When Ann Coulter uses terms like “raghead” and “faggot” to make her points, it makes most of us on the Right cringe.
If Ann has the ability to make many us on her own side rebuke her from time-to-time, why is it that she still sells so many books, is such a huge draw to young conservatives, and provokes so much unhinged hatred from the Left (remember when Sean Penn simulated raping an Ann Coulter doll? I’m inclined to think that is a bit more offensive than Ann calling the perpetually-preening and effeminate John Edwards a “faggot”.)?
Because she still writes some pretty damn-good and damning pieces. Like this article exposing the difference in the zealous prosecution of Republicans against the look-the-other-way indifference when the criminal in question is a Democrat:
Since Teddy Kennedy walked away from a dead girl with only a wrist slap (which was knocked down to a mild talking-to, plus time served: zero), Democrats have apparently become a protected class in America, immune from criminal prosecution no matter what they do.
As a result, Democrats have run wild, accepting bribes, destroying classified information, lying under oath, molesting interns, driving under the influence, obstructing justice and engaging in sex with underage girls, among other things.
Meanwhile, conservatives of any importance constantly have to spend millions of dollars defending themselves from utterly frivolous criminal prosecutions. Everything is illegal, but only Republicans get prosecuted.
Consider the difference between the cases of Rush Limbaugh and Rep. Patrick Kennedy.
Or the difference between the indictment and subsequent treatment of Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX) and Rep. William Jeffeson (D-LA).
I’m still not sure how Democrats found Rep. Mark Foley’s improper IMs to teenage pages more inappropriate than when Rep. Gerry Studds was actually having sex (rather than just talking about it) with underage male pages?
_________
Conservative pundits are much more reluctant to play down-and-dirty with the majority of Liberal pundits. While Ann makes most of us cringe from time-to-time when she’s wrong and off-base, we still need her for when she is right-on-the -money and says things that the rest of us (not me, for shit-sake) are too polite to say.
Today’s argument for a Scooter Libby pardon is a perfect example of this.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Needless to say if I had a couple hours to blow I could provide a dozen counter examples of Republicans treated with kid gloves and Democrats nailed to the wall- I guess it just depends what you’re looking for. (Though I’ll grant you that being rich and famous grants individuals privileges with regards to law enforcement: see Kennedy and Simpson.)
In any case, I love the irony that Rush Limbaugh would have been in worse shape if the ACLU had protected his rights of privacy of his medical records.
Finally, you are really deluding yourself if you believe that DeLay resigned for any other reason besides knowing that he faced defeat: he barely passed 50% in his own primary. Sadly, Jefferson never saw the writing on the wall.
Yawn. What is it with political freaks. Everything boils down to “well, if a [liberal|conservative] did that, they would get treated better, see, see” or vice versa. It’s so childish. If someone screws up, they screwed up. Mark Foley fucked up. Has no relation to Gerry Studds. He fucked up too. Doesn’t mean Foley didn’t fuck up. By comparing the treatment of the two fuckups, you look childish and you look like you are trying to diminish Foley’s fuckup. Admit it, Coulter fucked up, Foley fucked up. So did lots of democrats. Period.
“Needless to say if I had a couple hours to blow I could provide a dozen counter examples of Republicans treated with kid gloves and Democrats nailed to the wall”
How about you name one?
Off the top of my head- anyone associated with GHW Bush and Iran Contra. Nothing like a convenient pardon to keep prosecutors from sniffing up your tree.
Compare the lack of attention given that compared to the 8 years of hounding the Clintons by the New York Times for the money they lost in Arkansas investments.
On Ann Coulter, if it weren’t for the “shock factor” and her prodigious use of hyperbole, no one would have ever heard of her. She is an entertainer, that is how she makes her money. Just like with Howard Stern, Paris Hilton, Alec Baldwin or any other entertainer, any press is good press. It keeps her name front and center which is exactly the way she wants it.
For the record, I subscribe to her column through bloglines via Townhall.com and read it every week. I don’t always agree with her but I am ALWAYS entertained. She is good at her chosen vocation.
As far as the subject of her last column, specifically in response to Preston: What is the correlation between Iran-Contra and the shady financial dealings of the Clintons?
Mark Foley and Gerry Studd’s incidents are directly related and resulted in completely different treatment by both the media and their respective party members.
Of course Delay got out of the race because he realized he wasn’t going to win…but what exactly CAUSED that state of affairs? He was under indictment and his constituents abandoned him as a direct result of the controversy. Jefferson indeed never saw the writing on the wall because he was RE-ELECTED by his constituents in spite of the on-going bribery investigation.
Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer, not a politician. He makes his money by using political punditry as his entertainment vehicle, but he is nothing more than an entertainer. Why was his alleged abuse of prescription pain killers, which he took to combat actual pain, so much more egregious than any of the other myriads of entertainers who have been caught with illegal drugs?
Those things are directly correlated examples where people from two sides of the political spectrum were treated completely differently under similar, if not identical circumstances.
Your example was of two completely dissimilar occurrences. In other words, your “apples and oranges” comparison doesn’t meet the criteria of naming “one example” among the myriads you claim exist.
Right, she’s just an entertainer yet she is invited to CPAC each year. Henny Youngman wasn’t available?
Jefferson indeed never saw the writing on the wall because he was RE-ELECTED by his constituents in spite of the on-going bribery investigation
So, you have a problem with the FBI? Or the Justice Department? Do you honestly believe he has been treated sympathetically by the press?
Similarly you’re upset that Limbaugh got in trouble with law enforcement in Florida? It’s not the media that ran that investigation.
I don’t remember the Studds incident so I can’t compare it with Foley but obviously much of the outrage was the hypocrisy related to his involvement child protection legislation- even if he didn’t actually break the law. The fact that the instant messages were available for the public to read made it a natural story for cable news- the worthless whores.
“Off the top of my head- anyone associated with GHW Bush and Iran Contra. Nothing like a convenient pardon to keep prosecutors from sniffing up your tree.”
In other words, you can’t name anyone.
I’m sure Scotter is rooting for Hillary. If she gets in we can pass the hat and buy a pardon at the White House sales counter. I’m pretty sure she’ll throw in a night in the Lincoln bedroom if pay before 10am.
How about the HUD Secretary admitting to pulling contracts to opponents of the President? Illegal behavior: not a peep from the New York Times or CNN.
BTW, are you under the impression that Bush doesn’t allow political contributors to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom and won’t be giving out pardons?
Right, she’s just an entertainer yet she is invited to CPAC each year. Henny Youngman wasn’t available?
…
BRAVO! Excellent use of feigned indignation to avoid answering the question.
Is there a chapter on sidestepping questions in “Liberal debating for dummies” or something?
I don’t have a problem with anyone and am not upset in the least.
In order to get things back on track and refresh your memory:
You said that you could provide dozens of examples of biased treatment similar to those pointed out in Ms. Coulter’s column only in the opposite direction. You were challenged to provide just one. The “example” you provided was non specific and non-applicable, I pointed this out and explained why.
Your rebuttal options are: Demonstrate that I am wrong about the example you provided; or, provide a specific, applicable example in its stead.
Your riposte was non-responsive (although entertaining).
You placed the bet, the bet was called. Are you going to show your hand or fold?
The “example†you provided was non specific and non-applicable
Ok…
Biased treatment against Democrats: Whitewater
Biased treatment in favor of Republicans: HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson (again).
Again.
Here’s another cool story:
Close the tags!
please
Sailorcurt-
You are aware that Mark Halperin- Political Director of ABC News- has admited that the Drudge Report ‘rules our world’, speaking for the media. They are not reading Daily Kos… Take a look as fake ‘controversies’ bubble up from a GOP smear, to Drudge, then to ABC and Fox.
The most recent example of this was the ‘controversy’ over Senator Clinton’s ‘accent’ when she spoke in Selma. No one saw fit to mention it until the GOP flags it for Drudge. Days later all of the networks cover this as if: A. it’s news B. it’s unusual. C. we didn’t have a President from Connecticut boarding schools who talks like he grew up in a Texas honky tonk.
But if you want more fake scandals try: John Edwards selling his house below the asking price to a conservative! or Nancy Pelosi supposedly asking for a luxury jet or Barack Obama supposedly studying in a madrassa or Hillary Clinton supposedly calling her husband a “evil and bad msn”…
Honestly, if you don’t think that the Democrats haven’t been the recipients of BS political stories you must have not picked up a newspaper throughout the entire 19990′s.
From 2001 through 2006 the Bush Justice Department investigated elected Democratic office holders and office seekers locally
Now that might have some validity as being applicable to this discussion, however it relies upon a typical trick used to lend credibility to “junk science”. There is no basis for assigning causation. In other words, WHY were there more investigations of Democrats than Republicans? Are there incidents of Republican malfeasance reported to the Justice department that are not being investigated? Or is it simply that there are more corrupt Democrats than Republicans? Looking at raw numbers and then ASSUMING causation is not intellectually honest. Perhaps it is simply MY bias showing, but I’m going to make assumption, I would assume that the reason Democrats are investigated more often than Republicans is because liberals are less likely to refrain from immoral (read corrupt) activities than conservatives. The raw numbers of how many Democrats and Republicans hold office is immaterial. Show some data that clearly identifies the ratio of CORRUPT Democrats to Republicans and there might be a basis for a conclusion. Otherwise it is nothing more than innuendo.
You are aware that Mark Halperin- Political Director of ABC News- has admited that the Drudge Report ‘rules our world’, speaking for the media. They are not reading Daily Kos… Take a look as fake ‘controversies’ bubble up from a GOP smear, to Drudge, then to ABC and Fox.
Exactly how did the media become the major issue? Coulter’s original column, was about similar incidents being treated differently from a LEGAL aspect. I only mentioned the media in passing at one point but it was hardly a major portion of my statement. I know it’s easier to combat stramen, but how about sticking to the point. Other than referencing one “study” published in the highly respected scientific journal “The Daily KOS”, you STILL haven’t named one relevant, concrete example of a Democrat being treated more harshly by the legal system than a Republican under similar circumstances. You originally stated that the reason you weren’t giving examples was lack of time…if you had just invested the time you’ve spend in formulating your non-responsive replies, surely you could have come up with ONE example by now.
Sailorcurt-
You’re a piece of work- I show you a 7 to 1 discrepency in Democratic investigations over Republican investigations by this administration and you have the gall to ask how I might assert that Republicans are being handled with kid gloves.
I understand that the GOP owes much of its support to a persecution complex by its supporters but it’s still fascinating to watch in action.
You’re a piece of work
Thank you. I do try so.
You’ve got indignation down to an art form. It’s almost impressive.
How DARE I point out that drawing conclusions unsupported by the evidence is nothing more than innuendo and assumption. Heck, that unfair criteria blows the majority of the “studies” used by liberals right out of the water.
Every time I see a bunch of people with sunglasses on the sun is out. If I end my research at that point and don’t investigate further, I could reach either of two conclusions: 1) large numbers of people wearing sunglasses causes the sun to shine. 2) the sun shining causes large numbers of people to wear sunglasses.
Your study stopped researching before establishing causation and, as such, is worthless for the purpses of drawing legitimate, demonstrable conclusions. One conclusion may seem more probable than the other, but “probably” does not constitute factuality. And that is even assuming that the dataset was accurate and not biased or flawed in some way. Did the journal it was published in subject the “study” to the peer review process or is that something that the “Daily KOS” just can’t be bothered with?
In any case, this is just another diversion from the point:
The challenge was: Out of the “dozens” of examples you claim exist of Republicans being “handled with kid gloves” while Democrats were “nailed to the wall” under similar circumstances, you were asked to name one, specific example. We’re still waiting.
To date, you have been unable to do so.
To date, you have been unable to do so.
Please re-read my comments. You are wrong. For the third time I will refer you to HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson who has admitted to granting government contracts on the basis of political affiliation only to be (as I say) ‘treated with kid gloves’ by prosecutors.
In any case, I’ll admit that I did believe that you were more concerned with media bias. The fact that you are arguing that the Department of Justice and other prosecutors have unfairly targeted Republicans is astounding to me. You do realize that we have a Republican President and have had one for all but 12 years since 1969? Were Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bush family all in on this conspiracy to bring down Republicans?
Yes- it is fair to point out that correlation does not imply correlation. But it’s awfully strange how in high profile federal and state-level office holders that have been inspected the political parties are equally represented. Yet in the under-the-radar local cases there is a huge discrepency in partisanship. You don’t find that interesting at all?
The fact that you are arguing that the Department of Justice and other prosecutors have unfairly targeted Republicans is astounding to me.
Um…it wasn’t MY argument, it was Ann Coulter’s. I simply called your bluff when you said that the type of blatantly unequal treatement occured in both directions. I gave you every opportunity to prove Ann wrong and convert me to your side. Let’s just say, after all the bantering, I remain unconvinced. I think that Ann’s citing of specific instances was quite convincing; you failed to counter with examples of your own as you initially said you could do if you”had a couple of hours to blow”. I’d guess that you spent close to that just trying to change the subject.
As for the singular example you did provide, I won’t even go into the veracity of the accusations against Mr. Jackson and we will just assume for the sake of argument that he was guilty of something worth prosecuting. Even under that assumption, you can only claim 50% credit. You never provided the requisite accompanying example of a Democrat accused of a similar act who was “nailed to the wall”.
Therefore, you get a grade of 50% = “F”
Better luck next time.
Sorry for the lack of symmetry, Curt. Of course, it was you that added the phrase ‘under similar circumstances’. But in any case, I linked to 262 investigations of Democratic politicians above.
Finally, I made the point that it would take hours to research kid glove treatment of the GOP because- by definition- they are not being prosecuted!