Al Franken vs. Ann Coulter

Senator Al Franken zings the everloving crap out of Ann Coulter in this sweet little clip. Funniest 1:22 I've seen all day.

Ann Coulter and Al Franken at The Connecticut Forum (Thanks, Fipi Lele!)

[#1 posted by BQAggie87 , January 5, 2009 6:06 AM]

I think there is something amiss on the website.

My CPU usage skyrockets and memory usage goes over 120M whenever I visit boingboing. I see this with both Opera and Chrome.

Other sites seem fine.

[#2 posted by insomma , January 5, 2009 6:10 AM]

She may be the scariest woman on earth.

[#3 posted by Shrdlu , January 5, 2009 6:17 AM]

Kind of an old clip, but that was a great debate. Well worth watching the whole debate. See Coulter whine about Franken's "boring" obsession with facts.

Thank you, Minnesota, for not electing Norm Coleman. Franken will be the best to hit the U.S. Senate since Paul Wellstone.

And who knew there were so many Jews in Minnesota? I though they were all hulking, dumb blond guys named Lars.

[#4 posted by jali1221 , January 5, 2009 6:31 AM]

That's great, it's always funniest when you don't even have to finish your line.

#3: It sounds like you thought Minnesota was actually the homeland of vikings.

[#5 posted by travis08 , January 5, 2009 6:32 AM]

This is all style over substance. You should just as easily laugh at Franken for saying Hitler instead of Mao, or maybe even Stalin, than for Coulter saying FDR.

Plus this is sorely lacking context, she seems to be talking about American politicians.

p.s. Not a Coulter fan, just don't want to ride the bashing bandwagon.

[#6 posted by nerak , January 5, 2009 7:02 AM]

@ #5
It's okay, it's Ann Coulter. You're actually legally obligated to ride the bashing bandwagon.

[#7 posted by cinemajay , January 5, 2009 7:29 AM]

@3, I live in Minnesota and know a blonde guy named Lars. He's a chemist. And has a law degree.

[#8 posted by Anonymous , January 5, 2009 7:36 AM]

@ 2/Insomnia
Who is Ann Coulter? (Rhetorical question, looked her up on the web).She doesn't seem to shine much outside of the US. She's not scary at all, no real influence on the world.

[#9 posted by flashdadi , January 5, 2009 7:59 AM]

The clip was funny.

The clip was old.

Posting it calls attention to Ann Coulter.

For many months she has been given the attention she deserves...

Almost none.

Please, let's keep it that way.

TIA

[#10 posted by jetfx , January 5, 2009 7:59 AM]

@#5
Sure, it's true his response is more style than substance, but it illustrates a point - that it is hard to take seriously anything Coulter says.

[#11 posted by Craigger1 , January 5, 2009 8:01 AM]

For anyone who's not read Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" please go out and get it now!
He rips into Ann Coulter like there's no tomorrow.
And, if half of what he says in the book about the Right is true, they're scarier than we've ever imagined!

[#12 posted by Tom Hale , January 5, 2009 8:37 AM]

I love Ann Coulter. I want her to have my babies. Looks like her 15 minutes of fame is about over, but she's definitely a fox.

[#13 posted by minTphresh , January 5, 2009 8:52 AM]

ann coulter is the biggest douche-bag on planet earth. she is a bigoted, drivel-spewing pile of festering hatred who needs a good pimp-slapping. in my humble opinion. go, al!

[#14 posted by Rick. , January 5, 2009 8:52 AM]

A fox with a penis.

[#15 posted by urshrew , January 5, 2009 8:54 AM]

How myopic can you get?

I'm glad she's gone for good after her "Jews must become more perfect" comment. She reached the peak of the natural life cycle of a pundit just before that and ushered in her quick demise shortly after it.

You should publish that clip and watch her eyes bulge a few short seconds after she repeats it and you can see that part of her face is having an "oh, pit, did I just say that." moment, the rest of her is in auto-pilot.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[#16 posted by grimshaw , January 5, 2009 8:58 AM]

Here's a clip of Ann Coulter from CBC's Fifth Estate where her claim that Canada sent troops to Vietnam is countered by Bob McKeown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84EjWeTMBZs

"...she never got back to us..."

[#17 posted by Tgg161 , January 5, 2009 8:59 AM]

My perspective on Coulter has changed ever since reading the brilliant (and dirty) short story, "I Fucked Ann Coulter in the Ass, Hard," by Bachem Macuno.

Maybe the unbelievable stuff she spews is for the attention?

[#18 posted by Rezpect , January 5, 2009 9:00 AM]

What is even scarier than Ann Coulter are the people who agree with her.

[#19 posted by jjasper , January 5, 2009 9:14 AM]

In any event, divorced mothers should be called "divorced mothers," not "single mothers." We also have a term for the youngsters involved: "the children of divorce," or as I call them, "future strippers."

- Ann Coulter, "Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America"

A female Father Coughlin.

[#20 posted by UUbuntu , January 5, 2009 9:20 AM]

#17 Rezpect.

Yes. The followers -- people like Jim David Adkisson -- can be scarier than that speakers.

[#21 posted by aldasin , January 5, 2009 9:21 AM]

"This is all style over substance."

Yeah, who does he think he is, a professional comedian or something?

[#22 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 9:39 AM]

Ann Coulter is an ugly shitstain of a human being. I wish people would focus on that and not her presumed gender status. And yes, everything in Franken's book is true and throughly documented or he would have been sued.

I held my nose and voted for him. He ran an ugly campaign and Coleman's was even worse but I'm glad he he won. I think the howls, the pearl clutching and the big hot tears coming from the wingnuts will make it all worth while.

[#23 posted by Summer , January 5, 2009 9:47 AM]

I get BoingBoing updates via a feed on my LiveJournal, and what shows up there isn't the video that's here. Instead, it served me up a trailer for "Waltz with Bashir". I had to click through to BoingBoing (not that I usually wouldn't, but still) to get the Franken video.

The link to the vid that this post syndicated to my LJ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKC5q4dxXQ8&

Just thought someone ought to know.

[#24 posted by Tom Hale , January 5, 2009 9:50 AM]

Franken's win was almost as funny as Schwarzenegger's. You guys are hilarious.

[#25 posted by Tom Hale , January 5, 2009 9:54 AM]

Summer, I use iGoogle's feed - BB is right there on my home page - as are all of my favorite feeds. I haven't had any problems with mismatched videos or text so far.

[#26 posted by Summer , January 5, 2009 10:12 AM]

Tom, this is the first time I've noticed a mismatch.

[#27 posted by HeruRaHa , January 5, 2009 10:32 AM]

@19 Wow somehow I never heard of that before.... quite a story... here's the kicker, in my mind:

"Adkisson's letter also cited the inability to find a job, and that his food stamps were being cut." -- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_David_Adkisson#cite_ref-10)

So he shot all these people because he hates liberals and all their stupid liberal policies, and also his food stamps were being cut. He would be good friends with Joe the "Plumber"... they could complain about liberal entitlement programs while collecting welfare and food stamps, and bitch about taxes while not paying them. Yay!

[#28 posted by Anonymous , January 5, 2009 10:34 AM]

For what it's worth, Summer, I think that's a bug in LJ's friends page, possibly in combination with Firefox. Periodically, I see embedded YouTube links all start pointing to the same video.

[#29 posted by Shrdlu , January 5, 2009 10:51 AM]

Jay @ #7: I believe you, it just flies in the face of everything I've seen on Mary Tyler Moore, Coach, Little House on the Prairie, Golden Girls, etc.

But how many Minnesota Jews do you know? Politicians and the Cast of Little House on the Prairie don't count.

[#30 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 11:06 AM]

"they could complain about liberal entitlement programs while collecting welfare and food stamps, and bitch about taxes while not paying them."

Yes, that is the GOP base, only with moar cheetoos and Code Red.

"it just flies in the face of everything I've seen on Mary Tyler Moore..."

Sometimes I'm embarrassed to even claim membership with the human race ... case in point.

[#31 posted by cinemajay , January 5, 2009 11:08 AM]

There's an entire neighborhood of hasidic jews in St. Paul (Highland Park). The twin cities is of course pretty diverse. I can't speak for out state (the hinterlands). I'm sure people are nice there (except Sterns County).

I'm a transplant myself (by way of New Jersey and Wisconsin).

Minnesotans may come off as dense, but the truth is they're/we're just avoiding human contact. When your zipped up to your eyebrows it's tough to talk anyway.

[#32 posted by Roast Beef , January 5, 2009 11:21 AM]

@ Noen: "Ann Coulter is an ugly shitstain of a human being. I wish people would focus on that and not her presumed gender status."

Fucking A! You know who thinks it's really great to use imputations of otherness to try to discredit an opponent? Ann Coulter! Let's those of us who disagree with her leave those "tactics" to her. Were she trans, it would not lessen her credibility one bit--you can't decrease something that doesn't exist.

[#33 posted by Tom Hale , January 5, 2009 11:29 AM]

Noen @ 28 - Shall we compare bases? I wont stoop so low, but I have a lot of ammo here.

More on topic - I haven't listened to anything Coulter has had to say in several years. I found that her conversations usually break down into a bunch of one liners when she speaks with anyone that disagrees with her. Apparently she's amassed a big stack of talking points on which she's put her own little twist.

[#34 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 11:34 AM]

a soul-skank

[#35 posted by imipak , January 5, 2009 11:40 AM]

Woaaaah. That's the first time I've seen Coulter on video; how interesting that she looks like she sounds - madder than the proverbial sack of badgers. Anyone else see flames dancing in those black pits she has in her face where the rest of us have eyes?

[#36 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 11:44 AM]

I love seeing the anti-hate crowd spewing hate.

(I don't mean the post itself, mind you -- it was an excellent riposte by Franken, despite how much I disagree with him politically.)

Noen @21: And yes, everything in Franken's book is true and throughly documented or he would have been sued.

If you look at the slander and libel laws in the US, you'll see that this is in no way true. Besides, it would imply that everything in Coulter's books must be true, too, or she'd have been sued, and I'm sure there are Coulter fact-checkers here who would claim otherwise.

I'd be interested in seeing how many people who despise Coulter actually read her books. She's incredibly snarky, to be sure, but for the most part she's no worse than Franken or Bill Maher.

Her discussion of McCarthy in Treason was actually quite interesting, and I test her methods all the time to see what they actually know about McCarthy: How many people did he blacklist at the HUAC hearings? (Answer: none.) How many Hollywood stars suffered from his attacks? (Answer: none.) How many spies were actually working in the State Department when he ran his inquisition? (Answer: Hundreds.) Is there any proof of that? (Answer: Yes, from the Venona project.) Most people have no idea of the answers, and at the risk of being vilified, I'm inclined to think that there may be much more to her perspective than many people think.

[#37 posted by mdh , January 5, 2009 11:49 AM]

She's incredibly snarky, to be sure, but for the most part she's no worse than Franken or Bill Maher.

I admire how quickly she recovered from the tragedy of that house falling on her sister.

[#38 posted by mdh , January 5, 2009 11:58 AM]

tom hale, fire away. Please. Pretty pretty please?

Your powder is soaked, and you know it.

[#39 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 11:59 AM]

MDH @35: Snarky woman = witch, snarky man = comedian? Whatever.

[#40 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 12:10 PM]

comedian = Kathy Griffin, malicious,lying skank = Coulter

[#41 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 12:24 PM]

Hi Takuan. What about Sandra Bernhard, who said Sarah Palin better not come to Manhattan or she'd get gang-raped by her big black brothers? Is she:
1) among the scariest women on earth,
2) the biggest douche bag on the planet,
3) a fox with a penis,
4) bad rubbish,
5) an ugly shitstain of a human being,
6) a soul-skank, or
7) just a snarky woman?

BoingBoing was silent about Bernhard's comment, as far as I can tell, so I don't have any evidence of any member's thoughts on that; however, your opinion might be enlightening.

At any rate, I've read several of Coulter's books, and she footnotes them and even provides Lexis / Nexis search terms so that other people can verify her research. I don't recall Franken doing the same. One might say that her research could be open to interpretation, but "lying" carries it a bit far.

And "skank" is, of course, just a sexist ad hominem.

[#42 posted by imajication , January 5, 2009 12:26 PM]

#18:

Damn! My mail-stripper career never took off like I wanted it to, or like it should have according to Ms. Coulter.

[#43 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 12:26 PM]

Compose yourselves.

[#44 posted by mdh , January 5, 2009 12:27 PM]

JDF - reading comprehension please. I never said she was snarky --> because I don't think she is.

You however, you're funnier than a barrel of tiny monkeys.

[#45 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 12:30 PM]

actual, "skank" is a accurate and descriptive term. And Coulter is a liar in every sense of the word,so much so that its self-evident nature makes it obvious any gainsayer is as well. I'd no more enter into a debate over her humanity than I'd argue with The Producer's script-writer over his hero's good character. (you own a helmet, don't you?)

[#46 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 12:30 PM]

"I love seeing the anti-hate crowd spewing hate."

Or in other words: How dare you not tolerate my intolerance!!

I do not wish to live in a society where torture is up for debate. Imagine having a conversation with someone who thinks that rape is an option, who argues in favor of rape and yet meets any criticism with cries of "Unfair!!" That is the right wing.

For years the right wing has been spouting their hate, their bigotry, their lies, their filth and all too many liberals have been much too polite in responding to them. Thinking that you can compromise or in any way negotiate with the right is a mistake. They must be fought vigorously and forcefully at every turn.

Ann Coulter is a vicious ugly and twisted human being. She should be shouted down at every opportunity. She should be denied any public voice. Maybe she should go back to being a porn star.

[#47 posted by Patrick Dodds , January 5, 2009 12:31 PM]

BB + Firefox + YouTube Links = Endless circling thingammy and no video.

[#48 posted by mdh , January 5, 2009 12:34 PM]

JDF @ 41 - Bernhard REVELS in being everything you just said - and denies none of it. S.B. is not a 'talking head' - she's a comedienne.

Coulter is a comedienne too, but her buisiness cards all say 'pundit'.

Which one is more dishonest?

Another difference between the two - Bernhardt does not have need of noble paladins like you.

[#49 posted by ill lich , January 5, 2009 12:37 PM]

Yes, I remember this from a few years ago. Attendees at the forum gave Franken higher marks and the majority there thought he won the debate, but to be fair that probably just means there were more liberals than conservatives in attendance.

Of course Coulter really isn't all that bright. I recall the clip of her being interviewed by a Canadian about the war in Iraq and she wondered aloud why Canada won't support the US with troops when they did for Vietnam. He points out that Canada did NOT send troops to Vietnam and she INSISTS he (a Canadian) is wrong. Common sense should have told her that if Canada was involved in Vietnam, then Americans wouldn't have been fleeing to Canada to avoid the draft.

Franken could have also pointed out that unemployment was at 25% when FDR took office-- if she (time-traveling as FDR) were to NOT create the New Deal there may have been an armed revolution (after all, the Great Depression aided Hitler's rise to power), and it most likely would have been communist (as they were far more organized than fascists were in the US at that time)-- so Franken could then postulate that Coulter is a secret communist (which would probably enrage her.)

[#50 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 12:41 PM]

I think that the important lesson here is: never debate a alumnus of SNL. If your opponent survived John Belushi, you're fucked.

[#51 posted by Brainspore , January 5, 2009 12:41 PM]

#12 posted by Tom Hale , January 5, 2009 8:37 AM

I love Ann Coulter. I want her to have my babies. Looks like her 15 minutes of fame is about over, but she's definitely a fox.

Just be careful, I hear she eats her young.

[#52 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 12:42 PM]

MDH, you quoted me saying she was snarky and then gave no indication of what you thought except that she was a witch. Don't worry, though: If that was a complete non-sequitur, or if you didn't express yourself well, I don't hold it against you. :)

I like all kinds of monkeys, so I hope you'll consider putting me up against full-sized monkeys, too. Just for funniness, though, not for fighting or painting or arguing or anything like that.

[#53 posted by Rampant , January 5, 2009 12:44 PM]

@#12, this is my first time seeing her (before I had only read her rhetoric or people bashing her rhetoric), and I fully agree.

I do not get what the problem is though, honestly. She may have silly stances, she may then speak in a silly fashion, but not everyone can put together fully fluent arguments and must polemicize as a result! It is all merely funny.

[#54 posted by Brainspore , January 5, 2009 12:47 PM]

Franken could have also pointed out that unemployment was at 25% when FDR took office-- if she (time-traveling as FDR) were to NOT create the New Deal there may have been an armed revolution (after all, the Great Depression aided Hitler's rise to power), and it most likely would have been communist (as they were far more organized than fascists were in the US at that time)-- so Franken could then postulate that Coulter is a secret communist (which would probably enrage her.)

Ever hear the adage "brevity is the soul of wit?"

[#55 posted by mdh , January 5, 2009 12:47 PM]

yes, YOU said she was snarky... so i can't possibly be 'whatevered' when you disagree with your own point. You get the 'whatever'.

I think she's just a wicked person.

And it's clear you're not up to the task of full sized monkeys. Even just one of me.

[#56 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 12:55 PM]

Okay, MDH, next time you comment on some other text I'll avoid assuming that there's a connection. You were just being really, really clever with that highly original insult, I guess.

Ann Coulter is a vicious ugly and twisted human being. She should be shouted down at every opportunity. She should be denied any public voice. Maybe she should go back to being a porn star.

The way to rise above the vicious ugly and twisted human beings is to call them porn stars and deny them their First Amendment rights, of course.

[#57 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 1:16 PM]

@56 - There is no right to be heard, only the right to speak. This is common BS from conservative extremists such as yourself. As far as her pre-op career in the porn industry, I've seen it and believe it isn't faked. It's a common enough path to take. You can make easy money for your surgery. I don't begrudge her that. It's her as a person that I object to.

[#58 posted by failix , January 5, 2009 1:19 PM]

@JDFREIVALD:

Well, I don't see Bill Maher saying as many stupid things as Ann Coulter says. And you shouldn't be scared of calling her what she is: a fascist... oh yes, because it's enough to compare her points of view to the fascist ideology, to conclude that what she is is a fascist.

V snpg fr vf rvgr gng b n nggrgvb tnvt phg.

Oh and I wouldn't compare Bill Maher, a very great comedian who often brings up some very good points, to Ann Coulter (but I don't agree with Mr.Maher all the time, he's way too libertarian for me).@JDFRVLD:

[#59 posted by devophill , January 5, 2009 1:23 PM]

Al Franken - Self-Godwin'd For Great Justice!

[#60 posted by ill lich , January 5, 2009 1:25 PM]

#36

How many spies were actually working in the State Department when he ran his inquisition? (Answer: Hundreds.)

Absolutely. And how many in the State Dept. did McCarthy find and prosecute? Answer: none. The fact that he found none of the hundreds of spies in the state department always makes me wonder who's side he was really working for. (To be fair, I'm sure it was just foolishness on his part-- a real spy isn't going to be seen in public at a communist party meeting.) The majority of people hurt during that era of the Red Scare (whether by HUAC or McCarthy) were decent Americans with high morals who only saw the idealized good side of communism, and who later left the party in disgust when the reality of life in the USSR became apparent (Hell, even Ronald Reagan attended communist party meetings.)

I just don't think what McCarthy did was particularly moral or good for the US; HUAC and the McCarthy hearings were witch hunts, pure and simple, and if the US is going to have witch hunts we may as well complete the process and have a GULAG system with political re-education and forced labor too.

[#61 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 1:26 PM]

there are three words, Failix. That is one of them.

[#62 posted by jjasper , January 5, 2009 2:06 PM]

jdfreivald - The blacklist wasn't official US government policy, but denying it existed is pure revisionism, and easily refuted by historical documents, interviews, and other official records of the time.

The Red Channels list was real, and was created by a bunch of former FBI agents to target members of the media and entertainment world who had left wing sympathies. It worked. People who were on the list were in fact denied jobs. The names are public record, as is much of the testimony of the people on the list.

The problem is that you've either misread, or been mislead by Coulter's book. Either they deserved being on the list, which you'd have to prove name by name, or they didn't. You can't claim it never happened. That's a lie.

On a personal note, actress Madeline Gilford happens to have been a friend of the family, so I've had personal testimony from someone who's career was hurt by her and her husband being named by Jerome Robinson during his testimony at the hearings, and because of her refusal to testify.

[#63 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 2:10 PM]

This is common BS from conservative extremists such as yourself.

I think you assume a lot. I might be more extreme than you even imagine, but I'd said nothing up to that point that indicated extreme positions. So please feel free to take your ad hominems elsewhere, and discuss issues instead.

As far as her pre-op career in the porn industry, I've seen it and believe it isn't faked. It's a common enough path to take. You can make easy money for your surgery. I don't begrudge her that.

So a Cornell grad cum laude and former editor of the Michigan Law Review becomes a porn star because she needs the money for an operation? Really?

You didn't say "maybe she should go be a hot-shot corporate lawyer somewhere", you said, "Maybe she should go back to being a porn star." Either you are completely ignorant of the woman or you were simply vicious.

Well, I don't see Bill Maher saying as many stupid things as Ann Coulter says.

In my opinion, Coulter is more vicious than Maher -- barely, but I think she'd be upset if I said otherwise -- and I don't think Maher is an intelligent man. You and I may disagree on that because we're arguing from different sets of first principles, but that's the way I see it.

And you shouldn't be scared of calling her what she is: a fascist... oh yes, because it's enough to compare her points of view to the fascist ideology, to conclude that what she is is a fascist.

People think that I'm a fascist, too, and I'm clearly not, so I won't take your unsubstantiated claim at face value. Perhaps you'd like to show the specific ways in which she's proved herself to be a fascist?

V snpg fr vf rvgr gng b n nggrgvb tnvt phg.

She is clearly an attention grabber, but your language says more about you than about her.

And how many in the State Dept. did McCarthy find and prosecute? Answer: none.

Not surprising, considering the number of communists who were smearing him at the time. The questions are: Was he right? Was it worth fighting the communists? Would America have been worse off if nobody tried to prevent the communists from gaining control of the US Government?

The answers to the first two are "yes" and "yes", respectively. We can only guess at the third answer, but I think it's likely.

The majority of people hurt during that era of the Red Scare (whether by HUAC or McCarthy) were decent Americans with high morals

Would more people have been hurt if the American State Department had been more deeply infiltrated by communists?

HUAC and the McCarthy hearings were witch hunts, pure and simple

Perhaps, but there were witches. Read Whittaker Chambers, too, to see first-hand what they were like.

By all accounts, Joe McCarthy was a bully. Not surprising in a politician.

But in this case he was right: he simply wanted to make sure that people didn't have the right to work in the State Department if they were thought to be under the influence of the Soviet "We will bury you" Union. He didn't blacklist civilians or actors or anyone else in the civilian world.

if the US is going to have witch hunts we may as well complete the process and have a GULAG system with political re-education and forced labor too.

Preventing your enemies from infiltrating your state department is not equivalent to forced re-education and GULAGs. This type of hysterical overreaction is precisely the kind of thing that comes from not objectively examining the time period, the enemy, and McCarthy's goals.

[#64 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 2:13 PM]

JJspr, y'r mssng th pnt (nd thrby mkng prt f mn). s nn Cltr crrctly pnts t, nd mst ppl fl t rlz (thgh ll Lch, t hs/hr crdt, clrly ds), s tht th blcklst ws prt f th HC ctvts, nt McCrthy's. McCrthy ws Sntr, nd "HC" stnds fr "Hs n-mrcn ctvts Cmmtt". Th HC ctvts wr ssntlly vr by th tm McCrthy strtd wrkng n th >rl cmmnst nfltrtn prblm n th Stt Dprtmnt.

Th gnrnc srrndng ths tm prd, th thrt, nd McCrthy's rl s rlly stggrng.

nd y knw wh gt t rght n hr bk?

Gng phg, N Pbhygr.

[#65 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 2:14 PM]

"Hell, even Ronald Reagan attended communist party meetings."

Some of todays neocons were hard line Marxist-Stalinists at one time. For many of these people politics is simply a means to an end. Amassing more and more wealth and power. They don't actually believe the shit that comes out of their mouths. Are you kidding? They just say and pretend to believe whatever they think furthers their ambition.

Ann Coulter is little more than a semi-intelligent script attached to a database of talking points. She can deflect some criticism by screeching and howling but she needs someone to "play along" and feed her her lines. When Elizabeth Edwards confronted her directly she folded and was almost in tears.

Intellectually and emotionally she's a child. a sick, twisted, shriveled shell of a human child.

[#66 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 2:21 PM]

I'm turning this thread off for one hour so that potential commenters can review the Moderation Policy.

[#67 posted by ill lich , January 5, 2009 3:40 PM]

By all accounts, Joe McCarthy was a bully. Not surprising in a politician.

Yes, and by many accounts (including those in his own party, Ike among them) he was not particularly intelligent. I have no problem with weeding out spies (for any country) within the US State Dept., but really, how intelligent is it to try and do so with public hearings? That kind of circus is counterproductive (as is clearly evident by McCarthy's "success" rate).

The fact that Coulter defends McCarthy so strongly is either because she is an attention hound, or because she is just not very smart. I would be willing to read her books if given a free copy, but I won't put any money in her pocket. From what Franken says about her in his book, I get the impression that she is like a lazy high school kid trying to write a history paper, and willingly ignores evidence that contradicts her thesis, or invents evidence if necessary; it's about winning arguments for herself or her side, not about arriving at any kind of truth.

(I never said that "Preventing your enemies from infiltrating your state department is equivalent to forced re-education and GULAGs"; you misunderstood. Rather I was saying that political witch-hunts are the kind of thing common in totalitarian countries, and whether the US becomes totalitarian at the hands of foreign agents, or due to our own political witch-hunts doesn't matter; there's more than one way to end up like the USSR. The enemy is never so great that we should give up our own freedoms or persecute innocent citizens just to "be safe.")

I believe we have moved far beyond the original topic of this post so I will shut up about McCarthy.

[#68 posted by adonai , January 5, 2009 4:15 PM]

Also, communist leanings =/= Soviet spy.

[#69 posted by davedorr9 , January 5, 2009 4:23 PM]

Yes, we all get confused about 'McCarthyism' and what McCarthy actually did. In many ways, it is understandable but her (and jdfreivald's) defence of the man doesn't capture the fact it was the politics of fear that drove the process.

How many Hollywood blacklisted people were hurt by the HUAC, of which McCarthy didn't take part but McCarthyism took a huge role? MANY.

The problem - which Al Franken is nodding to - isn't that a person could say that they disagree with the new deal or that they felt that communism wasn't good for America. It is just that the hyperbolic, arrogant, fear-inducing, no-due-process manner that both Ann Coulter and McCarthy take up (and Franken takes up in response) are ultimately destructive to ideas and the hope for a better future.

Fortunately, no one elected Ann Coulter to anything. And, McCarthy was censured for his tactics. At some point, it doesn't matter if you have a point: no problem is so insidious or invidious that you can use proof by emphatic assertion. The point is never to lose sight of the fact that Coulter's tactics are just attention-seeking disguised as vitriol, not useful commentary on our society or history.

[#70 posted by buddy66 , January 5, 2009 4:30 PM]

Troll jdfreivald,

You are as fast and loose with your claims as Coulter is with hers. I tried a bit of her stuff but gave up when I realized she was either putting us on or was appallingly ignorant. I suspected the latter. But what really put me off was when she called the 9/11 victim's families who were pushing Congress for public hearings on the disaster, "the weeping widows in the peanut gallery." It was then I knew Something nasty this way comes. But enough about Coulter's vileness...

I'm curious as to who some of these "hundreds" of communists at Foggy Bottom were. (That's your word, not hers.) The hottest prospect, Harry Dexter White, was dead for five years before McCarthy made his claim. Alger Hiss was discredited and in very early retirement. The seven others he did eventually name were either never in the State Department (White was Treasury) or long gone from government. If there were hundreds, why didn't he name them? Congressmen have "floor immunity" and can't be sued for what they say when in session. He could have made history with a capital "H." by just naming a few live ones, instead of being flushed down its toilet.

But "Tail Gunner Joe" was comfortable in toilets. It was common knowledge in D.C. and Madison that genial drunk Joe McCarthy was a witch-hunting fag-baiting "wide-stance" Republican, like the recent Larry Craig, who was obsessed with communists and homosexuals. He was an alcoholic wretch without a sincere ounce of character in his wretched body. "If ever man deserved his fate...."

"Her discussion of McCarthy in Treason was [sic] actually quite interesting, and I test her methods all the time to see what they [sic?] actually know about McCarthy: ... How many spies were actually working in the State Department when he ran his inquisition? (Answer: Hundreds.) Is there any proof of that? (Answer: Yes, from the Venona project.)"

The Venona list names NO spies in the State Department. It is available on-line. Check it yourself. You probably shouldn't spread such shit around without checking first.

You could smell like a toilet.

[#71 posted by grimc , January 5, 2009 4:31 PM]

Not surprising, considering the number of communists who were smearing him at the time.

Citation, please. Wiki's got some that show fervent anti-communists calling McCarthy counterproductive to the anti-communist effort. I'd love to see yours.

The questions are: Was he right?

How many of the purported 100+ on McCarthy's secret list of communists in the State Department were exposed? Somewhere between 'none' and 'zilch'.

Was it worth fighting the communists?

Sure. 'Cept McCarthy 'fought communists' as much as he flew those extra 20 combat missions in order to qualify for a commendation.

Would America have been worse off if nobody tried to prevent the communists from gaining control of the US Government?

As if McCarthy was a lone wolf, slamming the doors of the Capitol Building shut on the pinkos. McCarthy revisionists like to point out Venona, but Tail-Gunner Joe had nothing to do with it. There were already real government agencies chasing down real communist threats. McCarthy simply rode the wave of anti-communism for his own shining moment in the spotlight. By mid-1954 it was obvious he was full of it, leading to that famous statement:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?

McCarthy's lack of response to that question pretty much shows why Coulter is such a big fan of his.

[#72 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 4:55 PM]

jdfreivald
"I think you assume a lot. I might be more extreme than you even imagine, but I'd said nothing up to that point that indicated extreme positions. So please feel free to take your ad hominems elsewhere, and discuss issues instead."

The issues is Ann Coulter and you are defending her. It's funny you consider "conservative extremist" ad hominem. It's just a descriptive phrase like "extreme leftist" would be. You are carrying water for the most hated woman in America. A woman with clearly hateful beliefs like "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building" her anti-semitic remarks, her homophobic remarks and on and on and on.

So to recap, you are defending an anti-semitic, homophobic reactionary who thinks the New York Times committed treason by publishing embarrassing photos of Bush and that they should be bombed for that. And you think calling you on that is ad hominem? No, when character is the issue, issues of character or the lack thereof are appropriate. For Coulter the evidence is overwhelming. She lacks any kind of character or moral class at all. You in defending her risk being seen in that same light.

"People think that I'm a fascist, too, and I'm clearly not"

I don't think it's clear at all. If the people around you are telling you that your political leanings make them think you might be fascist... well they just might be on to something. Given your defense of a right wing racist, anti-semitic, homophobic bomb thrower here it's hard to disagree with their assessment.

Conservative extremists such as yourself, Ann Coulter and the rest of the 23 percenters i.e. Authoritarians, do tend towards fascist politics. That's what the neocon political philosophy is. It's nothing more than neo Straussian fascism wrapped in a flag and dressed up for sale to the American public. They've been fairly open about it.

"Joe McCarthy was a bully. Not surprising in a politician."

Equally unsurprising is your support for a bully. It is the nature of Authoritarians to bully and to applaud bullying in others. The good news for me is that I believe you are an evolutionary dead end. Conservative extremists in America will only succeed in further marginalizing themselves going forward. The Southern strategy of appealing white southern racists is over. Other traditional GOP tactics also appear to be failing. I think the next eight years will drive the final nail. McCain was your last gasp and best hope for maintaining any kind of relevance. With any luck, the Overton Window will move back to the center and even a little to the left.

[#73 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 5:18 PM]

I had heard of Ann Coulter before, but had not really known anything about her. I still don't, I suppose.

But: in isolation, I'm not sure I have a problem with her saying "Christians are perfected Jews". That's pretty much what Christianity is about. Christians believe Jesus came along and continued/completed the Jewish story, by making them into Christians.. So presumably they believe that current Jews just have that small step to make them complete, or 'perfect'.

Is this any crazier than Christians thinking athiests are incomplete? Or damning them to hell? Surely she is just reiterating (maybe in an unkind, but straight-forward, way) what she and millions of others believe?

Do Jews believe anything about other non-Jews? Could I be offended? Should I care?

[#74 posted by grimc , January 5, 2009 5:52 PM]

@arkizzle

You'll be much happier if you continued to not know anything about her.

To your specific point, if it was a theologist discussing Christian philosophy that said that, it'd be one thing. Isn't it different when the messenger has a history of bigoted public statements, and says this about Christians and Jews in response to a question of what America looks like in her dreams? (Answer: The 2004 Republican Convention. I kid you not.)

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/12/coulter-we-want-jews-to-be-perfected/

[#75 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 6:00 PM]

FYI - Muslims are 'perfected' Christians. It's the 'we're in, so slam the door' theory. Mohammed is called 'the seal of prophecy', meaning the last legitimate prophet, to make sure that nobody comes along and 'perfects' Islam. I would imagine that Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses have similar views of having perfected Christianity.

[#76 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 6:02 PM]

"That's pretty much what Christianity is about."

Ah, no, that is what one extreme sect thinks that Christianity is all about. They also tend to believe that once you are saved and have given your will over to God you cannot sin. If you are right with God and in submission to His will, then your will is God's will. That's pretty damn scary but that is not "what Christianity is about".

Donny Deutsch called Ann Coulter's remarks for what they were, anti-semitic. When you view Jews as little more than a prop for the Apocalypse then yeah, you're antisemitic.

"Is this any crazier than Christians thinking athiests are incomplete?"

"Christians" don't think any such thing. Certain sects do. It's a rather annoying habit of some Atheists to paint all Christians with a fundamentalist brush.

[#77 posted by jjasper , January 5, 2009 6:29 PM]

One of the creators of the Red Channels list ended up working for McCarthy. Just because he worked in spook hunting at state doesn't mean he wasn't involved in other red scare activities outside his official capacity.

But good point about confusing HUAC with McCarthy. Mea culpa.

[#78 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 6:37 PM]

Grimc, I totally get the 'context' issue. I was sure to say "in isolation" about her comments, as I really don't know her background at all.

However, the link you provided just doesn't seem that crazy to me - aside from the fact she spoke similar words at a Republican Convention (but that is a whole other issue). Again, without any idea who she is, and what she has said before; it just sounds like standard middle-Christian thinking.

Good Christians (who really believe in it) want to save everyone, and they believe that the only way you can do that is to AJCAYPS. There are, of course, many types of Christians, but I presume the central binding threads (of Good ones) are getting to heaven and wanting to save people from hell - whether or not they are preachy about it.

I don't go for homogenous states myself, but religions do. And while I can definitely see the scary-side in people promoting across-the-board conversion to the One True Religion, I can't fault their wants. Their book says so.

I can probably fault her lack of respect for other points of view, but she is talking of her ideal state, no? My ideal state has no religion at all. I have no qualms about saying it, or offending a religious person. I think that makes me a Good Antitheist.

Is she not just being a Good Christian? (Again, without all the baggage that I'm unaware of.)

[#79 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 6:42 PM]

Noen, that was not a 'fundamentalist brush'.

That is believing in the central tenants of your religion. Is Christianity not founded on the King of the Jews being the Messiah? If you are a Christian, is that not the least of your beliefs?

And please don't quote me to make a point I hadn't even alluded to. I don't care whether ot not some sect or other thinks they know God's will and can do no wrong, it's not what I was talking about.

[#80 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 6:43 PM]

Antinous, I agree. They all (offshoots and progressions) think that they are "it". That is exactly my point.

[#81 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 6:55 PM]

astounding, she'll lie about ANYTHING
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010

[#82 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 6:58 PM]

Interesting that Ms. Coulter is not known internationally. She's an important force for hate rhetoric in the US.

[#83 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 7:07 PM]

Thank goodness she isn't. I can only presume there isn't enough of a widespread loony-fundy-zealot market to sell her in Europe. I'm still trying to understand her position on stuff though, so maybe there is more to her than that.

[#84 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 7:08 PM]

Interviewer: Why do you call him Barack Hussein Obama?
Ms. Coulter: I just think it's funny.

And that's her game in a nutshell.

[#85 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 7:22 PM]

I just read her (quite looong) wikipedia page.. She sounds like a dick, you can keep her.

[#86 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 7:22 PM]

there's a scholarly paper for someone: why is it so easy to spot the loony in another culture?

[#87 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 7:31 PM]

Tak, that is a truism if ever I heard one. There's a doctorate in it for someone.

[#88 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 7:33 PM]

Ark,

Why look up Ann Coulter on Wikipedia when you can look her up on Dickipedia?

[#89 posted by buddy66 , January 5, 2009 7:35 PM]

Is it possible she's the reincarnation of Andy Kaufman and is the greatest failed comedian of them all? Seriously, could this all be just a shtick ?

Bill Maher seems to know something.

[#90 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 7:40 PM]

A wiki of dicks.

What a find!

[#91 posted by ill lich , January 5, 2009 8:09 PM]

It occurred to me, reading back over the various McCarthy-themed posts here, that the McCarthy hearings (yes, not the same as HUAC, though we can use "McCarthyism" as a broad brush for the various hearings) were what Bruce Schneier calls "Security Theater"-- they made a lot of noise and drew a lot of attention, but got few results (or at least not the advertised results).

The human ego is a funny thing. The truth about McCarthy (or Nixon) is a blow to the ego of the right that they can't let stand. Instead they will bend over backwards with "the end justifies the means" arguments that my parents always taught me were wrong (albeit rephrased as "two wrongs don't make a right"). It hurts to be wrong sometimes, but you have to suck it up and be an adult, and look at the evidence and say "oops, my mistake." The alternative is to keep fighting the same losing battle over and over for years, losing respect among the rational, and appealing only to a hardened corps of willfully ignorant sycophants.

A conservative pundit who can politely discuss politics by citing reliable facts and figures, instead of personal attacks and presenting opinion-as-fact, is someone I will always listen to attentively, even if I ultimately disagree with him or her. That is not Ann Coulter. As others have pointed out here, her arguments often consist of a prepared bag of "gotcha" moments she thrusts into the conversation when it isn't going her way (how often has she brought up Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick in completely unrelated discussions? It's like some Derringer she keeps up her sleeve when she gets in a jam.)

I wish Al Franken the best of luck in the Senate, and suspect that C-SPAN will be a little more entertaining now.

[#92 posted by Master Gracey , January 5, 2009 8:24 PM]

Senator Franken? You're a bit premature...

Minnesota is a few months away from have a full roster of Senators, as the Coleman challenge will likely escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it will first have to exhaust all lower court options.

I'm not sure why Frankens 225 vote lead is so decisive in this recount, while Coleman's original lead of 477 votes the day after the election was so questionable... An interesting graphic of running leads during the election ballot recount process.

[#93 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 8:33 PM]

I am sure we all look forward to Senator Franken's successful run at the presidency soon. "President Franken".... yup!

[#94 posted by benher , January 5, 2009 8:36 PM]

Why anyone would even agree to engage this woman in any sort of 'debate' is beyond me - almost as perplexing as why people continue to pay attention to her. The "Jerry! Jerry! Whuup!Whuup!Whuup!" shouts from the audience were a nice barf topping to this otherwise delightful clip.

[#95 posted by Master Gracey , January 5, 2009 9:02 PM]

how often has she brought up Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick in completely unrelated discussions?

Mary Jo Kopechne was not available for comment.

I give you a very young Ted Kennedy speaking on the subject

[#96 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 9:07 PM]

Master Gracey
"Senator Franken? You're a bit premature..."

Nope, try again. Al Franken has been officially declared the winner fair and square. To quote Harry Reid:

"Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate," Reid told Politico’s Manu Raju. "He lost the election. He can stall things, but he'll never serve in the Senate."

arkizzle
"Noen, that was not a 'fundamentalist brush'."
"That is believing in the central tenants of your religion."

Are you ok? You seem agitated and this is getting far off topic but... Anyway, your opinion of what people must believe in order to be a Christian closely resembles the fundamentalist view of strict adherence to a rigidly defined central dogma. That's nice but not everyone believes that. For quite a few people this is exactly what religion is not.

"please don't quote me to make a point I hadn't even alluded to. I don't care whether ot not some sect or other thinks they know God's will and can do no wrong, it's not what I was talking about."

I know that, it was intended to be an extreme example. You were pompously declaring what it is that one must believe in order to be a Christian. It is a negative example to your assertion that "All Christians believe X". No, as a matter of fact they don't and it's offensive to most religious folk for an Atheist to dogmatically assert what their beliefs are supposed to be.

This all feels really odd since I'm an atheist myself.

[#97 posted by jdfreivald , January 5, 2009 10:03 PM]

T rcp my ntl pst n ths thrd: "...t th rsk f bng vlfd, 'm nclnd t thnk tht thr my b mch mr t hr prspctv thn mny ppl thnk." hv nt clmd tht nn s prncss r tht hr prspctv s 100% crrct r tht McCrthy ws nc r ffctv mn. S lt's kp ll f ths n prspctv, shll w?

Nn tlls m tht tht 'm fscst bcs "Th sss s nn Cltr nd y r dfndng hr." sy tht smn ctlly my hv pnt -- tht fcts my bck hr p -- nd tht mks m fscst. Nn, ths s nt rtnl rgmnt. Fr th rcrd, m nt fscst: hv nn f th chrctrstcs dscrbd hr, fr nstnc.

Nn ls ssrts prsnlty trt -- thrtrnsm -- bsd n my ssrtn f sm fcts nd my wllngnss t lstn t smn whm s/h sys "shld b shtd dwn t vry pprtnty" nd "gvn n pblc vc". Ths s bt rnc.

wndrd whthr Cltr's crtcs hv rd hr bks, nd ll Lch sys, " wld b wllng t rd hr bks f gvn fr cpy, bt wn't pt ny mny n hr pckt." rspct nt wntng t gv pltcl nms mny, bt y'v nswrd my qstn.

(f y'd lk t rd hr bk, snd yr snl ml ddrss t jdfrvld t gml; 'll snd y my cpy fr fr prvdd tht y prms t rprt pblcly n wht y lrn, bth frm hr nd frm tryng t dbnk hr.)

T b clr: t's mstly rrlvnt tht McCrthy ws dmb; by mst bjctv msrs, nn Cltr s smrt, s by yr wn lghts t's clr tht ntllgnc sn't vrythng. gr tht McCrthy ws br, bt ws h rght bt cmmnsts n th Stt Dprtmnt?

Smlrly, nn s crss nd vr th tp. Bt s thr "mch mr t hr prspctv [bt McCrthy] thn mny ppl thnk"?

-----

Thr's mr t sy, bt t's lt nd 'll lmt myslf t fw fctl sss.

Bddy66 sys, mdst sm dscrts rhtrc, >'m crs s t wh sm f ths "hndrds" f cmmnsts t Fggy Bttm wr. (Tht's yr wrd, nt hrs.)

ccpt yr crrctn: shld hv sd "cmmnsts", nt "sps". Bt thr wr pprntly hndrds f cmmnsts. wnt bck t lk ths p, nd s tht th "hndrds" wr 284 Stt Dprtmnt mplys n whm dvrs fndngs hd bn rprtd s f 1946, ccrdng t Scrtry f Stt Jms Byrns. Ths ws bfr McCrthy gt nt fll swng, t's tr, nd 79 f ths hd bn clrd frm th rlls by thn, bt tht lvs 205 t rnd th tm h bgn hs nvstgtn. McCrthy hmslf clmd 57 n th Stt Dprtmnt.

Ths, f crs, ds nt cnt cmmnsts nd sps n thr prts f th fdrl gvrnmnt.

>Th Vnn lst nms N sps n th Stt Dprtmnt. t s vlbl n-ln. Chck t yrslf. Y prbbly shldn't sprd sch sht rnd wtht chckng frst.

Thr r vr 100 nms f dntfd ndvdls n th dclssfd, pblcly vlbl lst. Nt ll f whch r vn ncssrly sps -- myb 80% wr.

Tht sd, tht s nt th cmplt lst, nd mny ppl r n th cbls bt nt dntfd.

hd thght tht thr wr mny ppl frm th Stt Dprtmnt thr; f m wrng bt tht, 'll t crw fr t. Bt m sr tht thr r mny xctv brnch prsnnl n thr, nd ls, rcll tht whl Vnn s sld prf f spyng, tht dsn't mn tht t s cmprhnsv; jst bcs smn wsn't nmd n th Vnn cbls dsn't mn tht thy wrn't sps.

>By md-1954 t ws bvs h ws fll f t, ldng t tht fms sttmnt:

"Hv y n sns f dcncy, sr, t lng lst? Hv y lft n sns f dcncy?

McCrthy's lck f rspns t tht qstn prtty mch shws why Cltr s sch bg fn f hs.

ctlly, Cltr mks mncmt f ths n hr bk. McCrthy ws n trl, nt sspctd cmmnst, nd (gng frm mmry nw) s hs ssstnt Chn ws bng qstnd, nd ws bng tntd t rmv ll cmmnsts frm gvrnmnt s qckly s pssbl, McCrthy ntrrptd nd tld th qstnr (cll hm "Q") tht Q's ssstnt ws cmmnst, nd tht f Q trly wntd t rmv cmmnsts frm gvrnmnt thn h shld strt wth hs wn stff. Tht's whn Q trd p nd skd f h hd n shm. Th fnny thng, f crs, s tht Q lrdy knw tht hs wn ssstnt ws cmmnst, s h ws shddng crcdl trs fr th cmr.

vn Dvd Hrwtz, wh crtczs Cltr's bk strngly, ccpts ths f hr.

s sd, thnk hr prspctv hlds p bttr thn mny ppl thnk. Nt prfctly, bt bttr. nd nvctv s nt n rgmnt gnst t.

'm dn, flks. Hv nc nght.

[#98 posted by Mark Jaquith , January 5, 2009 10:13 PM]

This clip was posted in 2007, and Franken hasn't been sworn in yet.

[#99 posted by minTphresh , January 5, 2009 10:17 PM]

ahhh, jd. sleep well, my pet. and dream your tremulous, right-wing dreams. thoughts of your bulimic, blond botoxer swimming languidly through your grey-matter. oh, yeah. that's it. nothing to see here kids.

[#100 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 10:22 PM]

(shudderr!)

[#101 posted by Antinous , January 5, 2009 10:33 PM]

I like communists. And pie.

[#102 posted by arkizzle , January 5, 2009 11:01 PM]

"Are you ok? You seem agitated and this is getting far off topic but..."

Passive-aggressive much?

"You were pompously declaring what it is that one must believe in order to be a Christian."

So there is not a single, notable thing that one would have to hold true to identify as a Christian? Really?

Believing that Jesus, aka King of the Jews, is the Messiah, isn't it?

That was the basis of my comment, and is what I said is "pretty much what Christianity is about". Now all of a sudden I'm talking about "one extreme sect". Huh?

Noen, please name me a mainstream branch of Christianity that doesn't think Jesus was a Jew and the Messiah, and is a progression from the Old Testament.

It doesn't seem that 'fundamentalist'. Do you actually think the group "Christians" would be unfairly described as believing Jesus is the Messiah, or are you just being a broadstrokes-nanny? Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and comes from Jewish stock. I'm gonna take that on trust.

Besides that, I used a "damning to hell" example and a "rejection of atheism" example. I can't tell you how many times I have been assured of my eventual demise if I go on without JC. And I have been questioned about the purpose of life withoout God many times in RL and a good few times on this board. Are they unfair examples of Christian ideas?
____

Frankly Noen, you can be pretty pompous and broadstroke'd yourself, at times. You often make improbably absolute statements about wide groups of people (eg. men and their motivations / prostitutes and theirs) and leave no room for argument in your statements.

I said a fairly mundane thing, and you acted like I said "all Christians eat babies". I didn't mention anything "fundamentalist" but you served it to me like I did. I think you jumped in feet first, without regard to what I was actually saying and misread both my tone and content.

[#103 posted by grimc , January 5, 2009 11:03 PM]

Actually, Coulter makes mincemeat of this in her book. McCarthy was on trial, not a suspected communist, and (going from memory now) as his assistant Cohn was being questioned, and was being taunted to remove all communists from government as quickly as possible, McCarthy interrupted and told the questioner (call him "Q") that Q's assistant was a communist...

Cohn was asked to give McCarthy's secret list of 130 communists working in defense plants to the AG before the end of the day. That's taunting, huh?

And who gives a crap about Horowitz. One racist nutbag disagreeing with another racist nutbag only proves that you hold the opinions of racist nutbags too highly.

[#104 posted by noen , January 5, 2009 11:10 PM]

jdfreivald
"Noen tells me that that I'm a fascist"

No, I said no such thing, please read what I said again. I said if the people around you are calling you a fascist then perhaps there is something to that. Especially given your spirited defense of neocon (re: fascist) Ann Coulter. You volunteered that information and now you're crying that it came back to you.

If you wish to know about me (I'm a she BTW) I count myself and a Democratic Socialist and left of center (the real center).

"Noen also asserts a personality trait"

Authoritarians are found on the left as well as the right, but they do tend, I believe, to be more prominent among conservative extremists. I gave a pretty detailed explanation why I thought you were one. But you've been valiantly defending M'Lady's honor for several hours now. She's one of the most reviled women in America. A racist, antisemitic, homophobic human being who advocates the murder of journalists who say things she disapproves of.

You made that bed, you climbed in it with her and now you're whining that someone crapped in it.

You complain about my hypocrisy or your perception that I am hypocritical. Fair enough. Normally I would even say you're right. But, and it's an important but, I feel there are times and situations where certain people and ideas must be opposed as vigorously as possible. People who advocate torture and genocide as Ann has are one good example. They represent an existential threat to society itself.

I read the right wing blogs. I've been seeing phrases like "We need to start killing Liberals" for a while now. Understand this, if the right resorts to violence as they have threatened, you will lose and lose big. Count on it.

Oh look! Ann's been disinvited to appear on the Today Show. I can't imagine why. I'm sure it must be someone else's fault.

[#105 posted by Kieran O'Neill , January 5, 2009 11:25 PM]

Mmmmmm .... Pie!

[#106 posted by Takuan , January 5, 2009 11:37 PM]

proof positive! the Antichrist cannot abide pie!

[#107 posted by Frank W , January 6, 2009 12:53 AM]

Naah… That's Anjelica Huston.

[#108 posted by failix , January 6, 2009 3:58 AM]

Wohoo...

Jdfreivald:

Yup, me using the word phag without hesitating on Ann Coulter, shows that I was so tired when I wrote this, that it could've somehow been insulting for women, therefore I apologize to every women who felt upset, and take back this comment. I prefer replacing it by the following one:

Ann Coulter is a disrespectful, ignorant, stupid, full of shit asshole.

My comment also tells that I don't hesitate showing no respect at all to fascists. And if you need the proof of her right-wing extremism, you must have some problems with understanding what she says. Because even I, whose native language isn't English, understand the words she says and the meanings behind them.

My comments may show that I'm only a little 17 year old idealist, but you know what? If you were a little more aware of words and their meanings, you'd have figured that out by yourself.

Now I seriously think you need to 1: either revise your political positions and views. Or 2: study and take a look at: conservatism, fascism, and recent history.

Actually you need both.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

[#109 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 4:33 AM]

Nn sd, "N, sd n sch thng, pls rd wht sd gn."

Fr ngh. rtrct th sttmnt.

rgnlly ntndd t nt tht ppl wh r clld fscst nd nt b -- t's ftn cntnt-fr sttmnt dsgnd t sht dwn dscssn -- nd tht vn , wh m dcddly nt fscst gt cll tht frm tm t tm (gnrlly by ppl wh dn't knw m, bcs dfnd sm cnsrvtv pstn); ths, wn't ccpt yr ssrtn wtht vdnc.

ddn't xprss myslf clrly ngh bfr, nd msrd y smwht, nd plgz.

S nw pls fl fr t shw tht yr sttmnt ws nt cntnt-fr nd hw Cltr s fscst.

n th thr hnd, yr wrds d mk y ppr s thgh y thnk tht sm >ppl r s lthsm tht thr >ds cnnt b dfndd, smthng wth whch strngly dsgr, nd yr ttmpt t pnt m s thrtrn rmns flsh: Y my s wll tll blck mn tht h's lkly t b crmnl bcs thr r s mny blcks n jl.

Ths s nt whnng. thnk 'm bng prtty cvl.

>Sh's n f th mst rvld wmn n mrc.

rrlvnt. Sh's ls n f th mst lvd.

> rcst, ntsmtc, hmphbc hmn bng wh dvcts th mrdr f jrnlsts wh sy thngs sh dspprvs f.

Hv y vr rd mr thn clmn f hrs? 'm nclnd t thnk nt, snc nyn wh gts mr thn th ccsnl snppt r tw frm l Frnkn wll knw tht ths chrctrztn -- spclly th bt bt th jrnlsts -- s mr vr-th-tp thn hr clmns r.

> rd th rght wng blgs. 'v bn sng phrss lk "W nd t strt kllng Lbrls" fr whl nw.

nn Cltr grs wth vry cmmnt wrttn n vry rght-wng blg? Dbtfl. Th rght wng hs bn hghly dsrgnzd fr lng tm nw. t's bd d t scrb rprhnsbl ds t smn spcfc jst bcs y s ths ds n rght-wng blgs.

nd rd lft-wng blgs. (nd rd BngBng fr th fn stff nrmlly, bt s lt f lfty pltcs hr, t.) Thr's lt f vtrl nd thrts f rght-wngrs (ths fscsts!) drctd gnst rght-wngrs, t, bt dn't clm tht ny spcfc lft-wngr s vlnt bcs f t.

>ndrstnd ths, f th rght rsrts t vlnc s thy hv thrtnd, y wll ls nd ls bg. Cnt n t.

vryn cts s thgh rght-wng ctvsts r vlnt. Th pcfl nt-brtn prtsts n Wshngtn vry yr r fr sght lss vlnt (rd: nt t ll) thn th mtngs f th G-8.

> m gng t ls bg rgrdlss, thnk. McCn s nt cnsrvtv, nd f h's th bst cnddt w cn fld thn wn't b hppy wth mrcn pltcs fr lng tm.

ll Lch sd, >Th trth bt McCrthy (r Nxn) s blw t th g f th rght tht thy cn't lt stnd. nstd thy wll bnd vr bckwrds wth "th nd jstfs th mns" rgmnts tht my prnts lwys tght m wr wrng

Y hv ths bckwrds. ws lwys tght tht McCrthy ws rprhnsbl, ltrlly vl mn. ws qt srprsd t fnd s mch f bss fr hs ctns. Tht's prt f why md th cmmnt dd bt hm tht strtd ths mss: bcs Cltr's bmbstc xtrr crts hstl nvrnmnt rnd hr, bt tht hr ctl pnt -- tht th trth bt Sntr McCrthy my b fr sght dffrnt frm wht t pprs -- my hv mrt.

'm nt "fghtng lsng bttl," 'm fllwng vdnc.

Grmc @103 sd, "Chn ws skd t gv McCrthy's scrt lst f 130 cmmnsts wrkng n dfns plnts t th G bfr th nd f th dy. Tht's tntng, hh?"

hvn't sn ny frst-prsn ccnts r flm, bt hs mnnr s dscrbd s tntng. nd nbdy, s fr s hv sn, dspts th mn pnt: Whn Jsph Wlch sd "hv y n shm, sr?" t ws bcs McCrthy pntd t tht Frd Fshr, mn n Wlch's lw ffc, ws cmmnst. ( rlr ncrrctly sd tht Fshr ws Wlch's ssstnt.) ws gng t sy McCrthy "td" hm, bt pprntly Fshr ws lrdy knwn t b cmmnst -- mnng tht th "hv y n shm" cmmnt ws mrly thtr, nd shld b ntrprtd s sch.

Spkng f thtr, dn't dspt th fct tht McCrthy ltmtly ws prbbly nggd n scrty thtr rthr thn ctl scrty.

Lt ddtn: Flx, lrdy lnkd t tht wkpd ntry myslf. Myb yr nglsh syntx s fn, bt yr blty t ndrstnd str s mprd; f y ctlly thnk tht Cltr wnts t bmb th NYT bldng, y dn't knw hr s wll s y thnk y d. 'm nt syng tht y hv t >lk hr str -- vn mny cnsrvtvs dsvw t. nd dn't nd vdnc tht sh's rght-wngr, bt snc y knw hr s wll 'd lk t cmpr hr vws t tht Wkpd ntry nd s hw y'v cncldd tht sh's fscst.

Ths s tkng t mch tm, nd t mny ppl r cllng fr p, s nlss ppl hv smthng sbstntv t dscss 'm gng t drmtclly rdc my pstngs.

[#110 posted by failix , January 6, 2009 5:17 AM]

No it's fine, don't reduce your postings, it's always good to exchange views, that's what the comment section is for, right? And that's what is so great about our INTERNETS :D.
But sadly, Ann Bitch Coulter wouldn't want us to express ourselves freely.
I have to admit I didn't read her whole book, the first few pages disgusted me so much, I nearly had to puke. It was enough for me to hear her express her views on various shows via Youtube.

I do believe she is wicked, and what she does is not to entertain or for the sake of art. She attracts attention with fascist statements. She goes as far as to put her religion over other religions. Now you may not agree with me when I say she is a fascist because we can't really know, but I hope you will agree when I say her statements are statements a fascist would make.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" -Ann Coulter

So here she is making a statement about single women, who she thinks should be called divorced women, because she is totally pro-monogamy.

Fascism encourages women to be a baby-making tool, and they do that by forcing them to submit and be loyal to their husbands. That's one of the reason Hitler didn't ban religion even if he was anti-clerical. Because religion forces women into bondage, Ann Coulter seems to like that, and even if those women who lost their husbands couldn't do anything about it, she attacked them.
________________________________________________
DEUTSCH: You said—your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.[149]
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said—don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic—
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK—
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean [Jerry] Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian[sic] is not offensive at all.
_________________________________________________

Here you have a perfect example of what Coulter does, she uses her religion to justify her antisemitism, antisemitism that is fascist. She fears everything different than her, e.g: that catholicism should be everyones religion would make her comfortable. And that's another reason why Hitler didn't ban catholicism, in the third Reich, the Catholic church shared the same view as Coulter.

If differences were banned the state of things would be better, that's basically what she says, and that's the core idea of fascism.

I could go on, and these are only the most famous quotes, but I'm in a hurry.

[#111 posted by Master Gracey , January 6, 2009 7:28 AM]

under Minnesota law, Franken will not receive a certificate from the state for at least seven days or until legal challenges are resolved - Source

And Democrats/Harry Reid have decided to put off seating Al Franken:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid yielded to Republican threats and agreed on Monday not to immediately seat fellow Democrat Al Franken, whose razor-close victory in Minnesota faces legal challenges. - Source

I'll stand by my comment which, by the way, never said he wouldn't be seated - just that the process is not over.

From The Altantic:

Franken's campaign contends that there's no reason to assume that just because, in certain precincts, the number of ballots exceeds the number of people who signed up to vote there, the culprit is duplicate voting and the remedy would be to discard all ballots that can't be matched. In cases where the precinct tallies exceed the voter role tallies, the election contest board will most likely investigate, and this will take time...perhaps more than a month. (emphasis added)

Seems a little surreal to me, and far from concluded.

[#112 posted by Master Gracey , January 6, 2009 7:44 AM]

She goes as far as to put her religion over other religions.

Well Duh? She should be vilified for preferring her religion over others? Don't Jews prefer their religion over others? Quakers, Mormons, etc?

religion forces women into bondage

Seriously?

[#113 posted by ill lich , January 6, 2009 7:49 AM]

JDFREIVALD:

Get as wordy as you want, play whatever logical game you want, whatever. The fact that there were indeed "communists" in the state department does not automatically justify McCarthy's tactics. I use the word "communist" with quotes in this case because 1.) he never produced his supposed list of communists, and 2.) it is debatable how communist any of these people actually were (in other words, attending a couple of party meetings in the East Village in 1929 doesn't make you a spy), and in fact McCarthy publicly accused people who simply leaned left (Dorothy Kenyon, Owen Lattimore) of being "top Soviet spies"-- that just reeks of political witch hunt and not honest counter-intelligence. If I remember correctly the entire USA was allied with the Soviets for several years during some big war; I guess FDR and Truman should be brought up on treason charges too (that should be obvious sarcasm, OK?)

So do you have some weird double standard in play here? In other words: McCarthy was reprehensible, BUT he was right, so . . . that means he shouldn't be vilified?

Hey, I get it, McCarthy was not the embodiment of pure evil; he was more complex than popular history portrays him. So what. That's the nature of being a human: we all have our battles with the dark side. I just think (whether he was right about the state department or not) once you boil down his political career to its essence you don't end up with anything resembling admirable. A doctor might be right about the diagnosis of cancer, but when he proscribes a regimen of "psychic surgery and ground-up peach pits" to cure it, he's no longer a reliable doctor but a quack.

I don't trust Ann Coulter. You may say she's just correcting historical facts about McCarthy, I suspect she is attempting some kind of historical revisionism in order to justify future witch hunts.

[#114 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 8:00 AM]

Thnks fr tkng m p n t.

"'v nvr sn ppl njyng thr hsbnds' dths s mch" -nn Cltr

S hr sh s mkng sttmnt bt sngl wmn, wh sh thnks shld b clld dvrcd wmn, bcs sh s ttlly pr-mngmy.

'm frd y hv th cntxt wrng hr. Sh ws tlkng bt 9/11 wdws. nd lthgh ppl thnk tht's crss, ths wmn dd ppr t b rvlng n clbrty. hv lvd n Nw Jrsy sbrb nd wrkd n Mnhttn fr vr 10 yrs, nd lthgh ddn't ls nyn t 9/11 prsnlly, knw svrl ppl wh dd, nd whl hv sympthy fr th lsss ths prtclr wmn sffrd, ws ls rplsd by thr ntcs.

ll f whch s bsd th pnt: th sttmnt hs nthng t d wth fscsm. Nthr ds bng pr-mngmy.

>Fscsm ncrgs wmn t b bby-mkng tl, nd thy d tht by frcng thm t sbmt nd b lyl t thr hsbnds.

Frst, dn't thnk tht Cltr, wh s sngl nd chldlss, hs spcfclly ssrtd tht wmn shld b bby-mkng tls.

Scnd, th dfntn f fscsm my b cntnts, bt gnrlly spkng t's bt gvrnmnt, nt prsnl vws n mngmy, th rl f wmn n th fmly, r cnsrvtv r lbrl lfstyls.

>Hr y hv prfct xmpl f wht Cltr ds, sh ss hr rlgn t jstfy hr ntsmtsm, ntsmtsm tht s fscst.

hv fv mjr prblms wth ths ln f rgmnt.

Frst, sh's nt tlkng bt sng th pwr f gvrnmnt t frc Jws t bcm Chrstn. Y cn sy tht sh's ntsmtc (mr n tht n mmnt), bt sh ds nt nd hs, t my knwldg, nvr sd nythng lk "gvrnmnt shld prfct th Jws by mkng thm Chrstn", s ths cmmnt dsn't mk hr fscst.

Scnd, n hr bks sh hs rptdly shwn hrslf t b nt-ntsmtc nd, gnrlly, pr-srl. n t-f-cntxt cmmnt ds nt rs hr cnsdrbl wrttn crps, s ths n cmmnt ds nt ncssrly prv tht sh's ntsmtc.

Thrd, xprssng th d tht yr ds r bttr -- mr cmplt, mr prfct, whtvr -- thn smn ls's ds nt mk y >htfl f ppl wh hld th thr vws. Y crrntly thnk tht yr vws r mr prfct thn mn, nd yrs, bt tht dsn't mn tht w ht ch thr. nd lthgh y hvn't sd spcfclly tht sh hts Jws, tht's gnrlly wht ppl mn by "ntsmtc", s w shld mk sr tht w'r nt cllng hr ntsmtc wtht qlfctn. Sh my ppr trmphlst (thgh thnk ths clp sn't prtclrly trmphlst thr), bt tht dsn't mk hr fscst r ntsmtc.

Frth, dsgr wth yr qtn f ntsmtsm nd fscsm. Fscsts my b ntsmtc, t b sr, bt y cld hv fscst Znsts s wll.

Ffth nd smlrly, rlgn nd fscsm rn't ncssrly lnkd thr -- dn't rcll hr sng hr rlgn t sy nythng lk, "n mrc, w shld hv sngl pltcl prty gvrnd by rlgs lw, nd cnmc nd scl pwr shld b strctrd rnd t." Sh hts lbrls nd thnks thy'r trtrs, t b sr, bt lbrls ht Grg Bsh nd thnk h's trtr, t, nd tht dsn't mk thm fscsts.

>Sh frs vrythng dffrnt thn hr, .g: tht cthlcsm shld b vryns rlgn wld mk hr cmfrtbl.

Fr wht t's wrth, t's nt clr wht dnmntn sh s.

>nd tht's nthr rsn why Htlr ddn't bn cthlcsm, n th thrd Rch, th Cthlc chrch shrd th sm vw s Cltr.

Hnstly, ths s smr f bth th Cthlc Chrch nd Cltr. 'm sr y hv sm blfs tht y shrd wth Htlr, t; xcpt fr th crcl rl f mrrg n th rrng f chldrn nd th stblty f scty -- smthng tht gr wth -- yr sttmnt crrs lttl wtr.

>f dffrncs wr bnnd th stt f thngs wld b bttr, tht's bsclly wht sh sys, nd tht's th cr d f fscsm.

Sh hs nvr sd tht -- r nythng rmtly lk tht tht cn thnk f -- nd fscsm hs th mprtnt dffrnc tht t blvs n th crcv pwr f cntrlly mngd gvrnmnt t mps ts wll, whch Cltr hs nvr dvctd.

Hr's th qt tht thght ppl wr gng t s, n Mslms: W knw wh th hmcdl mncs r. Thy r th ns chrng nd dncng rght nw. W shld nvd thr cntrs, kll thr ldrs nd cnvrt thm t Chrstnty.

vn thr, thgh, sh s shwng hrslf t b n nt-Mslm hwk, nt fscst. "Fscsm" mns smthng, slly nvlvng thrtrn gvrnmnt nd xpnsnsm. Ths sttmnt s nt dcttrl wthn mrc, nd nt xpnsnst: sh ss prcvd nmy nd wnts t kll t.

Y cn sy tht sh's wrng, mch s Nvll Chmbrln thght tht th nt-Htlr hwks wr wrng, nd t >stll wn't mk hr fscst. nd 'm nt nvkng Gdwn's lw ndlssly: th nxt sntncs n tht clmn wr "W wrn't pnctls bt lctng nd pnshng nly Htlr nd hs tp ffcrs. W crpt-bmbd Grmn cts; w klld cvlns. Tht's wr. nd ths s wr."

[#115 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 8:11 AM]

ll Lch: >S d y hv sm wrd dbl stndrd n ply hr? n thr wrds: McCrthy ws rprhnsbl, BT h ws rght, s . . . tht mns h shldn't b vlfd?

N, 'm syng tht "t th rsk f bng vlfd, 'm nclnd t thnk tht thr my b mch mr t [Cltr's] prspctv thn mny ppl thnk."

Thr wr wtchs, nd Cltr crrctly pnts t (s nn vr hd t m bfr) tht
1. McCrthy ws rght t hnt thm, nd
2. ths wh ppsd th hnt my nt hv bn s cln, ll-mrcn, nd lbrty-lvng s thy r gnrlly prtryd.

cknwldgng tht h ws vrbrng n hs zl ds nt dmnsh ths fcts t ll, nd s ths nt dbl stndrd.

n ddtn, whn frgn pwr wnts t crsh yr cvlztn, thnk t's lssr sn t b vrbrng thn t b trtr. Mny f McCrthy's nms wr trtrs, nd ths by fllwng th fcts cnnt hld McCrthy n cntmpt th wy ws tght t grwng p.

>f rmmbr crrctly th ntr S ws lld wth th Svts fr svrl yrs drng sm bg wr

Thr s dstnct dffrnc btwn llyng yrslf wth nms nd lttng thm nfltrt yr gvrnmnt.

[#116 posted by Master Gracey , January 6, 2009 8:17 AM]

Because religion forces women into bondage, Ann Coulter seems to like that, and even if those women who lost their husbands couldn't do anything about it, she attacked them.

No, she attacked the hand-full of widows from the 9/11 terrorist attacks that suddenly became spokespeople for the Democrtatic party that can't (in any real sense) be challenged, because (sniff) they lost their husbands! Her contention (that was lost at the time) was that if they have a point, make it without relying on their widow-status. The death of their husbands didn't suddenly qualify them as terrorism and foreign policy experts - a role several widows assumed after 9/11, not all, just a few (four, IIRC).

[#117 posted by seyo , January 6, 2009 8:22 AM]

What's wrong with being a communist anyway? It seems like you are (and McCarthy was) conflating two things: being a communist, and being a spy for a foreign power. Last time I checked, we have freedom of assembly and the right to our political and religious beliefs. Being a spy on the other hand, that's illegal. He failed to find any. There is no need need for all this back and forth banter. JDwhatever, you are a liar, a moron and yes, a fascist. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[#118 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 8:36 AM]

Th cmmnsts wntd t dstry mrc. N scrt. Th cmmnsts -- th ns pyng th mrcns, nt ncssrly th sfl-dp mrcns thmslvs -- ddn't wnt frdm f ssmbly r th rght t pltcl nd rlgs blfs. Thy wr thrt t vrythng tht y sm t hld dr.

Nt tht thr's nythng wrng wth tht, gss.

[#119 posted by seyo , January 6, 2009 9:05 AM]

The USSR wanted to destroy America. American Communists wanted and still want a better, more equitable life for all Americans, free from the tyranny of the rich and the demagoguery of parasitic organized religions. Nothing wrong with that at all.

[#120 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 9:14 AM]

s wth cmmnsm n gnrl, yr sttmnt s bttr n thry thn n prctc. Cmmnsts t tht tm wr gnrlly sympthtc t th Svt rgm nd ftn hlpd th SSR. Rd "Rdcl Sn" by Dvd Hrwtz r "Wtnss" by Whttkr Chmbrs. Wht mrcn cmmnsts >thght mttrd lss thn wht thy >dd.

[#121 posted by seyo , January 6, 2009 9:27 AM]

The same can be said about Christianity, and capitalism.

[#122 posted by Master Gracey , January 6, 2009 9:42 AM]

FALIX - your direction to review the Fascism Wikipedia page led me to spot the following:

Fascist movements commonly oppose: classical liberalism liberalism, communism, conservatism, democracy, individualism, internationalism, and pacifism. Source

Seems like a pretty inclusive list, not quite sure who Fascisim is for if it is against all the above...

The opening statement on the same page says:

"Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence." Source

and

"Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who directs a nation towards collective unity by requiring individuals subordinate self interest for the interests and welfare of the collective" Source

That sounds like something I've heard recently in the presidential campaign...

[#123 posted by ill lich , January 6, 2009 9:47 AM]

I guess I don't really think McCarthy was hunting communists, just using that as a ploy for other political maneuvering, in this case persecuting people on the opposite side of the aisle.

The number of "confirmed communists" that changed several times, the fact that he never actually found any communists or spies in the State Dept., the fact that some of the people he brought before his committee didn't even work at the State Dept. anymore, or simply were involved with left-leaning causes like civil rights . . . all of this sounds like crass politics to me, not some serious attempt to protect American interests.

You think he was fighting the good fight? Fair enough.

But consider this: if the threat was a great as you claim, and there were indeed hundreds of communists in the State Dept., AND McCarthy weeded out NONE of them, then shouldn't the US have fallen to the Soviets long ago? Last I checked the USA was still here and the USSR long gone, so I suspect you and your red-baiting buddies were exaggerating.

[#124 posted by seyo , January 6, 2009 9:49 AM]

Also, to address this misguided statement:

"What American communists thought mattered less than what they did."

Communists were being prosecuted merely for being communist. Not for what they, as individuals, may or may not have done. Holding communist beliefs was treated as a crime in and of itself. Which is what fascists do.

[#125 posted by buddy66 , January 6, 2009 10:10 AM]

I thought this thread would be tuckered out by now. I guess it's Coulter's presence in American politics that's keeping it in play. I have nothing much to say about her except that she is a failed satirist. She reminds me of Andrew Dice Clay; he could never play his shtick much beyond small audiences of hooting mooks who took his clumsy satire as revealed truth. Coulter has the same problem. Too many otherwise reasonable people take her little savageries literally. Real satirists are also funny. Coulter and Clay, not so much. Mark Twain, in contrast, could flay the skin off sacred cows and leave their worshipers howling with laughter. It's a matter of talent and timing. Poor Ann doesn't have it. And what's Clay up to these days? Probably playing outlaw biker rallies in KKK country.

The part of the thread that interests me is about Joe McCarthy, another very misunderstood performer. He wanted people to like him, for crying out loud. He could never understand why he was being reviled. Wasn't he, a good Catholic boy, doing God's work? Wasn't communism the creed of Satan, and the USSR hell on earth? The trouble was he couldn't tell a communist from a crackpot. He didn't know the difference between an ACLU lawyer and a KGB thug (neither can George W. Bush, apparently, who looked into the heart of one of the latter and was calmed). The poor son of a bitch was clueless; but on he soldiered, waving a bottle of whiskey in one hand and an imaginary list of State Department communists in the other. He was, finally, just a fucking clown; just another show-biz failure lacking timing and talent. It's fitting that the failing satirist Coulter should hasten her descent by linking herself to one of America's famously failed politicians.

[#126 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 11:07 AM]

ll Lch, y d m dssrvc by cllng m "rd-btng". m rgng bsd n th fcts s s thm, nt n sm pr-xstng htrd f cmmnsts.

Mny ppl dsmss McCrthy t f pr-xstng McCrthy htrd. Myb y'v stdd th hstry mr thn tht, bt mst ppl tlk t hv nt. sympthz: hd th sm htrd nd mstrst nclctd n m frm yng g. Bt fllwd whr Cltr ld nd fnd fcts (tht hd t vrfy, f crs -- tk vry fw thngs fr grntd) tht md m rcnsdr.

nd tht's my pnt ll lng -- nn Cltr (rmmbr nn? t's >pst bt nn), th mst htd wmn n mrc, my hv prspctv tht's mr vlbl thn mny ppl thnk.

hvn't rgd bt McCrthy's ffctvnss, bt f y trly thnk tht th thrt wsn't s svr s 'v clmd thn blv y hvn't prprly xmnd th thrt.

Bddy66, hr bks r stll bst-sllrs. Cll hr "fld strst" f y lk, bt sh sms t kp mkng mny.

[#127 posted by Antinous , January 6, 2009 11:28 AM]

The communists wanted to destroy America.

You know, I would be far more interested in hearing about how you invented a time machine and got here from the 1950s than listening to your endless, tired rants.

[#128 posted by noen , January 6, 2009 11:38 AM]

Re: Ann Coulter and fascism

Ann Coulter is a neocon
Neocons are fascists
Therefore Ann Coulter is a fascist

The neocon philosophy is based on the political writings of Leo Strauss who was:

"an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."

And this is exactly what we see in the writings of today's leading neocons, Michael Ledeen springs to mind but Ann Coulter is in there. Warmongering, an almost gleefull advocacy of torture, Imperialism, authoritarian rule have all been the rule of the day.

Those who advocate torture and genocide as Ann and other neocons have, do not deserve to be heard.

[#129 posted by jdfreivald , January 6, 2009 12:00 PM]

Jst tryng t b thrgh, ntns. Whch s t sy, nggng n smthng thr thn snrky, cntnt-fr jbs.

Nn, L Strss ws n nflnc, bt t sy tht thy wr "bsd n" hs wrtngs s vrstppng.

ddtnlly, Cltr nd mny thr ncns hv nt xprssd spprt fr mprl dmntn, thrtrn rl, nd fscsm; thr thy'r nt ncns, r "ncn" dsn't mn wht y thnk t ds.

Wrmngrng -- bng hwk -- s ncssry bt nsffcnt crtrn fr fscsm.

Fr wht t's wrth, 'm nt ncn.

'm cncldng tht th rspndnts nly knw "fscst" s n nslt, cnvrstn-stppr, nd nt s pltcl ctlty.

[#130 posted by Anonymous , January 6, 2009 12:07 PM]

What the heck, I've got five minutes to spare and this thread has triggered no less than three of my pet peeves:

1) Responding to dehumanizing invective with dehumanizing invective not only misses the point, it concedes the battle. Every time someone calls Coulter a bad name, Coulter-the-Terrorist Has Already Won. I wouldn't be surprised if she echoes fascist talking points in part specifically to get people to call her a fascist.

2) Way back at what is currently number #109, jdfreivald made the assertion that Coulter's various death wishes against the New York Times staff, etc., should be read as satire. Please, people, stop using the word "satire" when you simply mean "hyperbole." If, in fact, Coulter's persona should be seen as satire, she would be satirizing -- criticizing -- the right, not the left.

3) Holy goalpost-shifting, Batman! The unfalsifiable proposition that "there may be much more to [Coulter's] perspective than many people think" has not only taken over a hundred-comment thread but is somehow being decided solely on whether a short re-iteration of technical facts about McCarthy represent any kind of deep insight into the era.

[#131 posted by ill lich , January 6, 2009 12:14 PM]

JDFEIDVALD:

Fear and paranoia are dangerous. If you think the fear of Soviet infiltration justifies persecuting the innocent, OK, but it was that kind of thinking that lead to Watergate (by John Mitchell's own admission, they thought the Democrats were going to hand the country over to the Soviets, and so the party of "law and order" found a way to justify subverting the law), and after all it was that kind of fear of the other side that made the Soviets what they were-- anybody could be a traitor.

As for Coulter, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, as the cliche goes, but there is a limit to how much I will put up with. Some of the hateful things Coulter has said just disqualify her (in my mind) from being considered a rational voice. It's the same for Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Randi Rhodes. There are a lot of other sources of information I can go to first before I'll stoop to wading through a whole bunch of Coulter BS to find the one jewel of intelligence she might offer. Let me know when you read books by Wright or Rhodes in order to find a wonderful new point of view.

[#132 posted by buddy66 , January 6, 2009 12:16 PM]

I was once subpoenaed by HUAC.

Well, sort of. The subpoena was issued but never served. It was really a small part of a union-busting effort in 1954 by the Republican party and a one-term Michigan congressman named, improbably enough, Kit Clardy.

Ol' Kit was a big fan of "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy. He got permission from the House leadership to bring HUAC to Flint and hold hearings on supposed Communist Party organizers in the ranks of the United Auto Workers. The trouble was, the UAW-CIO was pretty short on CP members that year. Most of them left during the no-strike pledge years of WWII to fight the Axis (nobody ever accused communists of being cowards), and the rest were safely pigeon-holed and held in place by Walter Reuther's personal blacklist. Reuther and the UAW leadership were fierce anti-communist socialists. Lacking the necessary fodder for his propaganda machine, Clardy's crew obtained subpoenas on dozens of UAW non-communist lefties who were strong union activists and Democrats. I was one of them.

In 1954 I had been working at my GMC factory for a year, having previously worked as a UAW organizer in the Rocky Mountain corridor. I thus came recommended to the Flint union, and after hiring in (no problem in those halcyon days of unskilled labor) I presented myself to the local's officers and became an enthusiastic and active member. I was viewed, I believe, as a "comer," due to rise in the rank and file to an eventual leadership role in the organized labor-led class struggle. The opinion was I had a shining future. Alas

...I fell into bad company. I started hanging out with trotskyists. Ex-trotskyists to be precise. Specifically, a group called the American Socialist Union. They were too radical for the Reuther-led UAW, and not quite radical enough for HUAC. Because if we were called to testify, we were under no party discipline to "Take the Fifth," as the Communists were, but were free to tell the committee that, No we are NOT members of the Communist Party and you can go fuck yourselves! I even rehearsed my little speech when I learned that I was one of the "John Doe" subpoenas.

However, my mentor, an old Trot who had been through the early HUAC wars, laughed and told me not to worry, that they weren't going to call me and the other non-Communists to testify because they knew that's exactly what we would do. "It's a smear," he said. "They're trying to smear the union and your friends at the same time. The ones they do call will be genuine CP'ers, and they'll cite Fifth Amendment protection and clam up." He laughed harder. "It will be assumed by the press and public that you guys are just commies that Clardy didn't get around to putting on the grill. It's called 'Guilt by Association,' kid. Get used to it."

And that's how it went. The UAW knew better, of course; they were well-acquainted with red-baiting and union-busting tactics. The people of Flint, and too many of my fellow union brothers and sisters, however, weren't politically sophisticated enough to figure it out, or even give a big rat's ass. I was also "blacklisted" by my own union. It would have been bad PR for a suspected Red to have any sort of visible position in the UAW leadership. Solidarity House in Detroit had put a circle around my name.

It was McCarthyism at work. Goddamn the man.

[#133 posted by Antinous , January 6, 2009 12:17 PM]

Master Gracey,

The spam filter seems to have taken a shine to you. I recommend that you only put one link in each of your comments until it gets over its infatuation.

[#134 posted by failix , January 6, 2009 1:52 PM]

Hmmm... it's worse than I thought, jdfreiwald, let me explain some things to you.

You don't need to identify yourself with the fascist way of thought, to be a fascist. That would be the same thing as saying that Hitler really wasn't a bad guy, just because he wanted to do something good for his people. He didn't see himself as a bad person, but his actions were bad, therefore he was bad. So Coulter says fascist stuff, therefore she is a fascist, whether she wants it or not. Because it's hard nowadays to say:

"Oh hi, I'm a fascist, freedom of thought freedom of thought! It's just my opinion!!!!"

And NOEN is right, we shouldn't be debating on whether Coulter is a fascist or not, but on whether neo-conservatism is just a new form of fascism. And Coulter clearly IS a neocon.

Second, the definition of fascism may be contentious, but generally speaking it's about government, not personal views on monogamy, the role of a woman in the family, or conservative or liberal lifestyles.

It's funny you say that (well no actually it's not very funny)... personal views on monogamy, what's your point, because it's a personal view it doesn't count? Or are you saying that it's not relevant to the fascist ideology? The baby-making thing?

Mussolini perceived women's primary role as childbearers

Not only him, it played and still plays a very important role in fascism, to keep the woman as the housewife, and fascists are against abortion too btw.

Coulter, who is single and childless

Hitler too couldn't resist his nature, human beings aren't made for monogamy, he had multiple lovers. And I don't think it's really relevant.

First, she's not talking about using the power of government to force Jews to become Christian.

Oh NOW I get it... it's o.k then, of course she just wants Jewish people to become Christians but she doesn't want the government to do it for her.

Second, in her books she has repeatedly shown herself to be anti-antisemetic and, generally, pro-Israel.

You think that doesn't make sense and excuses her antisemitism? Actually no, it totally doesn't. It even reinforces her neocon position.
I don't want to get in this whole Israel thing, because you know, it's long and painful. But basically, being anti-Israel would mean you're against a decision the western world made as a winner, therefore America.
And you'll notice this pattern very often with neocons: They never attack their country when it made a decision as a winner, that would mean that America isn't above every other country. (I know it's over simplified...)

And it's a fabulous excuse to be anti-Arab too. Which she is.

You currently think that your views are more perfect than mine, and I yours, but that doesn't mean that we hate each other.

No, I just think you're wrong. That's a big difference. I think you're wrong because of my ethical, political, and moral beliefs. And of course that doesn't make you angry because it's okay, it's called a discussion and freedom of thought/expression or whatever.
But if I said I was just better than you because of my religion it'd be fascism.

Fourth, I disagree with your equation of antisemitism and fascism. Fascists may be antisemetic, to be sure, but you could have fascist Zionists as well.

That doesn't really help you ^^... I mean, a zionist fascist would look really dumb but you're right, they exist and are characterized by their extreme nationalism, and extreme irrational disrespect for different people of different beliefs. Oh wait, did I just describe Coulter? ;)

"Fascism" means something, usually involving authoritarian government and expansionism.

Honestly, I agree with you that zionist fascists exist, and totalitarian != fascist. Following that logic a democratic fascist can exist. I know that sounds ridiculous but it only proves that zionism and neo-conservatism or extreme nationalism are all derived forms of fascism.

Honestly, this is a smear of both the Catholic Church and Coulter.

Thanks! But I was wrong, it's actually the other way around, it's Coulter who now shares the same view as the Catholic church in the third Reich.
Why are people always so offended when they realize the institutions representing their religions have a very dirty past, and often a dirty present? It must be the shock.

There is nothing on which I agree with Hitler... 0, nothing!

the crucial role of marriage in the rearing of children and the stability of society -- something that I agree with

I'm not surprised, and I know you are going to be offended by this (not my intention), but that's exactly the line of thought that leads to fascism.
I'm not saying you are a fascist, but it's a step towards fascism.

And living in Germany (a country full of guilt and regret, even today), I understand that every step towards fascism, is a bad step.

Peace,

Good night.

[#135 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , January 6, 2009 2:17 PM]

I can tell you right now what happened to Ann Coulter's career: Sarah Palin eclipsed her.

Tom Hale, can't you find a tall leggy blonde to have the hots for who doesn't retail lies and hate speech for a living?

Noen @22, the law gets more complicated when you're talking about public figures.

Shrdlu @29, a substantial fraction of my Minneapolitan friends are of Jewish descent. I think. I mean, Fred Levy Haskell and Steve Brust are the only ones I've seen actually wearing yarmulkes; but Friedman and Schneier aren't what you'd call traditional Scandinavian names.

Noen @30, be nice. Shrdlu was making a joke.

JDFreivald @36, in re McCarthy and HUAC:

How many people did he blacklist at the HUAC hearings? (Answer: none.)

That's an utterly specious argument. It's like saying that Joan of Arc wasn't punished for heresy because she was handed over to the secular arm before being burnt.

The Hollywood blacklist was the work of the studios, but it was created and maintained in response to HUAC's fishing expedition and the hysteria it stirred up. The existence of the Hollywood blacklists and other blacklists did much to validate HUAC's proceedings. Meanwhile, the threat of being blacklisted was one of HUAC's biggest power sources, since otherwise they could only have imprisoned those who refused to testify on grounds of contempt. HUAC and the keepers of the blacklists were hand in glove throughout that era.

How many Hollywood stars suffered from his attacks? (Answer: none.)

Another completely specious argument. The studios made a huge show of self-policing the movie industry because controlling the blacklist meant they could limit the damage done by HUAC. No major stars got blacklisted. That was the point. Meanwhile, a long list of other, more expendable professionals took the hit, including directors, producers, actors, radio performers, screenwriters, playwrights, animators, composers, lyricists, musicians, choreographers, dancers, designers, journalists, and at least one ecdysiast.

And here's a third point: those aren't honest errors. Anyone who knows enough about the period to come up with artfully phrased questions like "how many people did McCarthy/HUAC blacklist" and "how many Hollywood stars suffered as a result" also knows that the answers to those questions are misleading. For starters, she's conflating McCarthy and HUAC. For another, without HUAC, the blacklist would never have existed, though they maintained a nominal separation. A great many Hollywood professionals suffered as a result of the blacklist; you can look it up.

Let me repeat: those aren't honest errors. They're deliberate misrepresentations. And they've got Ann Coulter's name on them.

How many spies were actually working in the State Department when he ran his inquisition? (Answer: Hundreds.) Is there any proof of that? (Answer: Yes, from the Venona project.)

Ill Lich settled this one at comment #60, so I'll defer to him.

Most people have no idea of the answers,

Call me crazy, but I suspect that has something to do with Coulter's answers being unadulterated hogwash.

and at the risk of being vilified, I'm inclined to think that there may be much more to her perspective than many people think.

Vilified? No. But unless you come back with some staggeringly original and fully verifiable arguments and documentation, I'd say you've been rebutted.

JDFreivald @41:

At any rate, I've read several of Coulter's books, and she footnotes them and even provides Lexis / Nexis search terms so that other people can verify her research.

Anyone can type footnotes. The question is what they refer to. In Coulter's case, they're ornamental, there to create a false appearance of reliability. But don't take my word for it; read about it in the Columbia Journalism Review. Or check today's news. Or search the Boing Boing archives.

I don't recall Franken doing the same.

Franken factchecks. It's how you get away with saying outrageous things when you're not a tall leggy blonde.

One might say that her research could be open to interpretation, but "lying" carries it a bit far.

Not at all. She's a frequent and enthusiastic liar. There are entire published books about her lies, and websites devoted to the subject.

Lying is her gig. She's been caught out at it so many times that even people who loathe her get tired of pointing out all the instances. The energetic Dr. Limerick couldn't bring himself to annotate more than one chapter's worth of footnotes in one of her books, though he did provide additional links to other annotations of Coulter's footnotes.

Really, you should have looked into this a long time back. Do it now. I promise, it won't take long.

Ill Lich @49:

Yes, I remember this from a few years ago. Attendees at the forum gave Franken higher marks and the majority there thought he won the debate, but to be fair that probably just means there were more liberals than conservatives in attendance.

Is that fair? Are you sure it's accurate? She was a much bigger media figure than Franken -- and as you yourself say, she isn't all that bright.

Rampant @53, it is not "merely funny." She's been broadcasting violent hate speech and blatant lies and disinformation for years, and there are plenty of people who take her seriously. The only real difference between Ann Coulter and would-be fascists like Father Coughlin is that she's cuter.

Failix @58 and elsewhere, we don't use that word. Please read the moderation guidelines.

JDFreivald (again!) @63:

And how many in the State Dept. did McCarthy find and prosecute? Answer: none.

Not surprising, considering the number of communists who were smearing him at the time.

Oh, no they weren't, and you know it. When he was riding high, McCarthy wasn't susceptible to smears, from communists or from anybody else. He had more than enough power to find and prosecute communists in the State Department -- if he'd had the evidence. He didn't have it. He'd been making stuff up all along.

Smears and communists had nothing to do with his downfall. Overreaching was what did it, though being crooked as a dog's hind leg and a serious alcoholic didn't help. He completely alienated the U.S. Army, it having apparently failed to occur to him that Eisenhower was now president. There was also the gross impropriety of openly threatening the Army because they'd failed to accede to his demands regarding (among other things) Pvt. G. David Schine.

The real takedown, as everyone knows, was done by Edward R. Murrow, with the cooperation of President Eisenhower and the U.S. Army. The United States Senate finished him off. You can't possibly believe they were communists.

Now: remember what I said earlier about mistakes one can't make honestly? If you're this interested in McCarthy and the post-WWII red scare, you already know that "communist smears" played no role in McCarthy's downfall. I can't recall any smears of any kind sticking to him during that period, and if they existed, they certainly didn't keep him from prosecuting spies in the State Department. Yet you claimed they did -- possibly because you couldn't counter Ill Lich's rebuttal.

You just lost more points than you can afford to lose in one day. Drop me a note so we can discuss getting your account turned back on.

[#136 posted by jjasper , January 6, 2009 2:55 PM]

And that, ladies, gentlemen, and Coulter fans, is why TNH gets the big stick of clue-thwap around these parts.

[#137 posted by Master Gracey , January 6, 2009 2:55 PM]

Antonius - it's nice to know that someone cares, even if it is only the spam filter.

Thanks for the tip, I'll keep an eye on the links...

[#138 posted by Takuan , January 6, 2009 3:14 PM]

(she turned me into a newf, you know!)

[#139 posted by Antinous , January 6, 2009 3:16 PM]

(she turned me into a newf, you know!)

So you must like her, then.

[#140 posted by wolfiesma , January 6, 2009 3:29 PM]

Tom Tomorrow trumps all. You gotta read the second to last frame.

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/12/23/tomo/

[#141 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , January 6, 2009 6:38 PM]

Okay, you're right. Second to last frame is the winner.

[#142 posted by arkizzle , January 6, 2009 7:46 PM]

Noen, for the sake of community, I'd love you to address my last post @ 102.
Not for an argument, but I think you jumped me unfairly, and it's left a bad taste in my mouth.

[#143 posted by ill lich , January 6, 2009 8:15 PM]

(well Teresa, I did say "probably" with regards to why attendees thought Franken won the debate-- I wasn't there but I remember hearing Franken speak at length about it on his old radio show. I assumed that a lot of attendees were already fans of Franken or Coulter, and so wouldn't be swayed by arguments from the opponent, thus would vote along party lines; the fact that Coulter has fans at all implies that a lot of people don't care about rational arguments. I also think Franken is at least as big a media figure as Coulter; she may have more books and a newspaper column, but he's been doing TV since the mid-70's, albeit in comedy.)

[#144 posted by Teresa Nielsen Hayden / Moderator , January 6, 2009 8:28 PM]

Good points. I yield.

[#145 posted by minTphresh , January 6, 2009 11:08 PM]

wow! it looks as if ol' JD has done evacuated his vowels! oooh.

[#146 posted by buddy66 , January 7, 2009 9:44 AM]

Watching Franken morph into a Serious Man is interesting. Not all such efforts are successful. Lenny Bruce crashed and burned when he evolved from stand-up satirist to First Amendment nag. (I watched one of his last gigs and it felt like a law school lecture from a visiting scholar.) Usually their audiences resent it.

One would think Minnesota voters too dour to forgive and forget Silly Smalley*, but with third-party loose cannons rolling around their ship of state I guess anything is possible. It's likely, though, that in a one-on-one match he would have overwhelmed Coleman.

* I do not exaggerate when I say his reconciliation session with the faux Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Bobbit was probably the funniest goddamn thing I ever saw on TV.

[#147 posted by Xopher , January 9, 2009 3:45 PM]

Adonai 68: Also, communist leanings =/= Soviet spy.

It's fairly appalling that you have to point that out, but given JDFreivald's apparent assumption that membership in an AMERICAN party should disqualify someone from "infiltrating" the State Department, I guess you do.

I think we should keep all Republicans out of government, since after all they're spies for the Irish Republican Army, or maybe Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard.

Arkizzle 78: Good Christians (who really believe in it) want to save everyone, and they believe that the only way you can do that is to AJCAYPS.

An overgeneralization. I know Christians who "really believe in it" and who believe a) that God, having become human, decided never to send a human into hell, and let out the ones who were there and/or that God never put anyone in hell ever, and b) that people can serve the purposes of the Holy Spirit (i.e. do God's work) without being Christian or having anything but good intentions, because the Holy Spirit can work through anyone, Christian or not.

No one who has listened to Ann Coulter even briefly, and knows anything about the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, could possibly mistake her for a good Christian.