Posted on 08/11/2002 9:45:51 AM PDT by Jean S
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:02:33 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I would like to see you provide an actual cite for this. I believe this is a liberal myth used in an attempt to discredit Rush. I do not believe he ever said this. I have listened to him since early 1991 and have several of his TV show episodes. He did say he would not want to be elected to any office because he would take a cut in pay.
Yup......tucker carlson has that agreeable way about him don't he?
Collectively, conservatives just don't seem to be able to accept and/or deal effectively with actual (political) success. It's amazing.
Please stop the silly attempts to patronize. I have little patience with those who consider themselves some sort of elite and seek to denigrate anyone who dares to find fault with their pronouncments.
The thread and discussion pertain to Ann Coulter, a woman you termed 'an embarrassment' - which is simply your perception and opinion.
Coulter's mannerisms, presentation and debating techniques can be seen any number of ways - positive or negative - but there is nothing factual about an opinion, which is all we have to discuss here.
Let me be very clear. There are no facts in question. Your opinion about Ann Coulter, while no doubt true to you, is not a fact. The sunrise is a fact. The 2000 election returns are a fact. That George W. Bush is the 43rd President is a fact. Your judgement that Ann Coulter is an embarrassment to conservatives is not a fact but a personal opinion, not shared by many other conservatives but by almost all liberals. That is another fact you may focus on.
Your comments are indicative of someone who does not wish the Republican party well in November. That's my perception and my opinion. Your tedious attempts to patronize and play the wise man are ridiculous. This is Free Republic, not a classroom or a ninteenth century debating society.
You posted your opinion and reiterated it. I have my opinion, I've expressed it and we clearly disagree. No facts are in question.
End of discussion.
If you feel that I am patronizing you, that is YOUR perception and I am not responsible for how you interpret my comments. Websters defines "patronize" as (1) to act as patron of : provide aid or support for; and (2) to adopt an air of condescension toward : treat haughtily or coolly. Regardless of which definition you are referring to, I will endeavor to stop it.
The thread and discussion pertain to Ann Coulter, a woman you termed 'an embarrassment' - which is simply your perception and opinion.
Correct, but in this conversation I have never ascribed those views to you. So your comment is a bit of a red herring.
My opinion can change if she begins to show the same intellectual and analytic skills of Peggy Noonan or Karen Hughes.
Coulter's mannerisms, presentation and debating techniques can be seen any number of ways - positive or negative - but there is nothing factual about an opinion, which is all we have to discuss here.
We are discussing subjective views on Ms. Coulter's presentation of her views. I have penned several concerns based upon my experience in attempting to pursuade voters regarding the best public policies for our society. I subscribe fully to GOP conservative agenda items. In fact, my very life depends upon the defense of those policies. Yet, our informal team of GOP evangelists have found that Coulter's rhetoric had a negative impact. It further isolated us from the middle-roaders who are not educated in politics. Coulter's tactics created further difficulty in educating people regarding the merits of free market economics and small government. So, although Miss Coulter may have debate points that are valid, the delivery style obstructed the impact.
Let me be very clear. There are no facts in question. Your opinion about Ann Coulter, while no doubt true to you, is not a fact. The sunrise is a fact. The 2000 election returns are a fact. That George W. Bush is the 43rd President is a fact.
The time of sunrise and the Election of 2000 are irrelevant to this discussion.
Your judgement that Ann Coulter is an embarrassment to conservatives is not a fact but a personal opinion, not shared by many other conservatives but by almost all liberals. That is another fact you may focus on.
You have no fact in this statement. Can you quantify her support in some manner? Is she a panelist with any of the major conservative think tanks? No. Yes, she has excellent legal credentials. Credentials are past behavior and accolades. The thread was discussing CURRENT behavior.
Your comments are indicative of someone who does not wish the Republican party well in November. That's my perception and my opinion. Your tedious attempts to patronize and play the wise man are ridiculous. This is Free Republic, not a classroom or a ninteenth century debating society.
You are incorrect in your "facts" (LOL!). In fact, we would not be working in the quiet fashion we are, if we did not want GOP victories now and in the future. It is unclear why you choose to not engage in discussion regarding the ramifications and "ripple effects" of public policy discussion.
It appears to me that the GOP thinkers have not integrated the public message properly. The framing of public policy debate and discussion needs to focus on the real effects of poor legislation and inconsistent executive action. These deficiencies in government can be remedied by good analysis and good public discussion (like the discussion fostered by sites like Free Republic).
I have no intention of playing posting ping-pong with you ad infinitum. The subject doesn't warrant the effort. Your point appears to be that Ann Coulter harms conservatives and/or Republicans by attacking and exposing the lies, distortions and plain convoluted thinking of the liberal left, especially in the media. You admire Peggy Noonan. Good, so do I. That stated, Peggy Noonan does not have the impact on the political middle that Coulter has, in my opinion, but she certainly does her part.
I believe you miss the point of Ann's success. She is widely read and seen. She has a positive effect for conservativism. I don't know what data you have or how you arrived at it but your contention that Coulter turns off Americans to Republicans is simply not believable. This distaste for her presentations (I'm impressed that you never mentioned her weight or skirt lengths) is probably true in some academic circles that prefer the cool, passionless debates that some engage in but the liberals control the media and while they have the vicious James Carville, Brokaw, Jennings, Rather and a thousand other anchor-people, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek and hundreds of other editors and various liberal commentators (print and electronic) lying and spinning the liberal dogma, conservatives have a handful of proponents, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Quite an imbalance.
Yet, even with this small but effective arsenal, some 'conservatives' want to downplay and dismiss the few successful media advocates we have. I do not understand this and won't try. I simply choose not to take that useless attitude that only some ultra-polite, soft-spoken, carefully worded criticism of liberalism can possibly have any positive effect on the electorate. Odd stance to take in politics. Prehaps that's why Republicans lose so often. We're just so darn polite.
I find it odd that these few successful conservative spokespeople are often found to be, well, just too strident, too confrontational to be effective by the oh-so knowledgable political pulse-takers. I'm sure you have a report 'proving' this, too. I'm just as sure another poll or survey done in a slightly different manner with different questions would render the opposite results. I'm not impressed. Your pedantic style of discussion - nit-picking and blustering - may win you accolades somewhere else but here, it's just dreary as it would be in any political debate.
Look, 'bones', I don't have the time or the inclination to chew this over a few dozen times and if it's the last word you're seeking, please, be my guest.
Here's my final take on it: Ann Coulter is clearly doing a great job of opening formerly sleepy eyes to the lies and spin of the liberal left. Apparently you and a few others find her too popular to be effective and wish she would just stop challenging the liberals and be more like Peggy Noonan, a lovely, gracious lady that writes beautiful books about President Reagan but, I believe, has less general impact on the apolitical than Ann Coulter. It would seem as if you prefer the Trent Lott school of partisanship, where no liberal is ever challenged or disturbed by anything you say.
Tell you what: you go that route, be polite and oh-so intellectual in your debates with liberals. Don't stoop to their level, stay above it all. Wag your finger at Ann Coulter (while she sells a few hundred thousand anti-liberal books and is seen by millions) and cluck your tongue at those of us who attack liberals where they live, without giving quarter.
If this is your way of promoting conservativism, then do so, for what it's worth. I'll stay with a lady like Ann Counter that has the intelligence and media skills to grab people's attention and wake them up, with a smile. There is room for both; your dainty, non-confrontational, 'we're all friends here' high-school debating society tactics and Ann's cheerful, direct and accurate exposure of the left's lies and manifest failures. I side with Ann. End of story. Thanks for the discussion.
Now, post what you will. I'm off to other topics as this one is stale and has become pointless.
Clue: the article in which the quote is found is ABOUT N.O.W. ..... not FROM N.O.W.
That will be 25 cents please.
I still say there is no actual cite proving he said this. I don't need to look on the internet for someone to say that Rush has said this. I want to see where Rush has actually said it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.