Coulter & her conservative followers need rabies shots.sm

Can someone send Ann a message that we need to try Bush and his boss Cheney for their crimes first, then we will work on the media.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, former Nixon counsel John Dean explained a largely unknown 50 year academic study. The data shows that conservatives are much more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.

Dean discovered the ongoing study while researching his new book, Conservative Without Conscience.

Dean believes that the study helps to explain why the Republican party has been driven further right.

Video can be found at: http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, Why were Republicans acting as they were? -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

OLBERMANN: What did you find? -- In less than the 200 pages that the book goes into.

DEAN: I ran into a massive study that has really been going on 50 years now by academics. They've never really shared this with the general public. It's a remarkable analysis of the authoritarian personality. Both those who are inclined to follow leaders and those who jump in front and want to be the leaders. It was not the opinion of social scientists. It was information they drew by questioning large numbers of people -- hundreds of thousands of people -- in anonymous testing where [the subjects] conceded their innermost feelings and reactions to things. And it came out that most of these people were pre-qualified to be conservatives and this, did indeed, fit with the authoritarian personality.

OLBERMANN: Did the studies indicate that this really has anything to do with the political point of view? Would it be easier to impose authoritarianism over the right than it would the left? Is it theoretically possible that it could have gone in either direction and it's just a question of people who like to follow other people?

DEAN: They have found, really, maybe a small, 1%, of the left who will follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's just overwhelmingly conservative orientation.

OLBERMANN: There is an extraordinary amount of academic work that you quote in the book. A lot of it is very unsettling. It deals with psychological principles that are frightening and may have faced other nations at other times. In German and Italy in the 30's, come into mind in particular. But, how does it apply now? To what degree should it scare us and to what degree is it something that might be forestalled?

DEAN: To me, it was something of an epiphany to run into this information. First, I'd never read about it before. I sort of worked my way into it until I found it. It's not generally known out there, what's going on. I think, from the best we can tell, these people -- the followers -- a few of them will change their ways when the realize that they are doing -- not even aware of what they are doing. The leaders, those inclined to dominate, they're not going to change for a second. They're going to be what they are. So, by and large, the reason I write about this is, I think we need to understand it. We need to realize that when you take a certain step of vote a certain way, heading in a certain direction, where this can end up. So, it's sort of a cautionary note. It's a warning as to where this can go. Other countries have gone there.

OLBERMANN: And the idea of leaders and followers going down this path or perhaps taking a country down this path requires -- this whole edifice requires and enemy. Communism, al Qaeda, Democrats, me... whoever for the two-minutes hate. I overuse the Orwellian analogies to nauseating proportions. But it really was, in reading what you wrote about, especially what the academics talked about. There was that two-minutes hate. There has to be an opponent, an enemy, to coalesce around or the whole thing falls apart. Is that the gist of it?

DEAN: It is one of the things, believe it or not, that still holds conservatism together. There is many factions in conservatism and their dislike or hatred of those they betray as liberal, who will basically be anybody who disagrees with them, is one of the cohesive factors. There are a few others but that's certainly one of the basics. There's no question that, particularly the followers, they're very aggressive in their effort to pursue and help their authority figure out or authority beliefs out. They will do what ever needs to be done in many regards. They will blindly follow. They stay loyal too long and this is the frightening part of it.

OLBERMANN: Let me read something from the book. Let me read this one quote then I have a question about it. Many people believe that neoconservatives and many Republicans appreciate that they are more likely to maintain influence and control of the presidency if the nation remains under ever-increasing threats of terrorism, so they have no hesitation in pursuing policies that can provoke the potential terrorists throughout the world. That's ominous, not just in the sense that authoritarians involved in conservatism and now Republicanism would politicize counter-terror here which we've already argued that point on many occasions. Are you actually saying that they would set up -- encourage terrorism from other countries to set them up as a boogey man to have, again, that group to hate here -- more importantly, afraid of?

DEAN: What I'm saying is that there has been fear mongering, the likes of which we have not seen in a long time in this country. It happened early in the cold war. We got accustomed to it. We learned to live with it. We learned to understand what it was about and get it in proportion. We haven't done that yet with terrorism. And this administration is really capitalizing on it and using it for its' political advantage. No question, the academic testing show -- the empirical evidence shows -- when people are frightened, they tend to go to these authority figures. They tend to become more conservative. So, it's paid off for them politically to do this.

OLBERMANN: This all seems to require, not merely, venality or immorality but a kind of amorality where morals don't enter into it at all. We're right. So anything we do to preserve our process, our power -- even if it by itself is wrong -- it's right in the greater sense. It's that wonderful rationalization that everybody uses in small doses throughout their lives. But, is this idea, this sort of psychological sort of review of the whole thing, does it apply to Dick Cheney? Does it apply to George Bush? Does it apply to Bill Frist? Who are the names on these authoritarian figures?

DEAN: You just named three that I discuss at some length in the book. I focused in the book, not on the Bush Administration and Cheney and The President because they had really been there done that, but what I wanted to understand is what they have done is made it legitimate to have authoritarianism. It was already operating on Capitol Hill after the '94 control by the Republicans in Congress. It recreated the mood. It restructured Congress itself in a very authoritarian style, in the House in particular. The Senate hasn't gone there yet but it's going there because more House members are moving over. This atmosphere is what Bush and Cheney walked into. They are authoritarian personalities. Cheney much more so than Bush. They have made it legitimate and they have taken way past where anybody's ever taken it in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Our society's best defense against that is what? Do we have to hope, as you suggested, the people that follow, wise up and break away from this sort of lockstep salute to, of course, they're right, of course there are WMDs, of course there are terrorists, of course there is al Qaeda, of course everything is the way the president says it. Or do we rely on the hope that these are fanatics and fanatics always screw up because they would rather believe in their own cause than double-check their own math.

DEAN: The lead researcher in this field told me, he said, I look at the numbers of the United States and I see about 23% of the population who are pure right-wing authoritarian followers. They're not going to change. They're going to march over the cliff. The best thing to deal with them -- and they're growing, and they have a tremendous influence on Republican politics -- The best defense is understanding them, to realize what they are doing, how they're doing it and how they operate. Then it can be kept in perspective and they can be seen for what they are.

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means �argument against the person�) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That�s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person�s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

If you accept the Chickenhawk argument � that only those actually willing to go and fight have a legitimate opinion on the subject of war � then that means that any decision to go to war must rest exclusively in the hands of the military. Is that what this person really wants? To abandon civilian control of the military? That�s the box they have trapped themselves in with this argument. Now to be perfectly honest, I think Robert Heinlein made a very compelling case for just this line of reasoning in Starship Troopers (the book, not the clueless projected travesty). Heinlein said that the only people who should be allowed to vote are those that have served in the military, since only they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of the state. I don�t agree with that. I think civilian control of the military has been one of the pillars of our nation�s success, and it has withstood the test of both World Wars and Civil ones. But that is the world you are stuck in when you toss that little Chickenhawk grenade.

Finally, if the only legitimate opinion on Iraq, say, is that held by the troops themselves, then they are overwhelmingly in favor of being there and finishing what they started. I recently received an e-mail from an Army major who is heading back for his fourth tour. The Chickenhawk argument, coming from an anti-war commentator, legitimizes only those voices that overwhelmingly contradict the anti-war argument.

Bill Whittle wrote that. He's a real live veteran and I happen to agree with him.

SALT LAKE CITY - Utah is the only state that requires people to fill out an application and pay a fee before entering a bar.

But the shelf life of this law - enacted 40 years ago in a state where nearly two out of three residents are members of a religion that shuns drinking - appears to be dwindling.

In Utah, and across the country, governors and lawmakers faced with budget deficits are advocating loosening laws that restrict alcohol consumption in the hopes of boosting tax revenues.
- In Georgia, Connecticut, Indiana, Texas, Alabama and Minnesota, lawmakers are considering legislation this year that would end the ban on Sunday liquor sales. All but 15 states sell booze on Sundays.

- In Nebraska, a state lawmaker has proposed allowing beer to be consumed in state parks as a way to boost tourism.

- Other states, including Utah, are considering allowing the sale of liquor on Election Day.

Drinkers shouldn't break out the bubbly just yet: Two dozen states, including California, Massachusetts, Oklahoma and Virginia, are looking to help their budgets by raising alcohol taxes.

Alcohol taxes are a popular budgetary crutch for lawmakers because liquor sales tend to hold up relatively well, compared with other revenue streams, during hard times, said Steve Schmidt, vice president of the Alexandria, Va. based National Alcohol Beverage Control Association.

In 2008, revenue reported by liquor suppliers rose 2.8 percent from the previous year to $18.7 billion, according to the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States. That's slower than the 6 percent average annual growth rate since 2000.

The council's president, Peter Cressy, calls liquor "recession resilient" not recession proof - a point that industry officials make when cautioning lawmakers about raising taxes.

Earlier this month, distillers in Kentucky poured bottles of bourbon on the statehouse steps there to protest a proposed tax increase.

In Pittsburgh, a 10 percent tax placed on alcohol last year inspired an animated satire, resulted in some bars printing signs saying the tax's architect was not welcome and one restaurateur challenging Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato to a charity boxing match.

Ben Jenkins, a spokesman for the Distilled Spirits Council, said states would be better off if they simply made alcohol more accessible to meet consumer demand. States that lift the ban on Sunday sales see a 5 percent to 8 percent annual sales increase, he said.

"Dozens of states consider alcohol taxes and every year most of them fail because the legislators become educated as to the effects a tax increase on alcohol would have on the hospitality industry," he said. "Since 2001, we've seen 245 major tax proposals and 227 of them have failed."

Those opposed to reforming Utah's liquor laws cite concerns about overconsumption and drunk driving. But religion also plays a key role.

About 60 percent of the state's residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which tells its members not to drink alcohol. An even greater percentage of lawmakers - 80 percent to 90 percent - are Mormon, though some of them are open to changing the law for the sake of the state's economy.

The state's private club system as it's currently known, was created in 1969 after voters - encouraged by the church - killed a proposal to allow the sale of liquor by the drink in restaurants.

But for Utah's $6 billion-a-year tourism industry, liquor laws are a major issue, too. They say it hurts their efforts to compete with neighboring states like Colorado for the lucrative convention and ski market.

If there was ever a question if Utah has an image problem because of its quirky liquor laws, business travelers like Marty Cano can answer it.

"Originally, I thought alcohol was illegal here," the Austin, Texas IT consultant said one recent night after downing a few pints of beer at the Poplar Street Pub, a few blocks away from the downtown Mormon temple.

Utah's bar industry has come up with a compromise to the hassle of making patrons fill out forms. Its leaders have proposed scanning driver's licenses before customers enter a club to verify nobody under 21 enters. Some lawmakers would like information about who goes into a bar stored on the scanners so police could use it.

There are other ways in which Utah's liquor laws are getting stronger. Last year, it became the only state to ban the sale of flavored malt beverages from grocery and convenience stores.

Other states, meanwhile, are trying to eliminate much less onerous hassles associated with buying alcohol.

In Colorado and Kansas, grocery stores are fighting for the right to sell full-strength beer. Most of the opposition in those states isn't coming from morality groups, but instead from liquor stores who like having a corner on the market.

A similar effort is occurring in Tennessee, where lawmakers are considering allowing the sale of wine in supermarkets.

In Alabama, a proposal to raise the amount of alcohol allowed in beer from 6 percent alcohol by volume to 13.9 percent is being considered, although some church groups fear it would result in people getting drunker quicker.

Dave Morris, owner of Salt Lake City's Piper Down, an Irish-themed pub, said keeping a database of who enters a bar would be "a public relations nightmare" but he says he's willing to accept scanning IDs if it helps tourism officials lure more visitors to the state, and put more money into the pockets of his customers.

"If they have more money, they can come out more often," he said. "It will all trickle down."

Subject: This should "Cook Obama's Goose"

> To Barack Hussein Obama,
> The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008 that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.
>
> The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008 that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly. While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

> Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008 about 'race' contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America . While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.
>
> In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without 'preparations' at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... while the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without 'any' preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.
>
> On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about military strategy as a potential commander in chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

> You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.
>
> You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.
>
> In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan . You lied in that debate.

> In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a 'professor of Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.
>
> You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

> You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right .... corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth.

> You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .

> You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.
>
> You did not take an active roll in the rescue plan. You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign. While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.
>
> You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you. While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America .
>
> During your campaign, you said: 'typical white person.' 'they cling to their guns and religion.' 'they will say that I am black.' You played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as racist. You divide America .
>
> You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 Billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn. Your social programs will cost America $1 Trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it. While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America .
>
> The drain to America 's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 Billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 Billion (less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear. You are lying to America .
>
> Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). You are lying to America .
>
> Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA . They eliminated religion from our history. They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade. They bring their personal politics into the classrooms. They disparage conservatives. They brainwash our children. They are in it for themselves ..... not America . Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans? You are deceiving America .
>
> Oh Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.
> Your character looks horrible. While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric. You talk the talk but do not walk the walk.
> 1. You lied to America . You lied many times. You distorted facts. You parsed your answers like a lawyer.
> 2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.
> 3. You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.
> 4. You divide America about race and about class.
>
> Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race bating, and associations to John McCain: War hero. Annapolis graduate with 'Country first.' Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy Officer for 22 years. 26 years in the Senate. Straight talk. Maverick. 54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats. Never asked for an earmark. The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.
>
> Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means. You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated. Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton. Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.
>
> Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character. It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first. It is time for America to vote for honesty.
> Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character. Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches? Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain? Would they hire someone for a job if that someone lied in an interview? .... of course not. So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest? Why do they excuse your dishonesty? because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are praying on their fears with empty promises ... and because some (especially our young peop le) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for 'change' like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932. The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was. They love
> d his style. Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.
>
> Mr. Obama, you are dishonest. Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.
> Mr. Obama , America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.
> Mr. Obama, you are not the 'change' that America deserves. We cannot trust you.
> Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander in chief.
> Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements. And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race bating, lack of operational leadership experience, and general dishonest character. The media is diverting our attention to your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships. The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those gentlemen lied about the events ... false witness ... perjury ... your relationships and bad judgments are bad on their own . ... but your lies are even worse.
>
> Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late. We need to do the job that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.
> Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if we deserve you.
>
> michael master
> McLean, Virginia

COLMES:...And I want to ask you about something, Ann, that you wrote in your most recent column. You had a very funny line, actually, that it is hard to find a parking spot in New York City. There's no question about it. You've had a pretty good day if you can do that.

But then you said, It's far preferable to fight them on the streets of Baghdad than in the streets of New York, where the residents would immediately surrender. Now, some New Yorkers...

COLMES: Is that what that is? You certainly don't feel that New Yorkers are cowards?

COULTER: I don't -- I don't think -- I think I'd rather have them trying to invade Mississippi or Georgia, Alabama, you know, the states where I want Cindy Sheehan's bus tour to go.

Isn't she the one who surrendered ran away from a PIE that someone hurled at her on a stage?

I encourage all responsible posters on this board to go to the NBC website and drop them a note regarding Coulter's scheduled appearance on Today. I am letting them know that I do not appreciate their promotion of an old, hateful voice. We hae turned the page. Let the media know we are tired of division and name calling. The hateful right has a plethora of media outlets. Coulter can spread her trash talk on them.

I was watching MSNBC last night, and noted that Olberman came up with an excellent question. Coulter has been trying to get an interview in NBC to promote her book (which, by the way, talks about NBC like a dog) and has been ticked off because he was bumped a day back. Olberman's question was if she hates NBC so much and thinks everything out of their mouths is lies, why does she want to be on that network in the first place...Hmmmmm

Then she finally got the interview. As expected, she made a complete fool of herself, most of the time whining about how terrible the network she was appearing on actually was -- all the while trying to sell her latest book. It's amazing what one will do to sell a book. I guess she didn't get a very good response in terms of book sales from the Fixed news viewers.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2009/01/07/ann_coulter_on_nbcs_today_show.html

So, just for fun I decided to check out some of her other interviews. Ya gotta love this one:

Thanks, Starcat. Poor souls. That's all they know how to do. Swiftboat others. I suppose everyone has to be good at something. I don't even remotely expect it to stop, and yes, sure looks like I did hit a nerve, otherwise they wouldn't bother to keep trying to discredit me. The way I figure it, the more *Swiftboating* that goes on, the closer I came to exposing the truth, so in a way, their *feedback* is very helpful.

The only reason I posted the second post (which I addressed to Liberals) was that I fully realized how bizarre the whole concept sounded. Who in their right mind could believe something like that could happen here in America, that the lunatic fringe was comprised of so many people? I guess that's what makes it so darn frightening.

You have a nice day now. As for me, I'm going to go check the stock prices for Kool-Aid. Might be time to invest.

She reminds me of a homely stick-thin 5-year-old girl with stringy blonde hair trying to get anyone's attention by showing her panties, singing off key, etc. She just says outrageous things for media attention. She has a small group of fans, but then so does charlie manson.

Okay, I almost laughed myself to death watching these two morons go at it last night. My favorite part of the interview would have to be:

In a stinging blow to the Bush administration, the Supreme Court has ruled prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can challenge their detention in civilian federal courts. The ruling marked the third time in four years the Supreme Court has ruled against the Bush administration concerning the rights of Guantanamo prisoners.

It's apparently acceptable to advocate assassination as long as you're a darling of the Republican party.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002689569

Latest Ann Coulter Outrage: On Fragging John Murtha

By E&P Staff

Published: June 15, 2006 11:55 PM ET

NEW YORK With the brief debate over Iraq in Congress producing such acrimony this week that one congressman suggested opponents of the war support al-Qaeda, it should come as no surprise that columnist and author Ann Coulter would top them all.

In an email interview with John Hawkins at the Right Wing News web site, Coulter was asked, among other things, to offer short comments on several individuals. After harmlessly dismissing former Ambassador Joseph Wilson as the World's most intensely private exhibitionist, she said of Rep. John Murtha, the hawkish ex-Marine and now antiwar congressman: The reason soldiers invented 'fragging.'

Fragging, which became a well-known expression --and occurence -- during the Vietnam war, means soldiers attempting to kill their own officers for one reason or another.

This was so over the top that conservative Mike Krempasky at RedState.org posted, I've said before that's its kind of ironic that just about every phrase Stewie from Family Guy uses to describe Lois could easily be applied to Ann Coulter. Well - once again, Ann proves us right. He went on to call her fragging remark absolutely disgusting....there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter.

Coulter's column is syndicated by Universal Press Syndicate. On its home page, Universal hails her witty, no-holds-barred commentaries on the Washington scene. She tackles the hot issues with fervor and stands up for the things that she believes in.

They obviously emulate her and try to be like her, obviously not realizing or caring how terrible it makes them look. You can see from these boards that people like her do have a constituency, unfortunately.

Maybe her hatred and anger are preventing her from forming original thoughts. Or maybe she's just following the trends of those in her party, the masters of illusion and fallacy.

She also cheated when she went on Leno and stacked the audience with freepers to give the illusion that she is popular with normal reasonable people.

She apparently also cheats when she votes, and when she gets caught, who represents her? None other than Bush's 2000 (s)election attorneys!

Coulter Hires Law Firm to Fight Vote-Fraud Allegations

By E&P Staff

Published: June 02, 2006 5:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Universal Press Syndicate columnist Ann Coulter has hired a White House-connected law firm to defend herself against allegations that she voted illegally in a Palm Beach, Fla., election, reported Palm Beach Post columnist Jose Lambiet Friday.

The attorney from Miami's Kenny Nachwalter firm representing Coulter is Marcos Jimenez, who was among the lawyers who fought for George W. Bush in Florida during the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Lambiet, in recapping Coulter's February voting problem, wrote Friday: A poll worker reported to his supervisors that he saw Coulter try to vote in the precinct closest to her Palm Beach home. But when she was told the address on her voter's registration was elsewhere, Coulter ran out instead of correcting it and ended up voting in a precinct that wasn't hers. Knowingly voting in the wrong precinct in Florida is a felony.

Elections Supervisor Arthur Anderson gave Coulter until April 30 to explain what happened, but she has yet to answer his registered letters. Now with Jimenez, [Deputy Elections Chief Charmaine] Kelly said, officials will wait 'a few more weeks' before starting a procedure that could strip Coulter of her right to vote here and refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for possible prosecution.

Lambiet's Friday column was highlighted by Brad Friedman of BradBlog.com.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002612877