CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › AnnCoulter 4/4
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

AnnCoulter 4/4

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
I love Ann Coulter more each and every day, don't you?

<a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/printac20020404.shtml" target="_blank">http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/printac20020404.shtml</a>

Ann Coulter

April 4, 2002

The Rube Goldberg Clinton Rehabilitation Project

I thought they wanted to "move on." But now that all the statutes of limitations have expired, liberals won't shut up about Bill Clinton. To little evident success, they have been desperately been trying to launch their lumbering Rube Goldberg of a Clinton Rehabilitation Project for months now.

It's striking how the many testaments to Clinton's vaunted accomplishments follow a precise script, invoking the exact same talking points. The single most important talking point is to smear conservatives as "obsessed" and "Clinton-haters." Clinton-lovers want to be able to drone on about his "legacy" without contradiction. Thus, CNN host Aaron Brown wonders aloud, "What is it about Clinton? I've asked this question on this program about five different times to five different people."

Have we been cryptic? Right-wingers said Clinton was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. It turned out he was a lying, unscrupulous traveling salesman. Now liberals scratch their heads demanding to know: So what was it about him you didn't like? Newsweek calls Clinton a "punching bag" for the right. Reviewing Joe Klein's book about Clinton for the New York Times, some guy Clinton took to Ireland ruefully remarks that Clinton had "given a sword to those who hated what he'd stood for."

Inasmuch as liberals insist that conservatives had some secret reason for disliking a president who lied constantly, smeared women, obstructed justice, perjured himself and tampered with evidence, it's striking that even the Rehabilitation Project is hard-pressed to come up with anything Clinton "stood for."

The Times book review proudly crows: "Clinton had also promised welfare reform and in his second term he got some." Actually, welfare reform came in his first term. It just seemed like a second term because it was after Republicans swept Congress and Clinton became irrelevant. Republicans simply called Clinton's bluff on welfare reform.

Indeed, engineering the first Republican Congress in half a century was Clinton's only genuine accomplishment. After masterfully ending the Democrats' 50-year hegemony of Congress, Clinton's genius political initiatives were all bite-sized, irrelevant gestures, such as class uniforms and tax credits for college tuition.

Consequently, the Clinton Rehabilitation Project invariably falls back on a series of meaningless platitudes about Clinton's greatness. According to the guy Clinton took to Ireland: "Clinton's immense talents might have made him a great president." Hillary aide Maggie Williams cites Clinton's "convening power" as his "greatest asset." Klein says his "strongest character trait" was "persistence."

Does it occur to anyone else that these sound like the vague adjectives of a tabloid horoscope?

The Clinton Rehabilitation Project insistently claims the traveling salesman was a complex man, citing the "duality, triality, quadrality of Bill Clinton's nature." Klein says Clinton was "larger-than-life." Only liberals would discern stunning complexity in such an infinitely small man driven by no greater impulse than his "little head."

We are also endlessly informed that Clinton was, as Monica-replacement Klein puts it: "charming, mesmerizing and wickedly smart. A bit too smart, at times."

Not only are there no actual facts to support such encomiums, but that precise statement – "wickedly smart," "too smart" – happens to refer to Clinton's performance before the grand jury. Yes, that grand jury. The one that famously laughed out loud listening to Clinton's "wickedly smart" answers.

Also, without any supporting evidence, Newsweek calls Clinton "the major strategist in his party." It did not raise any flags at Newsweek that despite Clinton's desire to "stump this fall for Democrats," there are evidently no Democrats willing to accept Clinton's offer. At least one Democrat, Erskine Bowles, has openly refused Clinton's "help."

However, Clinton's services are being eagerly sought by game shows in Italy and England. When the only people who will be seen with you after your presidency are Hollywood liberals and foreigners looking for a game show host, you might want to drop the "love of the American people" as a talking point.

Still, the Clinton Rehabilitation Project preposterously insists: "The electorate would have gleefully voted him a third term if only it had been legal."

Actually, we have data on that. Just as George Herbert Walker Bush's landslide victory in 1988 was a tribute to Ronald Reagan, Al Gore's historic loss in 2000 was a tribute to Clinton. Thanks to Clinton, Gore became the only incumbent to lose in peacetime and a good economy for more than 100 years. Following the advice of every single one of his pollsters, Gore would not allow Clinton within 10 miles of his campaign. For his running mate, Gore pointedly chose the Democrat who had most harshly criticized Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky. Still, Gore could not escape Clinton's stain, and he lost.

Even before the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton himself never conned as much as half the country into voting for him – and, let's be honest, he was not exactly facing stiff competition.

But don't cite any facts questioning the claims of the Clinton Rehabilitation Project! By responding, you will only prove that you are an obsessed Clinton-hater.
post #2 of 28
A conservative actually bashing Bill Clinton? Are you kidding me Call? Man, good post.

How about this, you post one article from someone who hates a democratic president/politician and then I'll post an article from someone who hates a Republican president/politician. I think in the end we will both get absolutely nowhere, because if you really look at it you can pick a lot shit about pretty much any major politician out there. I could post a few articles about Bush being a moron, then you could post a few articles about Clinton being an immoral bastard..and in the end we would accomplish absolutely nothing.
post #3 of 28
Thread Starter 
What's your point? I liked the article, so I thought I might post it.
post #4 of 28
Because it has the same effect on me that the "I Am a Patriot" topic had on you:

God, what a boring post.....
blah,blah,blah
post #5 of 28
Thread Starter 
Yeah, but this one makes sense and is right....
post #6 of 28
And Im sure Joram would say the same exact thing about his post.
post #7 of 28
Thread Starter 
LOL....fair enough
post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
That was my post with her Oscar column (which actually brought Devin out of semi-retirement he hates her so much). I truly love her courage and demeanor. I wish more conservatives had the guts that she has.
post #9 of 28
Too bad they all have her brains.
post #10 of 28
Isn't she the one, after 9/11, who said the arabs were uncivilized heathens and we should go in there and convert them to 'proper' christianity? And then when she was censored she claimed it was done by her editors, who were in her words 'Jew mama's boys or fags'? Something close to that?

Sounds like quite a lady wink
post #11 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Kafka:
Isn't she the one, after 9/11, who said the arabs were uncivilized heathens and we should go in there and convert them to 'proper' christianity? And then when she was censored she claimed it was done by her editors, who were in her words 'Jew mama's boys or fags'? Something close to that?

Sounds like quite a lady wink
Can you go find that quote about "Jew mama's boys and fags" for me? I didn't think so. She did say she was censored, and she was right.
post #12 of 28
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Adam Warren:
Too bad they all have her brains.
Yes we do. Which is why we'll always win.....
post #13 of 28
"We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

Whatta gal! And if you ever want to know what The Liberals (all of them? So impressive) really think, Coulter and Limbaugh are the people to ask. Because they know, baby, they know.
post #14 of 28
I'm not trying to raise a big argument, in fact, I'd really like to stay away from it as much as possible. However, as I get older the "this side/that side" of politics really just makes me sad.

Does anybody ever wonder how politics de-volved into what really amounts to gang warfare? I see remarks by Liberals/Democrats and they are poisoned with a dislike of the opposite. I see the same vice-versa, and I think the article above illustrates it. DON'T CHIME IN SAYING WHY IT DOESN'T, THAT ISN'T WHAT I'M ASKING.

Why do the two sides dislike each other, FUNDAMENTALLY? Why are certain groups of people more likely to be on one side as opposed to the other?

There are more questions and I could go ahead and wax on and on, but I want to know what you think. C'mon, don't just go nilly-willy with some High School "our click is better than your click" nonsense. Are Republicans/Conservatives really the titans of truth and decency? Are the Democrats/Liberals really the protectors of progress and equality for all?

Does anyone think that everything that went on behind closed doors in the Clinton administration was as depraved and insidious as some paint it to be? Does anyone think that there are not elements inside the Bush administration that have never chosen to "fight dirty" in order to win?
post #15 of 28
There you go, NickLusk, trying to inject reason and sanity into our catfight. wink

I've often wondered the same things.

And I've often been just as guilty of succumbing to the "our side is better than your side" rhetoric as well. It's difficult to keep perspective when you're lumped into a group and assumed to be evil by people who refuse to see ANY guilt on "their side".
post #16 of 28
From your post this is what I'm seeing described as some of the "Democratic Party platform staples".

Democrats =
political correctness
anti-Christianity (anti-religion)
pro-abortion
minority issues more important than majority

I don't think I disagree with you too much, either. However, I would say that two of the four topics above (2&3) can not be argued, they can only be legislated. As long as science and religion butt heads with each other, and there are large numbers of people who believe passionately in both sides, should the government even be allowed to make decisions that involve such things?
post #17 of 28
Quote:
jabbadonut:

suppression of Christianity...
Huh?
post #18 of 28
Jabba, you understand that the majority of Democrats are Christian, right? What you're saying is that Democrats are trying to suppress themselves?
post #19 of 28
Jabba - I don't think you are clear in your thinking. You are not in disagreement with religious symbols being disallowed from being displayed in schools or other public places, but you do see it as a "suppression" - suppression being something that you don’t agree with because, well, it was borne out of political correctness? Let me be the first to say, what in Jesus’s name are you getting at. Oops. I mean, what in [censored]’s are you getting at?
post #20 of 28
Quote:
jabbadonut:
I am just noting that until recent years this sort of action never happened, and is a direct result of the changing mindset that has been fueled by the idea of "political correctness".
I actually believe this to be more because of a shift in the overall power structure in this country. When I was a little kid, but more so when my parents were kids, everyone went to church and the only people with any power were white males, mainly ones that owned something. However, things have indeed changed dramatically. We're not living in a Utopia by comparison, but we do tend to acknowledge more religions and different ways of life. Back then, they would pretty much ostracize you from the community for not being Christian. Even if you didn't show up for church one Sunday you got razzed a little.

I don't have a problem with the worlds religious institutions, as long as they don't have a problem with me. However, too many people try and take their religious beliefs/presumptions into public institutions where said religious beliefs/presumptions have no place.
post #21 of 28
That article and every other one just like it prove on one thing- Politicos see only what they want to see.

Besides, Nixon is far worse an offender than Clinton ever was.
post #22 of 28
The difference between the two parties is:
post #23 of 28
The Democrats probably wouldn't invite a speaker who suggests half her country's population should be tortured. Coulter did at some Conservative shindig. Like I said, whatta gal. Doug Henning's political views deserved more consideration than Coulter's.

Oh. Guess which half of the population she suggested.
post #24 of 28
Thread Starter 
Since there are so few liberals left that can't be the half she might have been speaking about.
I give.... was she speaking of women? Blacks? People with right arms?
I don't recall a single quote like that Seabass....can you find it for me?
post #25 of 28
Why, <a href="http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/bookman/2002/021402.html" target="_blank">sure!</a>

And I must confess, I read it some time ago and had since misconstrued it. What she's saying is a few people should be executed to keep half the population from turning traitor. Pardon me all to hell.
post #26 of 28
Thread Starter 
Like always, we jump ahead with baseless accusation without fact gathering. Let's be a bit more careful next time, ok?
post #27 of 28
Baseless? Hardly. You asked for a quote like that, I provided a quote like that. It's not as if I'm insisting on interpreting what she said as calling for knocking of anyone who votes Liberal. I re-read the article and admitted as much, but I don't think calling for executions as object lessons is any less repugnant. I'm glad Coulter's just a mouth instead of someone with any real power.

At least Limbaugh (and his audience) make for good comedy.
post #28 of 28
Quote:
jabbadonut:
I am perfectly clear in my thinking. Anytime a group is suppressed is when their attempt at expression is stymied, re: Christians having the symbols of their faith forceably removed from display. Yet, it is ok for so-called "artists" to display some of the most vile and disgusting imagery in public art galleries, and that is protected by freedom of speech.
Forcibly removed from where? Are you talking about schools? Because aside from the school example, I have no idea what you are talking about. Suppression of Christianity - what a laugh. Maybe I'm just jinxed, but I can't drive down the street without seeing quotes from the bible displayed in front of churches and businesses. Suppression? More like pervasive.

Your "so-called artists" rider to the argument makes no sense, so I guess I won't respond to that. Well, I will say this. What one man calls vile and disgusting is another man's Jesus, right? Or something like that.

Like I said, not clear in your thinking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › AnnCoulter 4/4