Settings
About Us
Categories
Search
Archives
Links
Miscellany
The truth is finally unveiled about B. Hussein O.’s shocking heritage. Is it any wonder he’s a Muslichurian Candidate?
*ETA
Be sure to scroll down and find out who the real father is… it’s easy to get bored by the foreshadowing.
Geoff posted this at 5:48 PM EDT on Thursday, October 30th, 2008 as Possession by the Coultergeist
Drudge is reporting that MAnn said she would vote for Hillary over McCain.
God I hate her.
Hey MAnn - the perfect is the enemy of the good.
And Michelle “Internment Rocks!” Malkin is in the usual hysterics about a McCain candidacy.
What is it about female conservative pundits that make me want to punch a kitten?
**UPDATE**
I think she (Hillary) would be stronger on the war on terrorism.
Hillary is absolutely more conservative. Moreover, she lies less than John McCain…she’s smarter than John McCain so that when she’s caught shamelessly lying, at least the Clintons know they’ve been caught lying.
Are you KIDDING ME! I’m so glad I don’t own a cat right now.
Jamie posted this at 10:56 PM EST on Thursday, January 31st, 2008 as Possession by the Coultergeist, Audacity of Hype
Jonah Goldberg is being disingenuous about Liberal Fascism:
I tried to explain, for those whose feelings were so hurt they didn’t even crack the spine, that the title “Liberal Fascism” comes from a speech delivered by H.G. Wells, one of the most important and influential progressive and socialist intellectuals of the 20th century. He wanted to re-brand liberalism as “liberal fascism” and even “enlightened Nazism.” He believed these terms best described his own political views — views that deeply informed American progressivism and New Deal liberalism.
I’m reading through his book right now, and I think a better title would have been Worship of the State or perhaps No God But Government. Yes, the title Liberal Fascism may have a serious intellectual pedigree from H.G. Wells (who, incidentally, was attacked as a heretic by no other than one of Goldberg’s heroes, G.K. Chesterton). But I can’t blame contemporary liberals for dismissing the book as an attack. Conservatives are rightly upset when accused of fascism, and liberals have a right to be upset, too. Why did he make it so easy for others to dismiss him as a hack when he’s anything but?
Goldberg attempts to explain the main reason for picking the inflammatory title:
As much as it may shock some, I’m not the first person to set the record straight. Maybe those authors didn’t penetrate the public debate because they tend to write books titled “Illiberal Policymaking and Culture Formation, the Anglo-American Experience, 1912-2007.” If I’d followed their example, no one would be buying my book, reading it or discussing it. And, you can be sure, I wouldn’t have been invited on to “The Daily Show” to get smacked around for 20 minutes.
So far, the book is filled with useful correctives to the standard left-wing version of history (I have a few other issues with it that I’ll try to expand on once I’m finished). I still don’t think that the choice of title was a wise idea. A book cannot change minds if they’re too offended by the title to take it seriously. As it is, I expect Mr. Goldberg to sell lots of books to like-minded conservatives, but to change the minds of very few modern liberals. (Then again, his epilogue “The Tempting of Conservatism” hints that his primary audience might not be modern liberals but modern conservatives. Again, I’ll know better once I’ve finished.)
It’s one thing for a hack like Ann Coulter to write shoddy polemics with inflammatory titles like Godless or Treason. It’s something more serious and frustrating when thoughtful conservatives like Jonah Goldberg or Ramesh “The Party of Death” Ponnuru do the same. I don’t know why they’re cutting themselves off at the knees like this, but they need to start being more constructive.
Hubbard posted this at 10:48 AM EST on Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008 as There Is Only One God And Jonah Goldberg Is His Prophet, Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Possession by the Coultergeist
Every now and then, you see something about somebody’s parents that makes you understand them better. Ann Coulter had one of those moments in her column today about her late father:
When Mother was in a rehabilitative facility briefly after surgery a few years ago and Father was not supposed to be driving, we were relieved that a snowstorm had knocked out the power to the garage door opener, so Daddy couldn’t get to the car. It would just be a week and then Mother would be home.
My brother came home to check on Father the first day of this arrangement to find that he had taken an ax to the side door of the garage, so he could drive to the rehab center and sit with Mother all day.
Miss Coulter’s preference for the battleaxe over the stiletto is apparently hereditary. John Vincent Coulter, RIP.
Hubbard posted this at 10:28 AM EST on Thursday, January 10th, 2008 as Possession by the Coultergeist
The Anchoress gets into a wonderful tussle with Ann Coulter apologists, who’ve dismissed her recent interview on Judaism with a shug and an “Oh, well, that’s Anne!:
Coulter obviously did NOT say Jews should be wiped off the planet, that was her host’s interpretation and the left, of course, will run with it. I don’t think she is an anti-semite at all, she is simply trying to express an idea, and doing it very badly, in an environment that is not going to help her do it better.
If you read that transcript to the end, you can see where Coulter tries to clarify her meaning, but she can’t, partly because a sound-bite forum is NO PLACE for that sort of deep and too-easily-misunderstood discussion, and partly because her host is, from his perspective as a Jew, unsurprisingly appalled by what he is hearing, by what he thinks Coulter is saying. This is a discussion best left to someone with a gift for diplomacy, a deft tongue and a loving, civil and collected mien. It is is absolutely not a discussion that should be undertaken by someone who has the deftness of a hammer and the mien of a German Shepherd.
…
What I have said here is that she was clumsy, unclear and incoherent in her expression of that idea - that a soundbite forum is no place to try to express it well - and in so being she has managed to give handfuls of red meat to people who have absolutely no intention of allowing clarification, are not interested in clarifying for her, and thus she has given Christian caricaturists a heavy dose of “see? See what they’re like” to back them up.
She then drives the point home with a wonderfully sarcastic post about how she “wishes” everyone were Catholic:
If all Americans were Catholic that means that all the government would be Catholic! Yaaaaay! Everyone would be pro-life! There would be Nativity creche’s and Ten Commandments in all the government buildings! The president would be a Catholic! We’d have Mass at the White House! And Bingo! Insurance companies would not have to cover birth control pills! And Jack Chick would no longer be publishing hate screeds because he’d be a Catholic too! Yaaaaay! The government would fix immigration policies so all our fellow Catholics down in Mexico can come on in and feel welcome and worship with us! Yaaaay! Then we’d go get those Canadians back into church too! And then England! We’d take back Westminster Abbey! Yaaaaay!
I mean, the Protestants - they’re okay now…as long as they’re you know, believing and stuff. But if all the Protestants would just come back to the Roman Catholic church from which they separated themselves, they would be really, really full Christians! America would be perfect!
Very, very well said. But I think she’s missing something which, to my chagrin, has also eluded otherwise smart people like Dennis Prager: many Christians ultimately beleive that if you don’t agree with them on a few points of theology, God hates you and will send you to burn in Hell for all eternity. That’s an ugly, despicable, elistist, mean-spirited, self-congratulatory view and there’s not a nice way of putting it. Contrast that with the Anchoress, who is delightful and respectful:
If they they want to, that’s very nice, and I’m happy to welcome them, but honestly, I don’t look for it. I think everyone finds their own way to God, and worships in the manner they best understand, are more opened to, etc. And that’s fine by me because I don’t have a need to decide who goes to heaven and who doesn’t, or who’s got the better way to get there. I have my way; I like it - if you have your’s, God bless you. I am ever a “live and let live” kind of girl.
Gimme more of this kind of Christianity!
Tom posted this at 2:00 PM EDT on Thursday, November 1st, 2007 as Faith, Possession by the Coultergeist
Is this true?
MAnn Coulter’s personal fantasy is to deny women the right to vote?
What the hell did the right do to deserve this woman? I mean I know we have our faults - George W. isn’t exactly knocking things out of the park for us. Still, a scary, transvestite homophobe isn’t exactly the spokesman I’d want for our side. Then again maybe god really does have a sense of humor.
All our problems could be solved if MAnn gets struck by a bolt of lighting, bursts into flames and is greeted in the afterlife by a scary red man with horns. Sorry, just a personal fantasy of mine.
Jamie posted this at 9:53 PM EDT on Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007 as Possession by the Coultergeist