Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ann Coulter at CPAC, sadly
Posted by: Jon Henke on Saturday, February 09, 2008

For whatever reason, though hopefully due to her past rhetoric, CPAC declined to invite Ann Coulter to speak on the agenda this year. It was the right decision.

Unfortunately, not everybody made that decision.
[An event featuring Ann Coulter] was held at the CPAC convention hall, but not sponsored by CPAC— largely because of controversial remarks she made at the convention last year about former North Carolina Senator John Edwards.

Instead, it was organized by Citizens United, Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, Human Events, Young America’s Foundation and Townhall.
It is difficult to take people on the Right seriously when they criticize outrageous comments from the Left, yet tolerate Ann Coulter. As Hackbarth points out, Coulter's popularity is "not something to be proud of."

I hate to write this, because many of those groups contain dear friends of mine, but they made a very poor choice.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Oh, I don’t know, Ann’s not that bad. Yeah, she says some offensive things now and then and doesn’t argue very honestly, but she doesn’t do anything the MSM doesn’t do for the left on a daily basis, and she manages to be entertaining in a tongue-in-cheek way.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://deanesmay.com
I don’t care for Coulterian rhetoric myself, but I guess I can’t too incensed over anyone who desires to poke John McCain in the eye (rhetorically, I mean). He’s been doing it to various nominal allies for a long time.

If nothing else, such activities demonstrate that there’s still some life left in the conservative movement. If they all just sat back and accepted their fate at the hands of McCain, I would consider that evidence of a complete collapse of conservatism.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Yeah, she says some offensive things now and then...
And the rest of the time she is asleep. She might be entertaining, but Jon is talking about taking people seriously. Coulter cannot be taken seriously, so if the CPAC wants to have a serious conference, they cannot bring Coulter into it. It really is that simple.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Sure... You complain abut the blonde chick, but not the old guy...

You sure you’re male?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I happened to catch some of what she said on C-SPAN. Not really a bad analysis at times. She has a decent head on her shoulders. Unfortunate she goes outrageous for attention.

Her most outlandish statements and her flat out insults deserve criticism. But the momentum which people jumped at her for those makes me wonder if they rejected her for the rest.

I believe she’s rejected because, generally, she shows passion and not reserve.

I half believe many "Republicans" believe Republicans/Conservatives do deserve to be whipped by the Left in the Media and by the Leftist Media itself and take it stoically. George Bush is the model for this attitude. Works well doesn’t it?
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I half believe many "Republicans" believe Republicans/Conservatives do deserve to be whipped by the Left in the Media and by the Leftist Media itself and take it stoically.
You’re definitely on to something there.

And screw that.

I have little patience for those who argue that passion has no place in debate. While everyone is busy patting themselves on the back for the "civil" tone of their pedantic twaddle, Coulter and her counterparts on the left are eliciting visceral reactions to their speeches.

Of course, if style is more important to you than effectiveness, then enjoy your irrelevancy. Because nobody’s listening. I would have liked to see a Fred Thompson nomination, but he did absolutely NOTHING to grab the attention of the electorate and excite them to action.

I think what the many posters here fail to recognize is the value emotion plays in debate and leadership in general. Intellectual appeals may inform action, but emotional appeal generates and drives it.
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
Of course, if style is more important to you than effectiveness, then enjoy your irrelevancy. Because nobody’s listening.
Jeff, if you really believed this, you would not bother to calmly make this argument. You would call us fags, fools, and terrorists... you would then feel effective and relevant, I suppose... unless we failed to scream back at you. Because the screaming Left and the screaming Right only exist for each other.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I wouldn’t trade one Ann Coulter for 200 George Wills.

She’s smart, has precision accuracy, and doesn’t fear the Left. Nor does she fear those on the right who rush to throw anyone who likes to fight overboard.

Her gift is the ability to cut the intellectual Achilles tendons of liberals. She bundles the skills of a polemicist, satirist, and careful reporter, and her readers need to be smart enough to know when to take her seriously.

As for the "fag" comment, it was Bill Buckley, 40 years ago, who made his bones on national TV telling Gore Vidal, "listen you queer, if you call me a Nazi one more time, I’ll punch you in the face."

As for these school marm bloggers who are shaking their fingers at Coulter, they’re like someone trying to predict the weather by checking a rectal thermometer.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Jeff, if you really believed this, you would not bother to calmly make this argument.
You haven’t read or don’t remember most of my comments, I guess. I would have thought calling a 91-year old woman who wants assisted suicide a "pussy" would have kinda given you the gist of my argumentative style. But enough about me - I’m talking about the real world effectiveness of those who speak publicly or wish to convince large numbers of people to vote for them.

Step outside your own perspective for a moment. Who do you think would be more effective in crafting a persuasive argument to the largest number of people - Jon or Ann? Try a hypothetical. You’re a conservative running for President (told you it was hypothetical). You have two applicants for speechwriter - Jon Henke and Ann Coulter. Who do you hire? Who do you honestly think will craft a speech that will resonate most strongly with the largest number of people?

How many people know who James Carville and could recognize him on sight? How many could know and could recognize his wife, Mary Matalin?

I like her style because it suits my personality and most closely resembles the casual conversations you are most likely to have with your buddies, unless you’re on the internet trying to impress everyone with how civilized and erudite you are. Coulter makes personal attacks, but she also addresses the issues of the person or group she is writing about. It’s not ad hominem if you are adding insults to your arguments, only if insults are all you’ve got.


 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://
I like her style because it suits my personality and most closely resembles the casual conversations you are most likely to have with your buddies...


And I don’t begrudge you or Ann Coulter your preferences, even if you call it "pedantic twaddle" or faux erudition. But neither do I begrudge CPAC theirs. For you to pretend that there is some objective standard by which you are right and I or Jon or CPAC are wrong is twaddle of another sort.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Not really a bad analysis at times. She has a decent head on her shoulders. Unfortunate she goes outrageous for attention.
I agree. Time and again, I find myself straddling the fence on certain occasions and her column slaps me back to reality. No one else does that. Hyperbolic? Hell yeah, but most of it hits home. Oh, and I don’t watch her on TV. That dialect she speaks is nails on a chalkboard to me. But her columns usually kick axe.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
And I don’t begrudge you or Ann Coulter your preferences, even if you call it "pedantic twaddle" or faux erudition.
Should say "even if you call mine etc. etc."
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
For you to pretend that there is some objective standard by which you are right and I or Jon or CPAC are wrong is twaddle of another sort.
That’s not what I’m saying, Wulf. I’m not here to tell you that your conclusions or even your style are wrong. I’m saying that Jon and others like him tend to discount anything Coulter says because they are personally turned off by her method of delivery, even when they agree with her conclusions. And those folks are either blind to or annoyed by the fact that even though they loathe her, she’s out there getting her message across and making an impact.

All I’m trying to get across is that her style of delivery is more effective in reaching and persuading a larger number of people than the same argument presented in a dry, overly wordy and passionless tone. Not that it’s wrong to do so, I just think it’s ineffective, except amongst a tiny percentage of the population.

And the proof is in your reply. I never accused anyone of using "faux" erudition, and neither did I discuss this in terms of right and wrong. And the reason I’m discussing this calmly with you is not because of hypocrisy on my part, but because I’m not really at odds with you. Now, if you were Erb, mkultra, Billy Beck, etc. - game on.
And I don’t begrudge you or Ann Coulter your preferences...
Neither do I begrudge you yours. Just contrasting your views with mine and pointing out the merits of my preferences over yours - that’s why it’s called "debate".
 
Written By: Jeff
URL: http://repatriate.blogspot.com
All I’m trying to get across is that her style of delivery is more effective in reaching and persuading a larger number of people than the same argument presented in a dry, overly wordy and passionless tone. Not that it’s wrong to do so, I just think it’s ineffective, except amongst a tiny percentage of the population.
When you say you think it’s ineffective, I have no complaint or argument. But in the first part of what I quoted, you say it is more effective. That’s why I read an attempt at an objective standard in some of what you are saying. On top of that, I don’t agree that she is more effective - I think she is just preaching to the choir.

Of course, I recognize that there is a place for that in politics, and maybe that’s where you and I are in agreement. But the Ann Coulters of the world are mostly there to inflame the faithful (which is what your second comment here seems to be about). That’s fine, but as Jon said, it is difficult to take people on the Right seriously when they criticize people who serve that role on the Left, yet tolerate Ann Coulter.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
I’m saying that Jon and others like him tend to discount anything Coulter says because they are personally turned off by her method of delivery, even when they agree with her conclusions. And those folks are either blind to or annoyed by the fact that even though they loathe her, she’s out there getting her message across and making an impact.
No, I’ve said nothing about her effectiveness, on which subject I am agnostic. What I am saying is that when you lie down with pigs, you tend to get dirty. I would like to think we are better than that...though I grant that some of us are not.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider