RSS Feed Menu
Ann Coulter seems to have been struck yesterday by the partisan insanity that infects our politics: the instinct to support or oppose something based purely upon President Obama’s stance on the matter.
Does Obama now support the war in Afghanistan? Suddenly it’s no longer treason to oppose it.
On Wednesday, July 7, Coulter wrote: “Everyone knows it’s not worth the trouble and resources to take a nation of rocks and brigands.”
Has Coulter abruptly joined the Ron Paul antiwar right? Not at all. Obama still continues to denounce the Iraq War – and so Coulter supports that. No thinking of our own necessary for conservatives: Just listen to what the President says – and then do precisely the opposite.
Do you think anyone takes Coulter seriously? It’s hard to imagine.
Song lyrics to Whatever It Is, I’m Against It, by Harry Ruby (music) and Bert Kalmar (lyrics), performed by Groucho Marx in Horse Feathers (1932)
I don’t know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I’m against it.
Your proposition may be good
But let’s have one thing understood —
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And even when you’ve changed it or condensed it,
I’m against it.
I’m opposed to it —
On general principles I’m opposed to it!
Chorus: He’s opposed to it!
In fact, in word, in deed,
He’s opposed to it!
For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night till morn,
Whatever it is, I’m against it!
And I’ve kept yelling since I commenced it,
I’m against it!
Her whole career is built on lobbing shrill grenades so why she still gets ink must be due to her “entertainment” value, ala O’RushHanBeck.
She should’ve been ostracised even before she dug up Joe McCarthy and tried to turn him into a patriot.
Don’t most of the articles written for this site pretty much do the same thing?
Its just her job, nobody should be surprised by what she does in her act.
How can a nation with a semi-permanent $ 1.3 trillion deficit continue in nation building and perpetual war in the Middle East? It can’t. The sanity of Bill Kristol, Liz and Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Victor Davis Hanson and the rest of the war party must be questioned.
have we come to expect anything less from “Hillary’s Girl…”
balconesfault // Jul 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm
You wrote: “Don’t most of the articles written for this site pretty much do the same thing?”
Which same thing do you mean?
balconesfault: Don’t most of the articles written for this site pretty much do the same thing?
No.
Of course a conservative blog like FrumForum will end up in opposition to most of Obama’s policies. Just like it’s extremely rare for any article in The Nation to support any policy from a conservative politician.
But it’s not reflexive opposition based only on personal animus. It’s a fundamental philosophical conflict.
When Obama has done something Frum liked (like standing firm in Afghanistan and appointing Petraeus to replace McChrystal), Frum has supported Obama. (So did Bill Kristol, btw.)
And Frum has shown a willingness to break with conservative orthodoxy too.
Frum is definitely NOT a reflexive Obama-hater.
He gives Obama a lot more thoughtful consideration than The Nation ever gave President Reagan.
DFL
I just got chills when I read your reference to the “war party”: that really is what the GOP has become.
sinz54
You wrote: “He gives Obama a lot more thoughtful consideration than The Nation ever gave President Reagan.”
I agreed with what you were saying right up to the last line (above) not because it was untrue necessarily but because I think the blame game has become reflexive. In the GOP I think there has been a theme of revenge for decades, probably since Nixon’s fall. So when I read your line, referencing back to how Reagan was treated, I was reminded of that kind of behavior which I find childish (not you but the behavior or justification by citing what the other guy did first). And it reminded me of an interview I saw recently with David Frum where he made a very insightful comment. He was talking about how many members in the GOP respond to criticism of a GOP president by engaging in payback toward the next Democratic president and how destructive such an attitude is, for everyone. I think he’s right.
Frum is definitely NOT a reflexive Obama-hater.
Sinz, I agree, which is certainly a reason why I participate here. Nonetheless, I said “most articles”, and Frum does contribute his share of snide anti-Obama posts that are inches deep in substantive criticism … and he gives space here to folks like Guardiano who do fit the “reflexive Obama-hater” mold.
Coulter is in it for the money – period. She will say – do – belief anything as long as it keeps her speaking fees, book royalties, appearance money rolling in.
If Obama said he wanted to abolish all Social Programs – Coulter would become a Socialist.
balconesfault
You answered my question in your last post. I agree with you.
Rob_654 // Jul 8, 2010 at 1:17 pm
You wrote: “If Obama said he wanted to abolish all Social Programs – Coulter would become a Socialist.”
Very well said. Your comment reminded me of something Sartre said many years ago which was this: that if the Jew didn’t exist, the anti-semite would invent him. It’s the same psychology as what motivates Coulter and you caught it perfectly.
I think there are certainly some authors on FF who almost always, without fail, write anti-Obama tripe, but to be honest those authors are pretty boring to read and rarely have anything substantive to say (sometimes Frum himself submits to this urge himself, unfortunately). But, to FF’s credit, there are a number of authors willing to play both sides and try to look at things in a more even handed fashion. Which is why I come here.
Ann Coulter seems to have been struck yesterday by the partisan insanity that infects our politics: the instinct to support or oppose something based purely upon President Obama’s stance on the matter.
“Struck yesterday?” Seriously? This woman is a right-wing minstrel show and has been for at least a decade. She’s just trying to ratchet up the rhetoric to get her face back out in front of the other loons who went even nuttier than her. Tough to make money in her field when nobody’s really paying attention to you.
I think there are certainly some authors on FF who almost always, without fail, write anti-Obama tripe…
John Guardiano comes to mind almost immediately. I don’t think I’ve read one thing of value by him on this board. Time to replace him with a REAL military analyst, not a “more is always better” apologist.
Chris
You wrote: “But, to FF’s credit, there are a number of authors willing to play both sides and try to look at things in a more even handed fashion. Which is why I come here.”
I think that’s why I come here too; I’ve given this subject a lot of thought because I’m a little surprised that I enjoy a conservative blog so much; but the truth is I do enjoy it, and also I am not really attracted to many other blogs, certainly not to the same extent, and when I read most liberal blogs I feel like I’m not learning as much that is new to me. I like the give and take on this one, the range of topics by authors, I always find Frum interesting (even when we disagree) and I especially like the comments of the people who write in — I find them passionate about the issues, well-informed and highly intelligent; as a result, there have been (and will continue to be) some excellent discussions. I do hate when I see an anti-Obama headline (when the headline is biased it’s hard for me to take the article seriously) but I agree with you: interestingly, those stories are not the effective stories on FF, far from it. I’m kind of amazed at how broad the readership is on this blog: we must all be attracted to some unique quality I still find myself trying to define.
I forgot to say that as ridiculous as I find Coulter, I don’t disagree with her opinion of Liz Cheney and her efforts against democracy (though Coulter makes it about Steele only); she has caught Cheney and Kristol in a bit of hypocrisy despite her intention to simply say the opposite of what people expect and get the headline for shock value.
DFL // Jul 8, 2010 at 12:56 pm:
“How can a nation with a semi-permanent $ 1.3 trillion deficit continue in nation building and perpetual war in the Middle East? It can’t. The sanity of Bill Kristol, Liz and Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Victor Davis Hanson and the rest of the war party must be questioned.”
Dude, are you still living in 2008? Last time I checked, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan by 35,000 troops, and is on the same timetable as Bush for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. What’s worse, Obama ran in 2008 as the ‘anti-war’ candidate, but hasn’t lived up to any of his campaign promises, including closing Gitmo. Hillary lost the nomination in ’08 because she refused to apologize for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq in ’02, and the anti-war wish-it-were-the-60s-again wing of the Democratic Party made her pay dearly for it. At least in that sense, she stood on principle. Has Obama? I’ll let you be the judge.
And what’s all this crapola about the Republicans being the ‘war party’? All the major conflicts of the 20th century were engaged in or started by Democrats:
WWI – Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
WWII – Franklin Roosevelt, Democrat
Korean War – Harry Truman, Democrat (ended by a Republican – Dwight Eisenhower)
Vietnam War – Started by John Kennedy, Democrat, with 20,000 troops, expanded to 550,000 DRAFTED troops by Lyndon Johnson, Democrat (ended by a Republican, Richard Nixon)
And Clinton engaged us in TWO wars in the ’90s – Bosnia and Kosovo. So, please — stop with the stupidity.
Ann’s been riding the “partisan insanity” train for a long time now.
jquintana: Dude, are you still living in 2008? Last time I checked, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan by 35,000 troops, and is on the same timetable as Bush for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Actually, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan by a LOT more than 35,000 troops. That was just the last installment in the fall, after he had already doubled the number of combat divisions in the spring and summer of 2009.
And it is reasonable to question the sanity of this move, particularly since there is a wealth of evidence that the Taliban, for all their flaws, actually care more about the Afghan people than the corrupt Karzai clan. As long as the people are willing to embrace a 18th century culture, of course…
As for Iraq, though – you have to remember that the SOFU between Iraq and the US, mandating the timetable for the drawdown of troops, was signed in late November 2008, after a year of negotiation.
By the way, who opposed the provisions in the SOFU? That would be one John McCain, who declared I still say setting a date for withdrawal is chaos, genocide, and we’ll be back, because Al Qaeda will then succeed.
All the major conflicts of the 20th century were engaged in or started by Democrats:
That can’t be true! Just ask all the Sinzians who believe every Democrat to be a liberal, pacifist surrender monkey!
sinz54 “He gives Obama a lot more thoughtful consideration than The Nation ever gave President Reagan.”
Lousy comparison, the Nation is pretty far leftwing, if you want to make a fair comparison talk about TNR which did give far more thoughtful consideration to Conservative ideas than most right wing rags do to Liberal ones.
Face it, Coulter and Limbo are today’s Conservative thoughts and platform. Shows you how stupid the right has become when they are their “thinkers”.
All the major conflicts of the 21st century were engaged in or started by Republicans. So there. Look, please stop with that “Democrat war” nonsense and I won’t say nonsense like Republicans started the war in Afghanistan. It is not who starts the war that is the issue anyhow, it is why and how it is prosecuted. Ob both counts Bush did a terrible job, and please nothing about the surge. If he had half a brain he would have started with the surge (adequate forces to fight and win a war, including the occupation afterwards) instead of allowing the worst Def. Sec. of all time Rumsfeld play out his visions of military genius with disastrous results.
And Obama did not run as the anti war candidate, he ran as the anti-Iraq war candidate. While I supported the war in Iraq, knowing what I know now I wouldn’t have, certainly not until Afghanistan was pacified (and good lord, letting Osama get away was the worst military blunder of all time, we should have had every damn mountain pass covered, and we had the man power if not for scumbag Rumsfeld’s light footprint delusion)
Hey Peanut Gallery!
If I’m so reflexively and robotically anti-Obama, then how do you explain my post today @FrumForum? I take Ann Coulter to task for her attempt to isolate Obama and thereby to deny him much-needed public support for the war in Afghanistan.
http://bit.ly/9ze85I
If all I were about was Obama bashing, then I would have praised Coulter and taken more (rhetorical) shots at the president. But in truth, ideas matter more to me than partisanship. You view everything through a partisan lens; I don’t.
Regards,
John
Coulter is a comedian and an agitator. Many of the things she says are tongue-in-cheek . She often employs sarcasm and even mimics her opponents by holding up a mirror. The mirror image is the same, but reversed. Regardless of her stance or whether she is some kind of reflexive partisan or not, she knows how to make lefties scream, and some of us enjoy her style of ribbing, and keep it at that. Is she self aggrandizing attention seeker. Yes. Does she have am interesting and often funny perspective? Yes. Has she crossed the line? Yes. So has Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Bill Maher, Jeanine Garafalo, Lewis Black, etc.
If you never fall off your skateboard you can’t become very good, and comedy is the same push to the edge enough and you WILL sometimes go over.
Coulter came out for Hilary quite seriously over McCain . I was so angry at the GOP for pushing McCain, I was of EXACTLY the same sentiments. So this alone shows she isn’t a reflexive partisan.
But Obama is destroying this country and Coulter knows it. It won’t matter really what is won or lost in Afghanistan after another 6 years of Obama right here in the US.
But it is also interesting to note that Obama is doing the the same thing as Coulter but he’s not getting much criticism; He’s now about to lose the war he claimed was the important one, while claiming credit for victory in the war he sought to undermine.
For Alex Knepper to act as though Coulter is anything more than someone with a joke and an opinion is, well a little ridiculous.
Jakester: Face it, Coulter and Limbo are today’s Conservative thoughts and platform. Shows you how stupid the right has become when they are their “thinkers”.
That simply is not true. They may be the loudest voices, but I suggest you read National Review, The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal editorial page if you want to read the real intellectual voices of the right.
John Guardiano
It’s true, you are not reflexively anti-Obama; I for one appreciate and notice when you speak of him objectively.
@John G:
Hey Peanut Farmer!
You’re absolutely right. How bold a guesture of open-mindedness it is to concede that the blatant, indefensible lie Anne and Mikey Stee told isn’t true. The fact that you stressed your objectivity to come up with “1 + 1 does not equal salsa” puts any hyper-partisanship accusations to rest permanently.
Following the same logic, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that this comment conceding your failure to make crap up 100% of the time must demonstrate I certainly don’t consider you to be an (incompetent) political shill. If I did, I could never say anything nice about you, right? So it’s all good.
Hugs -n- Kisses,
busboy33
Any Conservative Schism May Not Be What You Think | MorallyRight.org // Jul 9, 2010 at 9:38 am
[...] Ann Coulter's Pavlov Politics | FrumForum [...]
brandon
I do, they mostly remind me of Dennis Prager, a pompous pseudo intellectual spin on Drudge, Limbo and Ann’s latest spiels.
“Ann Coulter seems to have been struck yesterday by the partisan insanity that infects our politics”
Coulter’s position on Afghanistan is not a new one:
http://newsrealblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/ann-coulter-retreat-in-afghanistan/
Afghanistan is a brutal battlefield, largely invulnerable to modern warfare — something the British and Russians learned. But as our military under Bush showed the world in 21 days, scimitar-wielding savages are no match for the voluntary civilian troops of a free people.
Bush removed the Taliban from power, captured or killed the lunatics and, for the next seven years, about the only news we heard out of Afghanistan were occasional announcements of parliamentary elections, new schools, water and electricity plants.
The difficult choice Obama faces in Afghanistan is entirely of his own making, not his generals’ and certainly not Bush’s. It was Obama’s meaningless blather about Afghanistan being a “war of necessity” during the campaign that has moved the central front in the war on terrorism from Iraq — a good battleground for the U.S. — to Afghanistan — a lousy battlefront for the U.S.
Alex has it completely wrong (“yesterday”, “suddenly”) and did not do the legwork of a professional journalist: instead we get “publish first and fact check later (or never).
I disagree with Coulter- I think there is (would have been) a slight chance of winning in Afghanistan- But the chance is being wasted because Obama is being (and has been) dishonest with the American people.
Obama is intentionally omitting the comparison of Afghanistan to Iraq. Afghanistan is expected to be more costly and win less than the war in Iraq. Because of the lack of comparison, Americans are not steeled to the reality of the strategy that Obama is allowing Petraeous to take. Obama will give up- it’s only a matter of months before the MSM turns on Obama regarding Afghanistan.
David Frum Weasels Out of a Morally-Suspect Corner: The 14 Errors in his Mea Culpa | Tea Party Fans // Oct 13, 2010 at 1:11 am
[...] Alex and NewsRealBlog had a falling out in July, after Alex published a post on this site criticizing Ann Coulter’s negative turn against the Afghanistan [...]