Is Ann Coulter just a political ploy?

Pearl Jam and toast

.. a negative-press lightning rod for conservatives?

The Republican party the past few years has been brilliant at running their political campaigns.. Relying on the stupidity of the media and the Democrats to fuel the fires they start.

A good example is the Gay Marriage issue they created before the 2004 presidential election. Instead of saying "oh c'mon, they don't honestly care about this, it's just a trick to rally support from homophobic people and to detract attention from the Bush administration's terrible job" the media and Dems jumped at the opportunity to bash them.. "look what they're doing now!".

Ann Coulter is way too ridiculous and absurd for me to take her seriously. Even if the republican party isn't directly involved, i think she's there just to make the other conservatives look good. Anyone who runs in 2008 and for mid-term elections is going to benefit from her.. people will say "well at least it's not Ann Coulter!".

The Republicans denounce her (generally,.. esp. after her book). Classic move right? Give people a really terrible example to make yourself look better.

And have you seen her on CNN? She literally blames everything bad on the democratic party and liberals.. and she just says it.. "oh, well the liberals caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, obviously." A mirror of her would be a Democrat saying "Mandatory abortions!", i just refuse to believe that she's legitimate.

I call her a political ploy.

What do you think?

jeffbr

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

I call her a political ploy.

What do you think?

Absolutely! And I'd add Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh to the list for the right. Much the way Al Franken, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan fill that role on the left.

The all take ridiculous, marginalized views aimed at polarizing people. None of the above have any ability to talk to the other side. And only the polarized extremes think these people have anything worthwhile to say.

Pearl Jam and toast

jeffbr wrote:

Absolutely! And I'd add Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh to the list for the right. Much the way Al Franken, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan fill that role on the left.

The all take ridiculous, marginalized views aimed at polarizing people. None of the above have any ability to talk to the other side. And only the polarized extremes think these people have anything worthwhile to say.

And with that established i'd call her the most effective so far!

jeffbr

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

And with that established i'd call her the most effective so far!

I think you might be right about that.

Hoon

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

.. a negative-press lightning rod for conservatives?

The Republican party the past few years has been brilliant at running their political campaigns.. Relying on the stupidity of the media and the Democrats to fuel the fires they start.

A good example is the Gay Marriage issue they created before the 2004 presidential election. Instead of saying "oh c'mon, they don't honestly care about this, it's just a trick to rally support from homophobic people and to detract attention from the Bush administration's terrible job" the media and Dems jumped at the opportunity to bash them.. "look what they're doing now!".

Ann Coulter is way too ridiculous and absurd for me to take her seriously. Even if the republican party isn't directly involved, i think she's there just to make the other conservatives look good. Anyone who runs in 2008 and for mid-term elections is going to benefit from her.. people will say "well at least it's not Ann Coulter!".

The Republicans denounce her (generally,.. esp. after her book). Classic move right? Give people a really terrible example to make yourself look better.

And have you seen her on CNN? She literally blames everything bad on the democratic party and liberals.. and she just says it.. "oh, well the liberals caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, obviously." A mirror of her would be a Democrat saying "Mandatory abortions!", i just refuse to believe that she's legitimate.

I call her a political ploy.

What do you think?

Yeah, it's all about the left-right game. The battle to make yourself look like a centrist or a moderate. "Look at how sensible and rational I AM"

A hateful waste of space like her is in the same boat with Robertson and the things he says. Pretty much falling in the area of protected free speech of a fucking Clan member.

But you can see how she can be used to shift the illusionary position place on the illusionary political line. She gets on news programs......

She was used to "cancel out" Michael Moore and his work.

Lets see, they both write books and are activists, but something tells me Moore is a bit more legitimate. Should we really believe they are the same thing but Polar opposites?

We have a president that continually represents less than 30% of the population.

Most here are not interested in coming together to create solutions together. They aren't trying to learn anything. It's all about shaking all the issues We bring up until they are neutral....stop the momentum.....do what you can to put a fog over the truth.........Just like the strategy of guerrilla warfare......and the administration continues on with no real opposition.

Keep telling us T. Kennedy and The Clintons are extremist liberals. Fools smile at each other as they say "flip-flopper".

Tire us out until we are discouraged from participating in politics. It's a Political Quagmire.

Thats what it's about, the wars will come and go and each time the guards will be in place to support it unconditionally. Years after the war some will show regret, but for the next one a new generational group will be there to defend it. Wash Rinse Repeat.

People are dying and suffering and the human race could do something about it. Meet everyones basic needs for minimal costs. Prepare for disaster and one billion refugees at a minimum. We could all live with a content conscience.

What I'm afraid of is there will be an event that far exceeds the Holocaust or the A-bombs the United States dropped that we could have stopped, it will linger in the history of the Human Race, and we will never be able to forgive ourselves, until the sun burns out.

jeffbr

Hoon wrote:

Lets see, they both write books and are activists, but something tells me Moore is a bit more legitimate. Should we really believe they are the same thing but Polar opposites?

Perhaps that is your bias telling you that. Few outside of the fringe left give more any credibility, just as very few except the fringe right would give Coulter much thought.

Hoon

jeffbr wrote:

Perhaps that is your bias telling you that. Few outside of the fringe left give more any credibility, just as very few except the fringe right would give Coulter much thought.

How could I be biased if I'm a moderate centrist?

jeffbr

Hoon wrote:

How could I be biased if I'm a moderate centrist?

Perhaps you're not the moderate centrist you fancy yourself to be.

Pearl Jam and toast

i think Moore is more legitimate.

He's nutsy too, but i don't think he's much of a political ploy.. just a jackass.

Coulter is 100 times more extremist than Moore.

mpg82

Coulter helps liberals. She makes conservatives look evil, which is arguable without even mentioning her name. Because middle-of-the-road-politically Joe Schmo from Small Town, USA is not going to turn on to what they have to say. For example, she gets on the news by saying the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths. That sort of garbage is not going to get the undecideds to vote GOP.

She also is trying to sell books by being tasteless, which works. But I think I'd have to say that I have more respect for porn stars than Ann Coulter.

Purple Hawk

No, Ann Coulter is not a political ploy, consumers actually pay her salary.

Scare America on the other hand, completely funded by the DNC and Democratic millionaires...yes.

Pearl Jam and toast

mikeg19_82 wrote:

Coulter helps liberals. She makes conservatives look evil, which is arguable without even mentioning her name. Because middle-of-the-road-politically Joe Schmo from Small Town, USA is not going to turn on to what they have to say. For example, she gets on the news by saying the 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths. That sort of garbage is not going to get the undecideds to vote GOP.

She also is trying to sell books by being tasteless, which works. But I think I'd have to say that I have more respect for porn stars than Ann Coulter.

it works against republicans too, but she does act as a lightning rod for negetive criticism.

Distractions have always been a staple in political schemes

Number 18

I disapprove of her because she spreads hate. She does nobody any good.

Plus, I hear she was born a man...lol. (Seriously, google it.)

Pearl Jam and toast

Number 18 wrote:

I disapprove of her because she spreads hate. She does nobody any good.

Plus, I hear she was born a man...lol. (Seriously, google it.)

that's weird, cuz i've always thought she looked like a man!

Purple Hawk

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

that's weird, cuz i've always thought she looked like a man!

The irony here is that 10 out of 10 "chicks" with adam's apples vote Democrat.

Pearl Jam and toast

Purple Hawk wrote:

The irony here is that 10 out of 10 "chicks" with adam's apples vote Democrat.

Ironic indeed

Of course, people in denial often bash what they try to hide.. so maybe it all just adds up.

Byrnzie

jeffbr wrote:

Absolutely! And I'd add Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh to the list for the right. Much the way Al Franken, Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan fill that role on the left.

The all take ridiculous, marginalized views aimed at polarizing people. None of the above have any ability to talk to the other side. And only the polarized extremes think these people have anything worthwhile to say.

So who, in your opinion, does have something worthwhile to say? And can you explain how they differ from the above in getting their points across??

Byrnzie

Pearl Jam and toast wrote:

i think Moore is more legitimate.

He's nutsy too, but i don't think he's much of a political ploy.. just a jackass.

Coulter is 100 times more extremist than Moore.

I find it interesting that anyone would regard Michael Moore as 'extremist'. If Michael Moore represents 'extremism' in the U.S then the U.S really is in trouble. Let's not forget that he's simply a documentary maker/writer who attempts to shed light on areas of corruption within the American political/corporate sectors, and imbues his films and books with a lot of humour. Where's the extremism? Can anyone provide an example rather then making comments with nothing to support them.

Can somebody please name something extreme that Michael Moore has done or said?

binauralsounds

Number 18 wrote:

I disapprove of her because she spreads hate. She does nobody any good.

Plus, I hear she was born a man...lol. (Seriously, google it.)

ok, that is really is strange. I always thought "man" when i saw her. Hmmm. now i'm off to google.

El_Kabong

Hoon wrote:

We have a president that continually represents less than 30% of the population.

remember less than 1/2 the ppl vote, so in reality he represents less than 15% of the population.

El_Kabong

jeffbr wrote:

Perhaps that is your bias telling you that. Few outside of the fringe left give more any credibility, just as very few except the fringe right would give Coulter much thought.

but moore at least started out actually doing what he pretends to be doing now. his old segment 'corporate crooks' is a great example. however, those days seem to be long gone now