Excerpt:
"...It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult?
When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.
No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?
Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.
But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.
I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives.
And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?
Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful invocation at the inaugural?
The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.
Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.
Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," and most recently, "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHAT AMERICANS ARE SAYING--IN COMMENTS TO ANN'S ARTICLE:
I was amused by the coronation. Liberals act like poorly trained children; deliriously happy when they get their way, and able to throw a healthy tantrum when things are not to their liking.
Jan 21, 2009 @ 06:20 PMDLJ, Maine, USA
Great Column, Ann, and you are correct there are two standards alive and well in America one that enables and endorses every bit of venom from the left and cosigns all of their nonsense. We will never hear or read those questions and if Pelosi and Reid have their way with the Fairness Doctrine...we will be lucky to candidly assess the success or failures of any parties administration.I too wish Obama well, and am happy to be counted amongst the loyal opposition so to speak...If I agree with a position or a policy that he might have I will happily say so. However so far I am not impressed...
Jan 21, 2009 @ 06:21 PMMelody, Annville, LWRGA
If Obama wants his followers to "put aside childish things", perhaps he should publicly rebuke them for the "Na, Na, Na, Na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye", send-off they gave President Bush as he departed. Children will never grow up if not reprimanded.
Jan 21, 2009 @ 06:29 PMLeigh, USA
The 1st thing HUSSEIN does is call his muslim buddy and finance abortions for foreign countries. He is going to be more pathetic than jimmy carter.
Jan 21, 2009
From the White House home page agenda (below), it looks like conservatives have their work cut out for them.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
19 comments:
As for Ann's statement that Obama believes marriage should be reserved for a man and woman, he did say that
but the previous blog topic here shows that he opposes DOMA (defense of marriage act) which will mean that all states have to recognize the gay "marriages" of other states. He wants full equality in domestic partnerships for gay couples --same as marriage. Of course, in their churches they can call it marriage if they want, but should the state recognize every sexual arrangement as same as a marriage --whatever you call it? Polygamy will be next --or maybe a nice limit to 4 wives as Islam allows. (That would be preferable to those taking so many wives and having so many children by them that they have to get foodstamps and other welfare. )
there is definitely a slippery slope to Obama's social policies --Huckabee called Obama's social agenda on his web site as the resurrector of the GOP --good news for them, he said.
Well, I think it's bad news --because we can't unring bells very easily. Roe vs. Wade got in through liberals on court and we will have more liberals on court soon.
If there is not a national revival that reaches all the way to hearts in DC and Congress, affecting families and social policy, as revivals have done before, we may be doomed to go down in history as another failed government.
I don't care for Ann's writing. She is vitriolic and abusive. I haven't read anything from her since she ended a story with the statement (paraphrasing) that if she hadn't offended me yet, as a reader, she'd get to me.
This isn't the Lord's way. Not at all.
I don't admire Ann for everything she says --but I think she has a knack for hitting the nail on the head.
she is not necessarily evangelical --I doubt it very much --because love isn't her M.O. She is a political contender, pointing out the hypocrisies of the left --that she loses no love on the Left is pretty clear --but she holds the mirror to their faces with wit.
some conservatives find solace in the fact that Ann calls a spade a spade --doesn't mince or parse words --and reflects our own observations --in this case, that the Leftist media have many double standards and are grossly unfair.
I don't like to see her be so defensive, but I know what it is like to be hated for unpopular views against liberal thinking and treated with hostility as a result--and then to have the conservatives turn on her --as if she were worse than the left --which she could never be.
I do think ann tells the truth.
Sometimes I think the religious conservs are like the proverbial frogs in the pot --sitting there slowly boiling while we smile and love away --and then wake up and find out, WHAT! IN OBAMA'S FIRST BUSINESS HE MESSED WITH "THE MEXICO CITY POLICY" --IN EFFECT PROVIDING TAX MONEY (FROM WHERE?) FOR ABORTIONS ABROAD --SOMETHING BUSH HAD VETOED. Bush kept tax monies from supporting abortion; now we are paying for them.
THIS IS OBAMA'S WAY OF MAKING ABORTION MORE RARE? This also interferes with the religious values of those countries where Americans are providing incentives to women to abort, telling them this is their women's right.
IF THE CONSERVATIVES DON'T RESPOND WITH OUTRAGE, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE SIMMERING IN THE BOILING WATER --smiling and loving.
Jesus DID turn the tables of the money changers over. He did call people a brood of vipers. Ann may be more Christian in her style than you think.
KateB,
I don't like Ann Coulter, either. I think you are right about her vitriol.
The tone she constantly uses is very unbecoming someone of her sex.1134628
Would her tone be more becoming in a man, Matthew?
What's with the number on your comment there?
Yes, her tone would be more becoming in a man. I would still disagree with it, but for different reasons.
Your guess is as good as mine on the number. I didn't mean for it to be there.
Matthew, what makes her tone appropriate for a man and not a woman? A broader question would be what kind of tone is appropriate for a woman, if there are those that are not?
I have to agree with kateb. I don't read Coulter excluding the occasional line or two to see what her topic is.
She can say the same things in a more diplomatic way, but then she wouldn't have an audience. This is her schlep, her act. And it is annoying as a liberal who talks the same way.
She's not what I consider to be a mainstream conservative.
Crusader,
There are many answers to your question. For starters, men are supposed to be the ones who fight. Women nurture. Surely no one here (unless mudrake is lurking) would deny this. I'm only stating what should be obvious to everyone, even non-Christians.
I'm really not looking to pick a fight, though. Honestly, I was highlighting the common ground I seemed to have with KateB. We've disagreed about so much that I was happy to agree with her. This was an olive branch of sorts.
Maybe you weren't disagreeing with me, at all, come to think of it. Maybe you were just asking me to expand on my short comment.
I have seen her be overly abrasive and snippy on cable news --she lately has appeared on the defensive because even those with whom she shares ideology have turned on her. I see her vulnerability and hurt behind the tough mask. It's not fun to be hated. Jesus knew. I find her writing to be less "tone-full" than her actual speaking demeanor.
And I can't disagree with her on very much. I too see liberals as leaning "godless." That's been my experience in what they advocate, their disregard for traditional morals and the God of the Bible. Dems embrace civil religion at public ceremonies --deceiving the masses in that they are led by ACLU types who want no reminder of religion in the public square- and liberals have always sounded good for social justice and equality --but to them that means abortion on demand and a new definition of marriage and forcing union membership and leaning heavily on them to keep dems in power--and hating the churches who oppose any of their agenda.
Their hate crimes and civil rights agenda now means forcing American business to provide wedding cakes and photography to gay couples, to rent to them and to the unmarried couples --and to hire them --ultimately even in churches. As if the issue were the same as race instead of about convictions. IN England, half the Catholic adoption agencies have closed because the gov't now requires them to adopt to gay couples on par with straight --denying children of a father or a mother.
I think of Ann as honestly descriptive of the far Left who lead the Dems now. E.G. we don't get the truth in mainstream media to the masses re: our economic crisis and who caused it --
I just read that 98 per cent of all the big charities leaders vote Democrat --and yet 4 or 5 to 1, it's the conservatives who support charities --all kinds of charities.
(One News.com)
Same way with Wall Street CEO's in companies who crashed --lots of gay advocacy and abortion support in the votes of corporate America --whose failures get blamed on the GOP.
You go, Ann. If nothing else, she is, IMHO, a voice for truth. Granted, her lack of love in speaking of the left. but I think it could be said that the Left makes her righteously indignant -yet she has a sense of humor about it.
E.G. I KNOW some on the Left wish we on the Right would just kill ourselves. Truth.
Her point is to point out even to THEM the hypocrisy of their position.
Also, I might add -that what one says in speeches and writing is not necessarily how she would relate one to one with liberals.
I expect she can be socially cordial --as I am. Some liberals I know of, however, cannot meet for coffee with conservatives and make nice. I don't know if Ann Coulter HATES people on the left; but I do know that people on the LEFT hate conservatives for our religious views if we try to have those views prevail in gov't policy --as in the past.
and I think Christians are in danger of agreeing with the left against themselves --this move to say we should no longer "speak truth to power" --and seek change through legislatures and court appointments and the like.
It was a really bad mistake to let the Democrats win --except for the fact that, hopefully, the Christians WILL pay attention now and see how politics makes a difference in how many babies live or die --how strong our nation is in security measures -- how broke our gov't can get with these bail-outs paid for only by taxpayers who are losing jobs themselves. A huge percent of the nation needs a financial bail-out and looks to a gov't supported by more and more unemployed tax-payers.
Abortion and child-free-by-choice- living, including the gay choice --it's all counterproductive --literally.
Matthew,
I was merely asking for expansion, not looking to argue or even to debate... just wondering because such short statements are usually loaded.
I tend to agree with you about women nurturing and men fighting (in God's Eden, most certainly), so you'll find no quarrel here! (I do, however, think there are things which women can and should fight for, but I do not like Coulter or her... manners).
Crusader,
We totally agree then. Good for us.
Anyone who is honest should be able to look at Ann Coulter and understand that she's unladylike. We don't even need to be taught it. Nature and experience tell us. Just as with sodomy (which was the original point of the post), we don't need to be taught. Everyone knows it's wrong. Only the intentionally obtuse would deny it.
Couldn't agree with you more about sodomy, Matt.
As for Ann, i've not bought her books, so only know her by her emailed articles from human events and her tv appearances. I think I'll get her books. I'm interested in the one titled, "Godless." I think her analysis of the left is right on. And that somebody's got to do it.
I believe her style is called an acerbic wit-like lemon. Not necessarily an unfeminine wit. I don't find her "manly" in the least. She's just vinegary, saucy, sassy and clever--IMHO --as she said, it's just "her" the way she is. She rather beats the left at their own game. but not by any masculine traits --unless, Matt, you think women shouldn't be smart enough to engage and beat the left at their own game of incisive analysis with wit.
I think she is very much a girl in her wounded feelings which I think show on her sleeve in the interviews when she defends herself against attacks from the political and religious people whom she defends with accuracy about the hypocrisy and double standards and yes, evil, of the left. Her vulnerability shows through. No one, not even she, likes to be detested and scorned --by her own side of the cultural spectrum.
there are times when I have thought she was overboard. As with all political commentators, I don't like it when they don't let the other side talk and plow over each other. Probably a learned behavior to get a word in edgewise. I have come away from conversations with a few very talkative men in the past --who thought I was the reason for a long talk, when, in fact, I bided my time and waited until their monologues were over to squeeze in a sentence. This is true for meetings, e.g. Men will digress and wax boringly lengthy --but don't let a woman do it.
She's not sweet --as the wives of the polygamous cult are reminded to be--"stay sweet --even though hubby wants a new young wife."
I wish she would have more joy such that she doesn't care about critics, more secure. That would also make her sweeter, I bet. It's called knowing who you are in the Lord --a Linda R. phrase.
I think she is over compensating for her obvious lesbianism - just like so many gay republican men who have been exposed because they couldn't handle the pressure of living under the weight of absolute hypocrisy.
The United Haters of America
Written by Guy Reel
Somewhere deep inside the authoritarian minds of the ultra right-wingers, the fear, helplessness and paranoia that have always been so evident have reached the boiling point. For them, Obama's election and, perhaps even more so, the sight of him standing on the Capitol steps and taking the oath of office, have brought home a grim truth. They have tried to deny it for many years now, but America is not what they think it is. And because of their own incompetence, blindness to reality and the changing demographics among voters - the growing minorities and young voters who have rejected the GOP - they have lost America, perhaps for good.
And so now we hear, sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly, their wish of failure (and perhaps worse) for America.
Karl Rove and Marc Thiessen, the former chief White House speechwriter, have been warning that Obama's new anti-terror policies (such as closing Guantanamo Bay, prohibiting torture and stopping rendition to CIA black sites) may put the nation at risk. In The Washington Post, Thiessen wrote, "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible - and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."
One can read the anticipation between the lines - "When there's a terrorist attack, Republicans will rule again because that will prove Obama was wrong and Bush was right!"
Well, of course it would do nothing of the sort. First, there is no evidence that any of Bush's anti-American policies - illegal wiretapping, coercive interrogations, extraordinary renditions, or holding people without charges, lawyers or trials - have prevented any attacks. In fact, most military and intelligence personnel agree that these policies have increased terrorist recruiting and made American less safe. They have also resulted in far more terrorist attacks around the world.
Bush and Dick Cheney made similar claims during their beauty pageant goodbye strolls while completing their terms in office. The most important legacy for them is that there were no terrorist attacks on the U.S. after 9/11, and they argued that Obama's reversals of Bush's policies could invite future attacks. That argument is utter nonsense.
Leave aside the fact that more than 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died, many from terrorist attacks, and that more than 150,000 Iraqis have died, many from terrorist bombings, and that hundreds more died in terrorist assaults in London and Madrid and India and Indonesia and elsewhere. Even had none of these things happened, the cause-and-effect argument simply isn't logical. It's just after-the-fact rationalization.
There is also no reason to think that most people will blame Obama if terrorists strike again, even though that's what all this noise from the right wing is about - laying the groundwork to blame the new president. Despite the evidence that the Bush administration ignored blatant warnings about 9/11, went on vacation and did nothing to stop the attacks, Americans rallied around Bush. They would likely do the same with Obama.
Now there is fear-mongering about what would happen were we to grant some rights to offenders at Guantanamo - that some would go free and incite violence against us. Well, here's a news flash: That has already happened, under Bush. The U.S. has already released more than 400 prisoners from Guantanamo, many held for years without any legal rights whatsoever. Some have simply gone home. But some have taken up arms against us (perhaps some of them because they were held without cause). The New York Times reported that one became the deputy leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and is suspected of involvement in the bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen in September.
Where are the howls of protest about this outrage? If this happens under an Obama administration, the Limbaughs and the Hannitys will be calling for his head. But, in their blind devotion to Bush, they say nothing about policies that led to an arrest and incarceration of a terrorist but were so ill-conceived and poorly managed that they forced his release. Similarly, some charges against terrorists have been or will be thrown out because Cheney and Rumsfeld and Bush allowed their torture. The very policy they so lovingly embraced has actually helped the enemy.
But that actually isn't that surprising. Right-wingers have always seemed to have a strange enthusiasm for the things terrorists do and say, then they react in a way that helps the terrorists. The administration based U.S. military and foreign policy on what the terrorists said they were going to do - imagine, running U.S. policy based on the lies and threats of a bunch of wanton murderers. Bush put the country trillions more into debt to fight wars and finance tax cuts for the rich so that he could say we were taking the fight to the terrorists but could still go shopping. He let terrorists' threats lead him to ignore the Constitution, erode our moral standing in the world and drive a wedge between the U.S. and its allies. And his policies have allowed murders to go free and kill again - exactly what the right-wing claims Obama is going to do.
So it's not much of a stretch to think that, somewhere deep down, some in the extreme right wing will gain a smug satisfaction if terrorists do strike again in America. They can't wait for the blame game to start. People like Rush Limbaugh and Rove and Sarah Palin seem to think that liberals hate America. But, who, really, are the haters?
Limbaugh and many of his listeners have said they hope Obama will fail. That means they want America to fail. Or, at least, they want the kind of America that Obama stands for to fail - you know, the one where civil liberties are respected, where the rule of law prevails, where a multi-lateral foreign policy is embraced to increase homeland security, and where an African-American Democrat can become president.
They hate the America that is a liberal democracy, which it has been through most of its history. They hate the idea of equal protection for gays, of rights for the accused. They hate the idea of any kind of social welfare. This is a group that would destroy an entire industry because they hate the union workers who are fighting for better health care and wages. Yet they barely bat an eye at millions stolen by CEOs and investment bankers who raped their companies and banks and gave away billions in bonuses while the economy collapsed all around.
During the run-up to Obama's inauguration, some newspapers ran series of interviews with people about their hopes and fears for the new presidency.
The hopes, mostly from Democrats: New and more accountable foreign policy, less cronyism, less corruption, more fiscal responsibility, and more moral accountability in government.
The fears, mostly from Republicans: The expansion of social welfare programs and allowance of gay marriage.
Really? That's what they're afraid of, after these last eight years? Well, in fairness, maybe they do have a deeper fear.
What they are really afraid of is that President Obama, and America, will succeed.
So, Steve, was your Cooke article on more recent thread here a warning that the Left may exterminate the right because of guys like Reel who accuse the Right of being the haters?
Reel wrote: In fact, most military and intelligence personnel agree that these policies have increased terrorist recruiting and made American less safe. They have also resulted in far more terrorist attacks around the world.
Reel's piece is an example of leftist propaganda. Where is his evidence of what "most" military and intel personnel think? And where's his evidence that our policies have caused terrorist attacks in places like Europe? It wasn't OUR cartoons that caused a Muslim uprising there.
I bet he's wrong about what "most" military and intel personnel think. I know 2 soldiers who were both military and intel, and they are favorable to what was accomplished in Iraq. Terrorism and ethnic vengeance caused many, if not most, of the Iraqi deaths since we went there. We don't TRY to kill civilians as terrorists do.
Military brass aren't going to be happy with gays in the military either, the elimination of Don't ask; don't tell --which was better than open enlistment of homosexuals which Obama will approve --despite the morale and moral issues.
Sadam caused many more deaths than the Iraq war. Drunk driving in America causes more deaths than the Iraq war. And abortion caused a gazillion times more American deaths than the war.
I hope Obama succeeds and we get the economy up and running. I wish he would succeed at his promises --said he wasn't for gay marriage and he wanted fewer abortions --and then first thing, he committed us to pay for abortions overseas in family planning clinics --as a mercy to women --that kills their babies--and he wants gays' civil unions honored everywhere and gays in the military.
He talks about personal responsibility and then I hear he plans to give hand-outs to illegals --those so-called tax refunds to people who don't pay taxes, who are here illegally.
he's not off to a good start by putting a guy in charge of treasury who makes mistakes on his tax returns. anybody can make mistakes, but if you are in charge of the IRS, your mistakes should not be on your own taxes.
Barack seems like a nice guy --I hope he is --but he voted against ban on partial birth abortion 4 times. So he's got a moral screw loose somewhere.
Post a Comment