Hilarious Ann Coulter Column on Huckabee

[JimH52]

You all realize that all these comments about this nutcase are a terrible waste of digital space, keystrokes and each time you read her name out loud you are polluting the environment.

 

[Annie]

You can do a little bit of homework on the Media Matters article. Did you even glance at the article? Never mind. Talk about spoon-feeding. Here you go:

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/COI-94-95-Jan-Election.pdf

Look at table 6 in the PDF file. “White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage-point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin."

I've done plenty of research on Media Matters, Field Polls though, I find nothing untoward and couldn't find a thing using .gov.

Looking through the PDF, there seems a tendency to blame white, older folk for voting, while younger non-white, Hispanics did not. As I'm reading this, it sounds like something from the UN, whereas, in fact, whereas, in fact. Hello??? So Field Polling seems to have been the back up of the overturning of a proposition passed by nearly 60% of California voters?

It seems that the state government really did not want the results they got, as you point out yourself, only 46% of Latinos voted 'no', but the state still chose to challenge and get the vote overturned.

What was your point Matt?

 

[mattskramer]

I've done plenty of research on Media Matters, Field Polls though, I find nothing untoward and couldn't find a thing using .gov.

Looking through the PDF, there seems a tendency to blame white, older folk for voting, while younger non-white, Hispanics did not. As I'm reading this, it sounds like something from the UN, whereas, in fact, whereas, in fact. Hello??? So Field Polling seems to have been the back up of the overturning of a proposition passed by nearly 60% of California voters?

It seems that the state government really did not want the results they got, as you point out yourself, only 46% of Latinos voted 'no', but the state still chose to challenge and get the vote overturned.

What was your point Matt?

Where do you get that only 46% of Latinos voted “no”? The Media Matters article said that according to the poll, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin.

The analysis showed that 73 percent of Hispanic voters voted against Proposition 187.

Coulter said that a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of Proposition 187. How does she know that without reading the minds of the voting Hispanics? On the other hand, based on exit polls, it is reasonable to conclude that over 50 percent of the Hispanic that voted, voted against Proposition 187. I know that polls are not votes but even if you adjust generously for possible errors in validity, it is pretty clear that Hispanics voted against the proposition. Coulter was clearly wrong.

 

[Annie]

Where do you get that only 46% of Latinos voted “no”? The Media Matters article said that according to the poll, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin.

The analysis showed that 73 percent of Hispanic voters voted against Proposition 187.

Coulter said that a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of Proposition 187. How does she know that without reading the minds of the voting Hispanics? On the other hand, based on exit polls, it is reasonable to conclude that over 50 percent of the Hispanic that voted, voted against Proposition 187. I know that polls are not votes but even if you adjust generously for possible errors in validity, it is pretty clear that Hispanics voted against the proposition. Coulter was clearly wrong.

Your problem may lie with Media Matters. I'm shocked. What I'm also 'shocked' at is results of this sort that you buy into.

I took you for brighter than that, especially if using it to prove Coulter wrong. Look at your own wording, which I've bolded above. Sorry Matt, that's crap and if you don't know it, then please tell me you are 16 years old.

 

[mattskramer]

Your problem may lie with Media Matters. I'm shocked. What I'm also 'shocked' at is results of this sort that you buy into.

I took you for brighter than that, especially if using it to prove Coulter wrong. Look at your own wording, which I've bolded above. Sorry Matt, that's crap and if you don't know it, then please tell me you are 16 years old.

I’ll ask again: Where did you get that 46 percent of Latinos voted no? I’m waiting. Post my quote, a quote from Media Matters, or a Quote from the PDF file.

Take Statistics 101. Learn the difference between points, point margins, and margin of error. Then get back with me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I’ll ask again: Where did you get that 46 percent of Latinos voted no? I’m waiting. Post my quote, a quote from Media Matters, or a Quote from the PDF file.

Take Statistics 101. Learn the difference between points, point margins, and margin of error. Then get back with me.

Given the overall veracity of Coulter's books, this ridiculously picky attack reminds me of the old Al Franken days. To quote Ann after she responded to the first 17 rounds of alleged "lies" she was charged with:

It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with conspiracy theorists in tinfoil hats. One crackpot argument after another is shot down — but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter100903.asp

 

[mattskramer]

Given the overall veracity of Coulter's books, this ridiculously picky attack reminds me of the old Al Franken days. To quote Ann after she responded to the first 17 rounds of alleged "lies" she was charged with:

I don’t like to use the word “Lie”. I even dislike the title that Al used for his book. All that I meant to show is that Coulter has been wrong as Moore has been wrong. The only significant difference between the two, as far as celebrity status and political rhetoric goes, is that one is a conservative and one is a liberal.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don’t like to use the word “Lie”. I even dislike the title that Al used for his book. All that I meant to show is that Coulter has been wrong as Moore has been wrong. The only significant difference between the two, as far as celebrity status and political rhetoric goes, is that one is a conservative and one is a liberal.

Yes, people can be wrong or at least "technically" wrong - especially when they are gabbing about on the talk circuit - things are said that can be easily miscontrued...thus the nitpicky Ann-Attacks just keep on coming...even though she is essentially right in everything she says.

Like your nitpicky claim that "Coulter said that a majority of Hispanics voted in favor of Proposition 187"...maybe that was her verbal take on saying that Prop 187 PASSED even in heavily Latino populated LA county with a 12 point margin...which she pointed out specifically in a written article. Or was that wrong too?

Proposition 187 passed in a landslide with a nearly 20-point margin -- a larger margin than Wilson got, incidentally. It was supported by two-thirds of white voters, half of black and Asian voters, and even one-third of Hispanic voters. It passed in every area of California, except San Francisco, a city where intoxicated gay men dressed as nuns performing sex acts on city streets is not considered unusual. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed with a 12-point margin.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23691

However, MM doesn't even come close to AC. Tell me, how would you like to sign up for the Cuban socialized medicine plan that he claims is so great?

 

[mattskramer]

Yes, people can be wrong or at least "technically" wrong - especially when they are gabbing about on the talk circuit - things are said that can be easily miscontrued...thus the nitpicky Ann-Attacks just keep on coming...even though she is essentially right in everything she says.

It is almost as if you are resorting to Clintonspeak:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clintonspeak

Has Coulter been correct in all that she has written and said or has she ever been wrong? The elements are mutually exclusive.

However, MM doesn't even come close to AC. Tell me, how would you like to sign up for the Cuban socialized medicine plan that he claims is so great?

No. I think that “universal health care” would not be good. We have SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid for those that fall on difficult times.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It is almost as if you are resorting to Clintonspeak:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=clintonspeak

Has Coulter been correct in all that she has written and said or has she ever been wrong? The elements are mutually exclusive.

No. I think that “universal health care” would not be good. We have SCHIP, Medicare, and Medicaid for those that fall on difficult times.

You should know matts...

No, Coulter's not perfect...she's a political diva but but not God...

Glad you don't agree with Moore's idiocy.

 

[Doug]

I thought those taking part in this thread might like to read what various leading conservatives have had to say about Ann Coulter.

My own point of view is this: she does not sufficiently distinguish, to put it mildly, between humorous hyperbole, deliberate exaggerations, on the one hand; and seriously-meant charges on the other. Thus there is an unseriousness about her politics. She is funny as hell, if, like me, you are already a partisan of the conservative side. But if we are to take her assertions seriously, many of them do not stand up. This is too bad, because it lets the liberals off the hook.

Anyway, here is what other conservatives have said about her. I have put links to the Wikipedia entry for each one, in case some of them are not familiar to those reading this.


Christopher Hitchens Reviews Coulter's Godless. (Hitchens is not a conservative, but liberals hate him, and he is well worth reading.)

William Buckley reviews Coulter's Treason (See here for more on William Buckley.

Stephen Schwartz on Ann Coulter (For more on this most interesting man, see here.)

Various conservative historians and columnists assess Ann Coulter. One of them is a biographer of Joseph McCarthy.

What Would Russell Kirk Say About Ann Coulter? A Catholic conservative muses about Coulter vs Russell Kirk, although, to my mind, he does not address the central issue: granted, Ann Coulter is a popularizer, but is she a conscientious and truthful popularizer? (See here for more on Russell Kirk.)

David Horowtiz discusses Ann Coulter. (See here for more on David Horowitz.)

 

[midcan5]

I read with interest the Buckley link above, I always found him that extremely rare bird, a thoughtful conservative. His kind has passed as has William Safire to the likes of Annie or Mikey. 'McCarthy love' has always amazed me too, for I find conservatives love him because he hated their foe. There is always a need of a foe in conservative thinking, going forward is bothersome, so deception focused on an enemy is always required, it keeps us fastened in the present. But back for a few moments to the real world, last evening I am watching a documentary on Jackie Gleason, among others, on public TV, and it seems one of the cast of the honeymooners was banned from the show because she was a communist. This young woman was a what! Then I read Buckley on McCarthy today and those 'bad people' who called McCarthy out for his hysteric, paranoia actions that hurt so many, and I think, thank all of you for that heroic action.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I thought those taking part in this thread might like to read what various leading conservatives have had to say about Ann Coulter.

My own point of view is this: she does not sufficiently distinguish, to put it mildly, between humorous hyperbole, deliberate exaggerations, on the one hand; and seriously-meant charges on the other. Thus there is an unseriousness about her politics. She is funny as hell, if, like me, you are already a partisan of the conservative side. But if we are to take her assertions seriously, many of them do not stand up. This is too bad, because it lets the liberals off the hook.

Anyway, here is what other conservatives have said about her. I have put links to the Wikipedia entry for each one, in case some of them are not familiar to those reading this.


Christopher Hitchens Reviews Coulter's Godless. (Hitchens is not a conservative, but liberals hate him, and he is well worth reading.)

William Buckley reviews Coulter's Treason (See here for more on William Buckley.

Stephen Schwartz on Ann Coulter (For more on this most interesting man, see here.)

Various conservative historians and columnists assess Ann Coulter. One of them is a biographer of Joseph McCarthy.

What Would Russell Kirk Say About Ann Coulter? A Catholic conservative muses about Coulter vs Russell Kirk, although, to my mind, he does not address the central issue: granted, Ann Coulter is a popularizer, but is she a conscientious and truthful popularizer? (See here for more on Russell Kirk.)

David Horowtiz discusses Ann Coulter. (See here for more on David Horowitz.)

But you can't deny the fact that she at least gets out conservative messages one way or another.

LOL Hitchens pulled out some good ones…I added my non-intellectual comments:

If Hitler hadn’t turned against their beloved Stalin, liberals would have stuck by him, too.

Of course…they are all statists at heart.

If liberals are on Red Alert with one born-again Christian in the cabinet of a Christian president, imagine how they would react if there were five. Between 25 and 45 percent of the population calls itself “born-again” or “evangelical” Christian. Jews make up less than 2 per cent of the nation’s population, and yet Clinton had five in his cabinet. He appointed two to the Supreme Court. Now guess which administration is called a neoconservative conspiracy? Whether Jews or Christians, liberals are always on a witch hunt against people who appear to believe in God.

Imagine the Red Alert if Huckabee is elected.

If Democrats ever dared speak coherently about what they believe, the American people would lynch them.

Witness Nancy Pelosi... who garbles about being a devout Catholic grandmother…yet she supports aborting all those babies.

Assuming you aren’t a fetus, the Left’s most dangerous belief is their adoration of violent criminals.

Witness those revolving doors in the justice system…

 

[mattskramer]

But you can't deny the fact that she at least gets out conservative messages one way or another.

LOL Hitchens pulled out some good ones…I added my non-intellectual comments:


Of course…they are all statists at heart.


Imagine the Red Alert if Huckabee is elected.


Witness Nancy Pelosi... who garbles about being a devout Catholic grandmother…yet she supports aborting all those babies.


Witness those revolving doors in the justice system…

Does Nancy Pelosi want babies to be aborted or does she what women to be allowed to choose to have their fetuses aborted? I want all pregnant women to have abortions! There is a difference.

There are pro-choice Catholics:

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/default.asp


Oh well. In my humble opinion, AC (whether she is joking or whether she is serious) is an embarrassment to the moderate sensible Republican Party with her heavy-handed insulting, name-calling, envelope-pushing, crass rhetoric.

 

[Doug]

<b>Eagle</b>: Well, here is how I see it: Ann Coulter's sarcastic wit directed against liberals makes conservatives feel good. I know I certainly laugh.

But does it win new people to conservatism? I don't mean winning hard-core Leftwing liberals -- they are as set in their ways as we are, and we will both go to our graves with our hands around each other's throats.

But about half the American people are neither fanatically liberal nor conservative, and they are the ones we must reach -- a big chunk of them -- if we are prevent the liberals gaining power and wrecking the Republic. And I don't think she helps here.

To take the McCarthy example: we know that the Roosevelt administration was infiltrated, and at a high level in some cases, by people who were Soviet espionage agents. We know that their activities, even when attention was called to them by defectors like Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, were ignored for years by that administration.

There are two possible explanations for this: (1) FDR and his closest associates were actually themselves Soviet agents. (2) There is something about the liberal mentality which makes them soft on those to their Left who are fighting for many of the same goals.

These are not at all the same thing. The first explanation is ridiculous. The second one is plausible, and we have a chance to convince people -- including thoughtful liberals who are not pro-totalitarian -- of its truth. But conflating the two just makes most people reject the whole argument.

 

[mattskramer]

Wow! Even the great Coulter admits that she made errors.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html

In a few places, however, Coulter does respond substantively. She notes that she made "about five inconsequential errors" in Slander, which she corrected in later editions. However, two of her corrections don't stand up to close scrutiny. She claims to have corrected her false assertion that the New York Times failed to print a front-page story about the death of NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt until three days after it had taken place (the Times printed a front-page story on his death the day after it happened). Coulter calls this mistake "the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce". However, all Coulter did was delete the sentence making that assertion; the offending paragraph still implies that the Times didn't print a story until the third day:

The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the New York Times front-page article on Earnhardt's death three days later began, "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." (paperback edition, page 261; original in hardcover edition, page 205)

Geee. That was awfully big of her. I guess the New York Times sure appreciates it. Perhaps some people here could take a lesson and own up to errors that they make.

Anyway, how many &#8220;inconsequential&#8221; errors can one make before the conclusion that she draws from her stuff becomes suspect?

 

[midcan5]

To take the McCarthy example: we know that the Roosevelt administration was infiltrated, and at a high level in some cases, by people who were Soviet espionage agents. We know that their activities, even when attention was called to them by defectors like Whittaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bentley, were ignored for years by that administration.

There are two possible explanations for this: (1) FDR and his closest associates were actually themselves Soviet agents. (2) There is something about the liberal mentality which makes them soft on those to their Left who are fighting for many of the same goals.

These are not at all the same thing. The first explanation is ridiculous. The second one is plausible, and we have a chance to convince people -- including thoughtful liberals who are not pro-totalitarian -- of its truth. But conflating the two just makes most people reject the whole argument.

Damn Doug, didn't know you harbored such fantasies. Both are equally stupid as they imply the same thing. FDR's work and ideas, from all I have read kept us from entering the fascist stage given the GD as many other countries tried or did. Our society today is a product of that insight and LBJ's equal rights work. Damn! we got a Black man winning in a white state, now ain't that something.

http://republican.meetup.com/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3317707

OT but interesting, seems we can have all sorts of realities sometimes. Some believe this one. You believe yours.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/240707fascistcoup.htm

LOL

 

[Alucard]

Does Nancy Pelosi want babies to be aborted or does she what women to be allowed to choose to have their fetuses aborted? I want all pregnant women to have abortions! There is a difference.

There are pro-choice Catholics:

http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/abortion/default.asp


.

Thats like saying... there are catholics that worship Satan...

Matt just because there is a website out there that claimes to be catholic doesnt give it any credibility...

Catholics believe Life is the most sacred right...

They believe freedom (free will) is the second most sacred right...

You cant put the cart before the horse...

Anyone who does and calls themselves a christian isnt fooling anyone but themselves...sorry...

Dont believe everything you see on the internet is what it says it is...

 

[trobinett]

Alucard posts:

just because there is a website out there that claimes to be catholic doesnt give it any credibility...

Sure it does, just ask Shogun.........Did I say that out loud?

 

[Shogun]

are you adding a wealth of tangible observations and slick critical thinking to threads again, Trob?


I tellya, you sure do have that "Profound post" market cornered!