| |
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/10/2009 9:06:44 PM | This is from Meghan McCain (excerpted from the Daily Beast)
It is no secret that being a Republican isn’t the most hip political stance a person can take right now. President Obama has successfully established himself as the hippest politician around. You know you’re big when Katy Perry wears a dress with your face on it to host the MTV Europe Music Awards. To my fellow Republicans: I’m sorry, I wish I could be more positive about the current “hipness” of our party. But being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond. Granted, being “hip” is not a reason to join a political party, or a reason to agree with its ideals. But it is a way to get the attention of a generation—or, more specifically, my generation.
To make matters worse, certain individuals continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Republicans. Especially Republican women. Who do I feel is the biggest culprit? Ann Coulter. I straight up don’t understand this woman or her popularity. I find her offensive, radical, insulting, and confusing all at the same time. But no matter how much you or I disagree with her, the cult that follows Coulter cannot be denied. She is a New York Times best-selling author and one of the most notable female members of the Republican Party. She was one of the headliners at the recent CPAC conference (but when your competition is a teenager who has a dream about the Republican Party and Stephen Baldwin, it’s not really saying that much).
Coulter could be the poster woman for the most extreme side of the Republican Party. And in some ways I could be the poster woman for the opposite. I consider myself a progressive Republican, but here is what I don’t get about Coulter: Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate? (I asked Ann for comment on this column, including many of the above questions, but she did not answer my request.)
I am not suggesting that extreme conservatism wasn’t once popular, nor am I suggesting I should in any way be any kind of voice for the party. I have been a Republican for less than a year. Still, even after losing the election, I find myself more drawn to GOP ideals and wanting to fight for the party’s resurgence. And if figureheads like Ann Coulter are turning me off, then they are definitely turning off other members of my generation as well. She does appeal to the most extreme members of the Republican Party—but they are dying off, becoming less and less relevant to the party structure as a whole. I think most people my age are like me in that we all don’t believe in every single ideal of each party specifically. The GOP should be happy to have any young supporters whatsoever, even if they do digress some from traditional Republican thinking.
More so than my ideological differences with Ann Coulter, I don’t like her demeanor. I have never been a person who was attracted to hate or negativity. I don’t believe in scare tactics and would never condone or encourage anyone calling President Obama a Muslim. But controversy sells and Coulter is nothing if not controversial. Everything about her is extreme: her voice, her interview tactics, and especially the public statements she makes about liberals. Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck.
This is John McCain's daughter saying - more eloquently than I - the same things I've been saying. If the Republican party's direction is set by the extremists and radicals, it's not going to get near power.
I used to hang around with extremists. I know how commited they can get to the cause and the movement. They make great foot soldiers. Keep them happy. But don't let them have the keys to the truck, 'cause while they're driving into the bush they think they're blazing the trail. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/10/2009 10:34:06 PM |
Maybe her popularity stems from the fact that watching her is sometimes like watching a train wreck.
Gee Meghan, I felt the same watching your pop blow the election!!
If the Republican party's direction is set by the extremists and radicals, it's not going to get near power.
Why? Obama is an extremist and a radical, and yet, there he is---up the stage--reading the teleprompter--as our president. Looks to me like he's got it made. That must be why McCain lost, he wasn't extreme or radical enough. Or possibly, could it be, uhhh, I don't know, maybe he wasn't extreme enough for to motivate our side to vote for him.
Maybe that's why so republicans gravitated toward Barry. They actually wanted extreme radicalism. Maybe we better run Limbaugh out there next election. | |
|
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/10/2009 11:55:07 PM |
All McCain had to say was "if you elect me I will legalize pot" and McCain would be prez right now.
McCain could have just said "If you elect me" all your mortgages will be paid for. Hell, Obama's doin' it now and he didn't even promise it (well, in so many words...it was implied).
Some of the stuff that is going on right now is making wonder if I should start smoking pot. Just so I can get into the frame of mind where I quit questioning the ridiculousness of it all. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/11/2009 6:01:34 AM | Thanks faith.
It seems like the thread has changed to a debate about her and McCain's girl. Cat fight can only happen if Ann speaks. I do not think she will that would be an old lady saying "I am still hip" to a girl who just got the right to vote. The girl puts herself up as Ann's = wow Obama has changed things remember the laugh that went through when SP tried to place herself as HC's =? | |
|
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/11/2009 11:31:19 AM | Actually, characterizing Obama as radical kind of proves my point.
You have to be way, way off the main track to see him as anything but mild and mainstream. Which is the problem with the Republican party today - or at least the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/et al version of it.
If their version of reality is so out of whack with obvious truth, then the party is doomed to marginal status as long as they maintain control of it. These are people who think the problem with W is that he wasn't right wing enough and that the real problem was the "liberal" media.
Sorry, but it reminds me of nothing so much as the Communist Party of Canada Marxist/Leninists I remember from my youth. Total dedication to the cause; everything seen through a very skewed prism; unconditional support of the Soviet Union/ Republican administration. | |
|
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/11/2009 10:29:12 PM | Yes, Rush and Coulter really hurt the image of the party. On D.L. Hugley the other night a former republican (Frank Shaffer sp) stated how the party is starting to look 'very uneducated and out dated'. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 12:28:47 AM | You have to be way, way off the main track to see him as anything but mild and mainstream. Which is the problem with the Republican party today - or at least the Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/et al version of it.
I would have to agree I have voted for republicans in past election's and democrat's.I will not have any association with a party that panders to the like's of coulter and rush. And an interesting article on the subject.......
politico
New GOP chair must accept moderates
By CANDY L. STRAIGHT | 1/28/09 5:28 AM EST
On Friday, the 168 members of the Republican National Committee will vote on a new party chairman. After what can only be described as disastrous outcomes of the past two election cycles, lifelong Republicans like me held hope that we have finally learned that the key to winning is being inclusive and true to our limited government core. I had hoped that the RNC members would focus on the pressing bread-and-butter issues facing our country and our party.
At a time when the party should be establishing a sound strategy to win elections, regain the majority and have influence on issues like economic security and cutting government waste, the debate among the candidates for RNC chairman is more of the same: a call to energize the right wing of the party, despite the fact that this hyper-ideological, so-called base no longer represents the majority of GOP voters. And, as a consequence, vilify anyone who does not pledge 100 percent allegiance to an exclusionary social agenda.
Even conservative candidate Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland, is being attacked for being too willing to work with moderates. The RNC members continue to pander to a small, vocal, fundamentalist faction instead of revamping its message, mission and agenda to appeal to a broader base of voters. All of this bodes ill for the GOP.
According to national exit polls, the Republican brand lost with the two largest voting blocs in the country: women and moderates. Self-described moderates — who make up 44 percent of the electorate — gave Barack Obama a 21-point advantage over John McCain. Women gave Obama a 13-point advantage (56 percent to 43 percent). The GOP won the male vote only 49 percent to 48 percent, a negligible difference. Voters under 30, the future of both parties, gave Obama a landslide victory (66 percent to 32 percent). Additionally, the GOP lost the majority of voters in key suburbs — which lean to the middle — across the nation, as well as nine states formerly considered “safe” Republican states in 2004, including Indiana and North Carolina. These facts seem to be either ignored or not enough for our party leaders to see that the base is changing. I believe it is changing for the better.
Republicans must face the reality that the reason the Democratic Party is the majority in Congress and in the White House is that they ran on a platform of inclusiveness and diversity. Our newly elected president took the oath of office sounding like a “big-tent” Republican — calling for common-sense solutions, leaner budgets, a reduction in government waste and greater personal responsibility — because he knew that these are the beliefs of the majority of voters. Meanwhile, the GOP is looking to repair its party by doing just the opposite: excluding voters, ignoring issues of concern and exhibiting an inability to provide common-sense solutions.
The turnaround of the GOP is not an easy fix. Years of marginalizing — even ignoring — the viable and influential moderate majority will take time to unravel, but it must begin now. The newly elected chairman must welcome diverse views on heartfelt social issues while remaining true to core Republican principles of limited government, individual responsibility and personal freedom. If the party cannot do this, there will be no Republican Party to fight over in the future.
Candy L. Straight is national co-chairwoman of the Republican Majority for Choice.
Personally IMHO I do not even recognise it as the republican party anymore. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 2:01:17 AM | You know, it's funny, I remember hearing all the republican party is dead rhetoric when Clinton was in office too. How the party was finished, out of date, out of touch, and out of it's mind. Then Clinton lied about the BJ. Bam! The republican party was back in vogue again.
Does anyone here honestly think that if Obama drives this country into the dumpster that people are actually going to vote another like minded individual in? These supposed conservatives spend way too much time over-analyzing things. The average dude and chick on the street doesn't even know who the vice president is. Do you really think they sit down and look at what a party stands for? The average person's thought process : well, that party screwed it up--let's vote for this one.
To explain the fact the younger generation has gone anti-conservative: America has become a country of style over substance. It doesn't matter what they say--it's how they say it, for the most part. Credit should not be given where credit is not deserved. And unforetuntly too many people give the majority of people in this country a lot more credit than they deserve. And I mean that both literally and figurativly. Taking it literally - your difference is--one party wants to bail those given too much credit out and the other wants those given too much credit to bail themselves out. Who exactly do you think the young consumer driven gimme gimme gimmes are going to vote for? Whichever party promises to give them the most. Regardless of weather they actually deliver or not. Obama promised a lot of people a lot of things, so now a lot of people are waiting to see if he delivers. If he does, he might get re-elected, if he doesn't....................I'll place my bet on the opposition. | |
|
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 4:12:12 PM |
Yeah, but the party did not appear as though they wore white sheets at night with Sarah Palin and Micheal Steele as tokens.
Sure they did. They've been painted as racists as far back as I can remember (Reagan era). Why? Because they refuse to continue to play the PC apologists for everything like the democrat party. Because they expect people to have personal responsibility for themselves and not make excuses or blame society for their own personal bad decisions. Because they refuse to change definitions for things like marriage and contort them to fit the views of a small faction of people. Hardly racism, but for some reason it gets typecast as such by the PC police.
And where do you get that they appear as if they wear white sheets at night? No party is without a few bad apples. Remember Robert Byrd? He's the last politician I remember who ever wore a white sheet (or at least, who admitted it). If memory serves he was a democrat. And since he was, of course, he was forgiven for his "bad judgement" not cast out for it. Remember Trent Lott? He was a republican who made a faux paus when making a speech about Strom Thurmond who ran, oh, about 60 years before as a separationist. He was chastised and driven out of the party on a bullet train. Wanna rethink which party has more tolerance for "racism"? | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 4:52:46 PM | Whew.
I know this is off track. Yes, Trent Lott got in trouble. But it wasn't exactly a faux pas. He said the country would have been better off if Strom had won the Presidential election back in 48 when he ran as a racist Dixiecrat.
Which brings us to Robert Byrd and Strom Thurmond. Robert Byrd and George Wallace started as racists within the Democratic Party, but repented and repudiated their views. So they stayed in the party. Strom remained an unrepentant racist so he changed parties and became a Republican.
There was always a bitter division within the Democratic party prior to 64 between the Northern liberals and the Southern racists. Between 1960 - when Kennedy won the fight to change the number on the Rules Committee (2 Southerners on the committee meant that all Civil Rights initiatives failed when those 2 sided with the Republicans to deadlock and stall things in committee) - to 1964 and Johnson's Civil Rights Act, meant the party had one voice on this issue. The Republican Party then stepped into the vacuum and got all the old racist votes, leading to a Red South. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 6:50:37 PM |
I know this is off track. Yes, Trent Lott got in trouble. But it wasn't exactly a faux pas. He said the country would have been better off if Strom had won the Presidential election back in 48 when he ran as a racist Dixiecrat.
Okay, wrong choice of words (calling it a faux pas). But same result--he was relieved of his position.
Prior to 1964 (but I'd say more like prior to the vietnam war) this country had a whole different political landscape than we do now. JFK's democratic ideals in 1960 were more closely aligned with what would be considered moderate republican today. He is probably spinning in his grave if he is seeing what his brother has become.
As I said there are a few bad apples in both parties, but to paint all republicans as racists isn't anymore correct than painting all democrats as whatever derogatory term republicans are calling them this week. I just get so tired of being told what I am because I choose to align myself with a party. Believe it or not there are a few aspects of the democratic party I do agree with (as there are many aspects of the republican party I don't). Does that mean I instantly become a non-racist with above average intellect when that occurs? If all racists drive Fords, does that make all Ford drivers racist. Hardly. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/12/2009 7:24:30 PM | JFK and RFK were both more liberal than Teddy.
The Democratic party today is way more right wing than Nixon or Ford's Republican party (and way, way more right wing than the Rockefeller or Eisenhower Republicans). Nixon launched the EPA, signed a stronger Fair Doctrine Act, started the PBS, etc. Eisenhower gave the famous "Military-Industrial Complex" speech as he left office. Either man would be considered to leftist to run for city council by the Democratic Party in San Francisco.
Your whole country has moved way to the right in the last 29 years. There has to be a move back to centre. And that means radically to the left. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/13/2009 6:09:37 AM | JFK and RFK were both more liberal than Teddy.
Let's stick with JFK. Pro-life, pro-military, pro-family. Conservative values all. He would have been a republican in 2000. A million web sites back me on this. Google it.
The democratic party is more right wing today than the republicans in the 70's? I think that is highly debatable. But as I said the political landscape was different then. The country as a whole was far more conservative pre-Vietnam.
Your whole country has moved way to the right in the last 29 years. There has to be a move back to centre. And that means radically to the left.
No thanks, I think it's gone far enough left. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/13/2009 8:26:38 AM |
Let's stick with JFK. Pro-life, pro-military, pro-family. Conservative values all. He would have been a republican in 2000. A million web sites back me on this. Google it.
I know there must be a lot of internet gossip like this, because I've seen your assertion before. But it's exactly what I've been talking about. The true believers talking to other true believers. It doesn't square up with reality, just prejudices. Baby boomers love JFK; right wing baby boomers then convince themselves that their hero must agree with them to avoid cognitive disonance.
His rhetoric and policies say something else entirely.
The political landscape has changed. If you want to get back in the discussion, you're going to have to stop lying to yourself about stuff like this. You'll just end up a cranky old man complaining about how the country's gone to hell since they let that darkie family into the White House. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/13/2009 9:21:11 AM |
right wing baby boomers then convince themselves that their hero must agree with them to avoid cognitive disonance.
He is no hero. No politicial figure could be a hero to me. But back to the arguement at hand, it's a futile arguement. You can probably show me 100 web sites that refute it and I can show just as many that are the opposite. So we should (as usual) agree to disagree here. Proof that the political landscape has changed is out there.
You'll just end up a cranky old man complaining about how the country's gone to hell since they let that darkie family into the White House.
That I might, but I can assure you the color of his skin has nothing to do with it. It's what's inside his head that concerns me. But as I've said many times before, we both know that the majority here in this country are more concerned with Paris Hilton than Barrack Obama and if he gets the country back on it's feet good for him. He'll probably get a second term. If he doesn't--bad for him, we'll be back in business in 2012. Unless this country has a lapse in it's usual bad judgement and elects an independant party that might actually really change something for once. | |
|
| |
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/14/2009 3:34:55 AM |
What does any of this have to do with Ann Coulter or single mothers?
In the last 20 posts or so, absolutely nothing.... but I find this interesting and I'm going to chime in anyways.
The Democratic party today is way more right wing than Nixon or Ford's Republican party
Your whole country has moved way to the right in the last 29 years. There has to be a move back to centre. And that means radically to the left.
I'll be the first to admit that I don't keep up with current events as much as I should... I base my opinions almost entirely on personal experience. This probably makes my opinion somewhat flawed, but on the other hand I'm almost immune to being subjected to biased news coverage... right or left.
A while ago I looked up 'neocon' on wikipedia and finally found out what the word means. To put it simply "neocon' is a leftist version of traditional conservatism. At one time true conservatives had no interest in foreign wars... including WWII up until 1942.
My personal experience consists mostly of growing up and living in a small town in Canada... yet I suspect most people in America would concur with my observations:
Government has steadily grown bigger. Whatever party you want to blame for this, it is not true conservatism. Conservatives want smaller government... period.
I've seen it said in these forums how American policies (and even Canadian) have swung enormously to the right in the last 30 years. Based on personal experience (and assuming right-wing still means conservative) I say bullshit.... | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/14/2009 6:41:32 AM |
I've seen it said in these forums how American policies (and even Canadian) have swung enormously to the right in the last 30 years. Based on personal experience (and assuming right-wing still means conservative) I say bullshit....
Of course those on the left are going to say it's swung to the right. How else can they try to con people into swinging it further to the left? It's a poor attempt at reverse psychology. Even one of my friends from college who is a staunch lefty says the country is moving exactly the way he likes it. | |
|
| Ann Coulter attacks single mothers in her new book.
Posted: 3/14/2009 8:56:09 AM | It's been said that government and politics always comes down to money: where you get it from and what you spend it on.
I'm hoping we can agree on that.
Left wing politics wants to spend more money on social programs and things like NEA. Right wing politics wants to spend it on military, police, etc. I'm over simplifying here, so don't jump down my throat.
Left wingers want to tax the rich and corporations. Right wingers want to tax everyone the same. nb see above.
In the light of this, let's look at the last Democratic and Republican administrations. Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, ending social assistance for many of the most needy in America. He boosted the number of cops on the streets. He gave away bandwidth to corporations at a time when other first world nations were auctioning it off. He cut military spending a little then started increasing it again once he had a balanced budget. So that when he left the US was spending more on military than the rest of the world combined.
Forget about looking at W's administration. How can you objectively look at Clinton's 8 years and think he's not a right winger? The debate in the US is now enclosed from moderate right to far right only. Nobody ever says that the military gets too much, or that corporations should be nationalized if they're not acting in the public interest. Eisenhower said the former; Truman said the latter. In living memory the parameters of debate were much, much larger and farther left than they are today. | |
|
Home
login 
