Comments on The Anonymous Liberal: Ann Coulter's "Borat" Moment

I agree with the comment that conservatives are mu...

2007-03-15T17:04:00.000-05:00

I agree with the comment that conservatives are much happier discussing Moore/Coulter comparisons than real facts these days (see also: the flap over Al Gore's personal use of carbon-based fuels).

However, I can't resist adding one contrast that I don't think has been noted, and might need to be fleshed out a bit: my impression is that Moore often had to fight "left-leaning" or mainstream institutions to get where he is today (e.g., negative reactions from NYT, NPR to his early films, NBC cancelling TV Nation despite decent ratings, Disney refusing to distribute Fahrenheit 911), whereas Coulter's career was practically made for her by right-wing media outlets happy to have a crazed but telegenic female commenter during the Clinton-Lewinski days.

That plays well into a point Jonathan Schwartz at "tiny revolution" often makes well: its not the craziness of the comment, it's the resources and institutions behind the crazy person. If Moore is a bit of a "self-made" crazy, that is a significant contrast to a crazy who has been elevated to that position by others.

BORING!

2007-03-06T20:23:00.000-05:00

BORING!

brx,Unknot your panties. No one accused Barney Fr...

2007-03-05T12:36:00.000-05:00

brx,

Unknot your panties. No one accused Barney Frank of making such a statement. From the context of the transcript and from what was said about it in these comments, it's pretty clear that Frank was summarizing what the Huffers had been saying in response to Maher's question. No one here (or anywhere else I have seen) has accused Frank of doing what Maher did.

Frank has a pretty good track record of responsibility. When Eason Jordan slanderously accused the U.S. military of intentionally targetting journalists in Iraq, Frank was one of the first guys in the room to denounce the charge and demand proof.

after the fact (of this exchange), I feel obliged ...

2007-03-05T11:27:00.000-05:00

after the fact (of this exchange), I feel obliged to point out (as one who actually watched Maher's show and the whole of the conversation at question): Barney Frank was in no way expressing support of anyone's expressed regret that Cheney hadn't died. When he inserted his comment about the bomb's having been "wasted," he was clearly merely re-using and re-spinning the word "wasted," which had come up earlier in the discussion with regard to the ridiculous Obama/McCain kerfuffle. People laughed because, dare I say, it was funny - a funny comment aimed at pointing up the continued hollowing of all meaning and language in a country which is, by turns, as ignorant and self-righteous as the one we currently live in. It was not - I repeat, not - a comment intended to endorse the murderous impulses of liberals. But don't let me poop the party of those who prefer, on the basis of only glancing understanding of the conversation at issue, to assume the worst of other people's motives and values. Perish the thought. If for some reason it puts a spring in your step to think of Barney Frank as one who secretly wishes for the assassination of Dick Cheney, I'm sure there's nothing I or the truth of the matter could do to stop you. Cluck your tongues away.

I don't think you can reasonably interpret Maher's...

2007-03-04T21:01:00.000-05:00

I don't think you can reasonably interpret Maher's comment as anything other than a justification of the position that it's a shame Cheney wasn't killed. Whether Maher actually wishes this himself is open to speculation (although he did not dispute it when Frank told Scarborough that's what he was saying), but he certainly seems to believe this is a legitimate position for reasonable people to take.

The audience's reaction, however - especially to Frank's comment - is pretty clear. At worst, they agree with the Huffpo guys and wish Cheney had died. At best, they think the whole thing is uproariously funny. Either way, it’s pretty vile stuff.

Look, I don't normally watch Maher's show, but aft...

2007-03-04T17:55:00.000-05:00

Look, I don't normally watch Maher's show, but after hearing there was some controversy over his statement, I watched it. It didn't seem to me like he was "expressing regret" that Cheney didn't die, but merely saying that he didn't think the comments had to be removed. His follow up comment was more convoluted, but I agree with John Cole:

Saying that X would happen if Y had happened is not the same thing as saying Y should have happened or you wished Y had happened. There is no way around that, even when you selectively quote and remove the jocular context from the program.

That said, I agree that Maher's comment doesn't make a whole lot of sense unless you assume that Cheney is the only thing keeping us in Iraq or that he is indespensible to some other policy which affects lives (both of which I find doubtful).

Well, just so you'll know here's what was said on ...

2007-03-04T17:24:00.000-05:00

Well, just so you'll know here's what was said on Maher's show, including the audience's reaction (notice that they laugh and applaud at the mention of the bomb having been "wasted"). Maher's comments were meant as commentary, not as humor:

Maher: What about the people who got onto the Huffington Post – and these weren’t even the bloggers, these were just the comments section – who said they, they expressed regret that the attack on Dick Cheney failed.

Joe Scarborough: Right

Maher: Now…

John Ridley: More than regret.

Maher: Well, what did they say?

Ridley: They said “We wish he would die.” I mean, it was hate language.

Barney Frank: They said the bomb was wasted. (laughter and applause)

Maher: That’s a funny joke. But, seriously, if this isn’t China, shouldn’t you be able to say that? Why did Arianna Huffington, my girlfriend, I love her, but why did she take that off right away?

[snip]

Ridley: It’s one thing to say you hate Dick Cheney, which applies to his politics. It’s another thing to say, “I’m sorry he didn’t die in an explosion." And I think, you know…

Maher: But you should be able to say it. And by the way...

Frank: Excuse me, Bill, but can I ask you a question? Do you decide what the topics are for this show?

Maher: Yeah, I decide the topics, they don’t go there.

Frank: But you exercise control over the show the way that she does over her blog.

Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)

Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…

Frank: I think he did.

Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…

Maher: No, no. I quoted that.

Frank: You don’t believe that?

Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.

In addition to being disgusting, Maher's comments were just stupid (as is usual for him). Cheney being killed would not change U.S. policy one bit. In fact, his being assassinated would likely lead to a new escalation in our military campaign. As for whether or not Maher “speaks for Democrats” or not… All I can say is that his show is a favorite of lefties and his studio audience is more or less a MoveOn convention every week.

Anonymous,I condemn those anonymous posters' opini...

2007-03-04T15:14:00.000-05:00

Anonymous,

I condemn those anonymous posters' opinions as well, and I also consider Maher's comment, from what I understand of it, in bad taste. Comedy is such a "there-and-now" phenomenon, it's hard to judge.

Now, Leno's explanation of why the stock market went down, that's funny.

You didn't notice whether those anonymous posts were enthusiastically received by a large number of commenters there, did you? Hint: they weren't, unlike the situation with Coulter at CPAC. I can't contribute any information as to whether Maher's comments were enthusiastically received, as I don't watch his show.

I hope everybody noticed that a commenter on a blog denounced those other commenters, so we can get back to talking about important things.

So let's all do our part to make sure those Huffpo...

2007-03-04T13:44:00.000-05:00

So let's all do our part to make sure those Huffpo posters and Bill Maher pay a price for expressing regret that the Vice President of the United States wasn't assassinated the other day. I mean, calling someone a "faggot" is bad, but wishing someone had been killed by terrorists seems just a tad bit worse, no?

Strangely, no one on the left seems to be condemning this. I wonder why?
Good grief. Where to begin? First, I guess it's worth asking this: why should anyone have an obligation to condemn random anonymous comments found on the internet? If we set that precedent, then we're all going to spend the rest of our lives condemning things. How absurd. And are random anonymous internet commenters really comparable to a best-selling author and featured speaker at a major party event? Again, a totally absurd comparison.

If it makes you happy, though, I condemn these anonymous commenters.

As for Maher, you might want to familiarize yourself with what he actually said. He didn't express "regret" that Cheney had survived. Not even close. Watch the video.

Secondly, and more relevant to this discussion, Bill Maher is just a comedian on HBO. He doesn't speak at Democratic events with Democratic presidential candidates. He's not used to promote events like CPAC. He has no affiliation at all with anyone in the Democratic party. So why should people have to respond to anything he has to say?

But I do know that we can work to make hate speech...

2007-03-04T00:34:00.000-05:00

But I do know that we can work to make hate speech cost those who spew it. Hate speech shouldn't be free, and perhaps if it came at a cost those who surround her might rethink their "values".

I agree completely. So let's all do our part to make sure those Huffpo posters and Bill Maher pay a price for expressing regret that the Vice President of the United States wasn't assassinated the other day. I mean, calling someone a "faggot" is bad, but wishing someone had been killed by terrorists seems just a tad bit worse, no?

Strangely, no one on the left seems to be condemning this. I wonder why?

Which came first, the hateful Ann Coulter or the h...

2007-03-03T16:55:00.000-05:00

Which came first, the hateful Ann Coulter or the hateful people who adore her?

She is a symptom of a problem, not the cause. And I'll admit I have no idea what the solution is. Cut off her head and two more will spring up in it's place.

But I do know that we can work to make hate speech cost those who spew it. Hate speech shouldn't be free, and perhaps if it came at a cost those who surround her might rethink their "values".

AL, you're being excessively generous with your co...

2007-03-03T16:42:00.000-05:00

AL, you're being excessively generous with your commenters. You shouldn't be making the slightest concession on this one.

To make my point clearer - you're right, but I'm f...

2007-03-03T15:42:00.000-05:00

To make my point clearer - you're right, but I'm framing it differently.

Its not about supporting Republicans, its about supporting movement conservatism - the support of Republicans is only a means towards that goal.

But never should it be confused where her loyalty lays. That's why there are so many "RINOs" in the party, according to her.

You're right that she occassionally criticizes Rep...

2007-03-03T14:52:00.000-05:00

You're right that she occassionally criticizes Republicans

WRONG (sorry for the caps, I wanted the emphasis)

There is only one criticism - only one: those Republicans were being "too liberal". That's the only legitimate criticism that Coulter and movement conservatives tolerate/ That someone isn't conservative enough.

Case in point: When Delay was forced to step down, John Hinderacker at Powerline observed (and this is an exact quote) that the problem with Delay was that he had become "too liberal."

It usually helps to know what you're talking about...

2007-03-03T14:35:00.000-05:00

It usually helps to know what you're talking about before opening your mouth. Coulter has spent much of the last six years giving it to Bush and the GOP Congress with both barrels on immigration, Harriet Myers, Social Security reform, and any other issue where she felt they were being squishes. Coulter is an ideologue much more than she is a partisan.

Coulter isn't an ideologue. She's a clown and a performance artist. You're right that she occassionally criticizes Republicans. But she's unshakably partisan when it counts, i.e., when an election is near. She's is personally invested in the success of the Republican party. She would never support some quixotic Naderite campaign from someone on the Right.

Yeah, but that didn't stop Moore from getting the royal treatment from Carter at the convention, or being treated like a hero by the many mainstream Dems who showed up at his movie premier.

I'm not saying there aren't some parallels. I just think they're not comparable figures.

And for the record, I cringe whenever I see big name Dems appear with Moore.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03...

2007-03-03T14:27:00.000-05:00

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/02/cpac/view/?show=all

Of course, the article itself should be read

To drive this point home, just substitute Obama fo...

2007-03-03T14:25:00.000-05:00

To drive this point home, just substitute Obama for Edwards and the n-word for "faggot."

No, the bigger picture is that you can substitute the word "liberal' for "faggot" or the n-word (i'd type it out but I'm respecting your set tone.)

That's the point. Coulter - and the other hate-mongers she runs with - see "liberals" the way white supremacists see "blacks" and "jews"

There's a discussion about this going on at Unclaimed Territory.

Coulter is being denounced because she said "faggot" - not because she demonized gays. The movement campaigned against a US city in '06 - San Fransico - this was dog whislte pollitics for attacking homosexual rights.

Remember, when Malkin's pet blogs "outed" Glenn? "They" (i.e. those that did it) didn't have a problem with homophobia then.

let all this be a lesson, a.l. See how much happi...

2007-03-03T14:12:00.000-05:00

let all this be a lesson, a.l. See how much happier your conservative readers are to be discussing the relative merits of Anne Coulter and Michael Moore, than, say, anything else that has been going on in this country for the last 6 years? Fact is, the American Conservative Movement is right now completely discredited - both by the American public and the tragic unfolding of recent history. The Movement has had its way for seven long years now and the results have been disastrous. EVerybody knows it. That needs to be the standing premise of any post/argument or any liberal, progressive, or remotely common-sensical blog. The only pertinent questions now are about how to clean up all the messes that these CHILDREN have created. Permitting them to latch on to pointless discussions about what Michael Moore did or didn't say and who wants to french kiss him is playing right into their wedge-making hands. Please cease and desist is indulging these jack-asses with discussions that permit them to think/behave as if they're back in the ring again. They are not. The fact that Anne Coulter's position on John Edwards' candidacy is that he is a "faggot" kind of says all that needs to be said. That and the fact that the democratic ticket will be contested for by the likes of Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Richardson, etc. Love them or hate them, they are all adults who will be forced to offer specific solutions to specific problems, faggotry, lesbian-cuntishness, and niggeriness notwithstanding.

Coulter is an instutional [sic] partisan, like Sea...

2007-03-03T13:54:00.000-05:00

Coulter is an instutional [sic] partisan, like Sean Hannity, whose entire schtick [sic] is devote [sic] to propping up the Republican party.

It usually helps to know what you're talking about before opening your mouth. Coulter has spent much of the last six years giving it to Bush and the GOP Congress with both barrels on immigration, Harriet Myers, Social Security reform, and any other issue where she felt they were being squishes. Coulter is an ideologue much more than she is a partisan.

Second, the last time Moore appeared with a Democrat candidate (Wesley Clark), it caused all sorts of problems for Clark.

Yeah, but that didn't stop Moore from getting the royal treatment from Carter at the convention, or being treated like a hero by the many mainstream Dems who showed up at his movie premier.

Moore is a not-so-bright guy who sincerely believes what he says...

And Coulter doesn't believe what she says? Please. Yes, the woman is a gadfly, but she's been at this for a long time, dating back to her days of enraging liberals at Dartmouth. Her tactics suck much of the time, and she certainly exaggerates for effect, but she says what she believes.

And by the way, how often do you see Michael Moore interviewed on news programs?

Well, no. But articulate Ivy League grads with constitutional law degrees, blond hair, and long legs usually make better television guests than creepy blobs of flesh prone to incoherent outbursts of nonsense.

Anonymous at 1:12,After I read what I wrote, that ...

2007-03-03T13:37:00.000-05:00

Anonymous at 1:12,

After I read what I wrote, that question occurred to me as well. I have to admit I am not aware of any such organization (not being a left-wing activist). Perhaps someone else could suggest something, and we could see if we believe he'd be enthusiastically accepted there.

Lest I be unclear, I generally consider Moore to b...

2007-03-03T13:29:00.000-05:00

Lest I be unclear, I generally consider Moore to be a baffoon. But he and Coulter are just not comparable. First, Moore is a complete wild card, not an institutional partisan. He's just as likely to attack Democrats Nader-style than try to help them. Coulter is an instutional partisan, like Sean Hannity, whose entire schtick is devote to proping up the Republican party.

Second, the last time Moore appeared with a Democrat candidate(Wesley Clark), it caused all sorts of problems for Clark. Moore made a remark that was considered offensive (though it was nowhere near Coulter-esque levels) and Clark was forced to disavow it publicy after irate conservatives (and his fellow candidates!) flipped out. That example beautifully illustrates this double-standard.

Finally, while Moore has made a number of offensive statements, he has made nowhere near as many as Coulter and his MO is totally different. Moore is a not-so-bright guy who sincerely believes what he says and tries to expose what he sees as corruption and lies. In doing so, he often says dumb and offensive things.

Coulter is very intelligent. She's a clever liar and provocateur who tries as hard as she can to be offensive and dishonest.

And by the way, how often do you see Michael Moore interviewed on news programs? Coulter is a regular fixture on news shows.

Interesting question, Charles. What would you con...

2007-03-03T13:12:00.000-05:00

Interesting question, Charles. What would you consider to be the left-wing equivalent of CPAC? I would imagine that such an organization would be pretty accepting/enthusiastic of Mr. Moore.

Anonymous at 12:45,The point with reference to Mic...

2007-03-03T13:06:00.000-05:00

Anonymous at 12:45,

The point with reference to Michael Moore is not that he and Ann aren't "on the same level" culturally (whatever that might mean). The point is that they're not on the same level with respect to the parties.

Or are you claiming that Cannes Film Festival is the left-wing equivalent of CPAC?

oy

2007-03-03T13:05:00.000-05:00

Let's count: Michael Moore hasn't called George HW...

2007-03-03T13:01:00.000-05:00

Let's count: Michael Moore hasn't called George HW Bush a "good rapist" or suggested we should be talking about assassinating him, Michael Moore hasn't called John McCain a "faggot," Michael Moore hasn't called gold star mothers "harpies," Michael Moore hasn't called half the population of the United States traitors, or suggested that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg are American heroes.

No, Moore just suggested that al Qaeda should have attacked "red America." And he called the al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq "Iraq's Minutemen." And while he didn't call Bush a rapist, he has called him a drunk numerous times. Must I go on?