Michael Coren Cannot be Taken Seriously

It is not possible to take Michael Coren seriously when he has Anne Coulter as a guest on the first episode of his new show. It’s an utterly cynical move bereft of taste or ambition or intellectual integrity or guts– and all the self-seriousness in the world can’t wipe the stain of it off Coren’s naked forehead.

He might as well have interviewed PeeWee Herman about his socialist leanings.

Rick-Perry-Psycho-Nightmare

Most of the time, political differences are a matter of debate between reasonable people with different priorities. Not any more. The Republican party has tilted off the spectrum, into a kind of psychotic delirium. They believe that if they only absolutely, hysterically, intransigently insist on having their way, they will win and they will be right. They’ve gone mad.

As a matter of curiosity, I do wonder how long someone like John McCain can remain in the party, or Jon Huntsman, or even Mitt Romney.

Genuine Witchcraft: Anne Coulter

Anne Coulter’s take:

Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.

Just when decent, intelligent conservatives like David Brooks start to make sense, it is so reassuring to have demagogues like Anne Coulter around to reassure us liberals that we are indeed on the right track. We must be, for heaven’s sake, because the opposition sounds like they think there was nothing wrong with McCarthyism.

So which parts of the liberal “hegemony” on McCarthy were “lies”? The parts about the bullying, the lying about his war record, the drinking, the wild, undocumented, unproven allegations?  The smears of decent writes, actors, and politicians?

Unfortunately, there are those who pretend to be astonished and enlightened when they discover that the Soviet Union, like the U.S., really did have spies in America in the 1950’s, and, therefore, McCarthy was “right”.

Few things in life are more depressing than the fact that it needs to be pointed out to some people that what was wrong with McCarthy was not that he thought there were communists and his opponents thought that there weren’t, which wasn’t true in any case. The problem was that his approach to dealing with communism was to behave exactly how he accused them of behaving.

As many of his contemporaries observed, McCarthy was probably the best friend the communists had– he made opponents of communism look like idiots.

Finally, if Anne Coulter had even the smallest, slightest, sliver of integrity, she would at least acknowledge that even early on in his career, McCarthy smeared as communists anyone who disagreed with him over anything.  He was utterly, irredeemably self-serving.

Like Anne Coulter.


Why shouldn’t they apologize for McCarthy? They are reviving McCarthyism. Senator Peter King (Republican) of Nassau County is going to hold hearings into the radicalization of American Muslims. He claims that 80% of American mosques are run by “extremists”, and makes a number of other inflammatory accusations without offering any proof.

Anne Coulter’s Outburst

Anne Coulter’s outburst about John Edwards, calling him a “faggot”, like some prissy little schoolyard brat, got more than a little undeserved media attention. And it’s true that it’s fun to watch. Like Borat, singing the national anthem at a Texas Rodeo.

If there is a difference, it might be that no liberal groups, that I know of, would seriously consider inviting Sacha Baron Cohen to give the keynote at a serious gathering on policy or governance. Anne Coulter would be invited, and she is invited. There are conservatives who actually like and respect her and think she is a kind of prophetic figure who, inevitably, will be persecuted for her faith.

Liberals probably shouldn’t take her seriously, but then again, I’m not sure liberals take the Christian Right seriously enough. If you’ve watched the documentary, “Jesus Camp”, you might be somewhat alarmed at the militant dogmatism of this segment of the political spectrum, the absolute conviction that God is telling them exactly what to do, and that anyone who disagrees or opposes them is Satan’s spawn. No, they’re not burning witches at the moment. Probably they won’t soon. But the U.S. is locking up people without trial, sending them off to be tortured overseas, and dismissing the need for evidence or testimony against terrorist suspects.

Anne Coulter, if you’ve forgotten, once urged the U.S. to invade and Christianize hostile Arab states.  The last person on the entire earth that I would believe exemplifies any value you could associate with Christ is Anne Coulter.

She is a pimple on the forehead of American conservatism– a big, ugly, festering red one that just won’t go away.

Monument to Conformity: The WTC Memorial and REAL Political Correctness

Was there ever a better illustration of the rank hypocrisy of the Republican Party than this: they are building a monument to “freedom”– upon which they lavish their tearful adoration– that will exclude anybody they don’t like.

The museum, the “International Freedom Centre”, is out of the new World Trade Center. Gone. Excluded. Rejected. Dismissed. Because in spite of the efforts of “patriotic” Americans like George Bush, because it was being built in a tax-payer funded government owned building, it would and could not guarantee that it would only ever pander to and praise those patriotic values espoused by the paragons of virtue, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and his fellow Republicans.

The law is clear: it would have to actually allow for freedom of speech.

Yes, Governor Pataki put the fix in, not only for the museum, but for every occupant of the new building, who must now pass a litmus test of political Republican orthodoxy before being allowed in. Naturally, some of the tenants have declined to give enlightened people like Bill Frist or Donald Rumsveld a veto over what sort of speech should be permitted there. The Republicans, you see, identify mindless obedient conformity with true “patriotism”.

A patriot does not stand for freedom of speech.

Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles, a pilot of one of the 9/11 planes, had screeched that she must be the one who decides what may or may not go into the new World Trade Centre because anyone who disagrees with her shrill views on the meaning of 9/11 just isn’t American like her, even if they too lost relatives in 9/11.

This is so ridiculous, and repulsive, and absurd that it strains credulity, as they say. The monument to American freedom must be unfree, and cowards who cannot abide the slightest dissidence must control the design of a monument to courage, and puritanical Republican harpies must control the expression of democracy.

Don’t let conservatives bullshit you: this is real political correctness.

 


Here is what Debra Burlingame and Governor Pataki and Anne Coulter would deny you: freedom to consider both sides of the issue– a link to a website with eloquent discussion of the issue.

The Incomprehensible Scabrous Viciousness of Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter, bless her little heart, doesn’t want you to buy into a false patriotism.

You might be confused, you see. You might look at two men who are now fixed beside each other in the public mind– the two likely candidates for President of the United States– and you might sort of realize that one of them has actually served in war, and the other sends other young men to do the fighting, while giving the richest citizens of the United States of America a big fat pass on paying the costs of this war.

Well, look at him. Bush has the face of a pretty little frat boy who might have pulled a few strings to make sure he didn’t get sent into any danger over there in Viet Nam. John Kerry looks like Herman Munster. But he also looks like someone who has paid some dues.

It’s not a political thing. John McCain has obviously paid some dues. Clinton didn’t look like he paid any dues (but he was a pretty effective president). Bush Sr. paid dues. Reagan didn’t. Check out the chicken-hawks.

But Ann Coulter is concerned lest you actually think that a man who served in the air National Guard and probably had daddy pull strings to get him there so he never had to face enemy fire is somehow less courageous and heroic than someone who actually went to war for his country. This is the remarkable topsy-turvy world of Republican blonde bimbo columnists: Of course he is less courageous and heroic. Even a rational Republican should be able to admit that a man who actually served in war time has made a slightly greater sacrifice than someone who joined the weekend frolics of the Texas Air National Guard?

You might not like Kerry’s politics, but don’t be silly about the military record.

The only thing that is baffling to me is why the Republicans are missing a rather wonderful opportunity to show that they can occasionally rise above petty, vindictive, party politics and do something with class. Why not acknowledge Kerry’s honorable service? Why not praise him?

Instead, we have Ann Coulter actually trying to make it sound like George Bush wanted to serve in Viet Nam, but the war, unfortunately, ended before he could finish his National Guard duties. Ann– duh!– he was in the National Guard precisely so he could avoid Viet Nam. Hello!

And then, from the scurrilous, to the despicable:

Ann Coulter says, of Max Cleland:

Indeed, if Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. senator in the first place.

That’s pretty shameless. Max Cleland, unlike George Bush, went to Viet Nam to serve his country honorably. One day he picked up a grenade that he saw lying in the ground below a helicopter from which he had just disembarked. He thought it was his, and had fallen from his belt, and was therefore safe. It turned out to have belonged to someone else, and it was alive, and it blew up in his hands. He lost both arms and a leg.

Wow! Talk about hardball. All you can do is look at Ms. Coulter with astonishment, and wonder if the Democrats have the testicles to go up against people with such piercing, stiletto wits. Imagine that– attacking the war record of a paraplegic!

Will any patriotic Republicans have the character, courage, or integrity to stand up to Ann Coulter and put her in her place? (Ha ha.) She is attacking a war hero! She is dishonoring a veteran! Not bloody likely, of course, since most Republican leaders never served in any wars, and therefore don’t feel any real sense of obligation to those who did.

They are famously known as “chicken-hawks”.

Those who did– like John McCain and Chuck Hagel– have, in fact, made known their distaste for those who attack the patriotism of war veterans who happen to be political opponents.

And shouldn’t Ms. Coulter leave it to a few veterans to take up the issue of Max Cleland’s fitness for office, seeing as, obviously– I mean, as obvious as anything has ever been obvious– Ann Coulter never served and never will serve in any kind of military?

But then, Ann Coulter is a puff of air anyway, a blonde bimbo recruited by Republican fund-raisers to counter-act the image of the party as an old white boy’s club. See? It’s hip to be vindictive and scabrous.

I doubt we’ll soon see a Tom Delay talking action figure in a mini-skirt.


Order the Ann Coulter action figure doll! Now! Or else!

Well, hey, I thought it was a joke. There, at the bottom of her column, on www.townhall.com, is the ad for the Ann Coulter “Talking Action Figure”. You know it’s going to talk, of course.. What else does it do? Does it wear a uniform as Ann Coulter, obviously, never has and never will? Does it go out and visit people and interview them and research important issues? What? And confuse the issues?

This is classic. Ann Coulter, in a mini-skirt, attacking those racist liberals