Horowitz or anyone would make such a miserable attempt to legitimize political "product" by labeling it satire. That's desperate, man. That's *really* desperate.

[eleny]

26. Love it when they eat their own

I hope Coulter now goes after Horowitz. They deserve each other.

[spooky3]

27. Coulter is neither "smart" nor "gutsy."

It takes no brains or courage to pander to the powerful in order to make money easily.

[amber dog democrat]

29. I have a hard time

taking her at face value. Just another opportunist whose cynacism and talent for invective enabled her to stake out a lucrative fascist pulpit. I can not believe she honestly is her public self - and that alone in damning.