idiocracy | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Ann Coulter is an Idiot, Part Duh

Ann Coulter would “vote for the devil” over John McCain.

Ann Coulter is still supporting Hillary Clinton, but (sort of) says Republicans should vote for Romney.

Ann Coulter, until very recently, had nothing good to say about Mitt Romney. Or any other candidate–including Fred Thompson–besides Duncan Hunter.

You have a choice: the unhinged Ann Coulter/Hillary Clinton wing of the conservative movement, or the John McCain/Steve Forbes/Ted Olson/Tom Coburn/Norman Schwarzkopf/et al. wing.

I cannot believe people still listen to this bint. Is this the poster child for conservatism that you want? When, once and for all, are other conservatives going to reject this embarrassment to our side? Isn’t it time to give our own Ted Ralls and Cindy Sheehans the boot?

Oh wait, this is funny. From Coultard’s archives of “Quotations from Chairman Ann”–

At least Carter was only endorsed by Castro August 21, 2007, 2:53 AM

Shocker: Former Madam Is A ‘Big Fan Of Hillary’

Ahem.

And there’s this gem (also from “Chairman ~~Mao’s~~ Ann’s Quotations archive):

Ridiculous Romney Cites Book By Scientologist L. Ron Hubbard May 2, 2007, 1:07 PM
This is not helping Mormons seem normal . . .

MITT ROMNEY, L. RON HUBBARD FAN

What’s next? Winking at Islamic fundamentalists for being the last Americans to give up polygamy?

Oh, and this, too:

Gov. Mitt Romney will never recover from his acquiescence to the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s miraculous discovery of a right to gay marriage.

Pervez Musharraf is better than Mitt Romney! Ann Coulter said so!

If Republicans end up with a divided convention between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, I say we pick Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

I see…a dictator who is nominally friendly to American interests (”he may be a dictator, but he’s our dictator,” as the saying goes). Sounds just like Ann Coulter to me.

Gosh, but she makes conservatism sound so appealing. Not.

Good luck convincing people to vote for Romney with people like Ann Coulter doing the talking for you. I’m a conservative, but that shrew and her shrieking “conservative” media brethren do not speak for me.

I’ll stick to the adults, thanks.

UPDATE: More about the hysteria from Soccer Dad, with a word from Commander Kang.

UPDATE, 2/4/07: Bill Kristol nails it.

American politics tends to be unkind to movements that dwell in anger and relish their unhappiness. In the era from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, liberals tended to be happy warriors — and that helped their cause. The original civil rights movement succeeded in part because it worked hard to transcend a justifiable bitterness. Liberalism faltered when it became endlessly aggrieved and visibly churlish.
[...]
They [angry conservatives --ed.] can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

Rant: The Idiocracy Debate (again)

Well, I was going to let it die (as it should), but since everyone’s talking about it and my inbox is filling with people’s thoughts, I can’t get away from it. I’m still aggravated as hell about that abomination, and not just because of the DNCNN debacle. I’ll say one thing that this stupid “debate” did do, though–it put a big spotlight on how well-organized the Democrats are, and how poorly organized Republicans are nowadays. But you know what? No complaining allowed, because the stupid internet activists set that cast a few years ago with the “Not One Dime” and other negatively-focused organizational efforts. This is the logical conclusion of years of whining about not getting *everything* you want. Well, I hope people are happy with President Hillary, because I’ll tell you what–I have never been pessimistic about our chances of winning, not since 1980. I even thought Bob Dole would beat Slick Willie in 1996. I’m not that optimistic about 2008; not yet, anyway.

But about that Idiocracy Debate. EM Zanotti wrote this in a group email discussion:

I think one fundamental problem with those questions was that about 50% of them were irrelevant. Who cares what a future President thinks of Dick Cheney’s “evilness” or whether he is a Bible literalist? Theoretically, the only people who care about those things are “progressives” or Democrats who aren’t looking to vet but rather to destroy the candidates. But those are also some of the biggest names in YouTube-dom, and the ones who knew to be visible, look normal, have a solid question that CNN has been flogging for months prepared and ready to go.

Now, on the other hand, if you’ve seen the rejected questions, which CNN posted some of the night before the debate, what you had last night seems like not only the most relevant, but also the most coherent. Slim pickin’s, peeps.

Link to the “rejected questions” via EM’s post from the other day.

Call me a curmudgeon, but I absolutely despised the format.. I think what EM said (”slim pickins”) is absolutely crucial here. I can think of one and a half questions I thought were well done: Buzz Brockaway’s, and halfway from Grover Norquist (halfway because it simply added nothing, but at least it was aimed at a “no new taxes” question). No, wait–I appreciated the Mars/space program question, but that’s just a personal space-geek interest of mine–hardly one of most voters, and not one of my top issues either.

Almost all of the Joe Schmoes’ questions (other than the one from Buzz) made me cringe at best, insulted and irate at worst. No, wait–nauseated, at worst. “Oh, Mr. Paul, pleeease save the world and run third party.” ::vomiting:: Most of the questions were either made for demagoguery or phony questions from people who obviously have no intention of voting for any of these candidates. I want them to answer questions that actual Republican primary voters like us care about, not crazy-scary crap like that Bible-waving creep had. And what the hell, a Confederate flag question? How can that be mistaken for anything but an attempt to make someone look bad?

I keep remembering two things: 1) the electorate that submitted questions voted for Clinton twice (illustrating their shallowness), and 2) George Allen and “macaca.” “What?” you say? YouTube and the self-centered ambush mentality of YouTubers and the nutroots (left AND right, but mostly left) have completely erased any shred of maturity and dignity in the process that was left after Slick Willie desecrated the office. I don’t want yahoos shouting rude questions at the potential leaders of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth. George Allen was my choice for 2008 since around 2002, and that was destroyed by an off-hand smart-assed crack from him to one of these clowns that was twisted by YouTube/nutroots yahoos into something it wasn’t and isn’t. People are distraught with the current choices, and I blame the idiocracy for it. Who but someone skilled at “debating” yahoos can survive? Is this what we want in the future? Look how our candidates are treated by the media and the nutroots–and you get asinine questions like “do you believe every word of THIS BOOK” and Evil Bad Cheney cartoons. You get obnoxious cranks like Kerr, and phonies like the Obama and Edwards supporters. You get the whole Ron Paul Cult and their obnoxious, insane spittle. You get the (admittedly funny) guy gunning for his fifteen minutes of YouTube fame by catching rifles and saying “you can answer how you want.” (I’m all for humor, but if I wanted to watch funny gun jokes from some schmo I’d expect to find it elsewhere–or at least from the candidates themselves!) There is no respect for the process or the candidates at all any more.

What next, Republican Party Survivor? Dancing With the Candidates? It disgusts me. I was skeptical before the debate and wasn’t on the Save the Debate bandwagon either, but I wasn’t averse to it; I hoped to be pleasantly surprised. Instead, it was worse than even I had imagined.

Bah. Funny, I just now noticed Tom Delay saying virtually the same thing on Hannity and Colmes–and say what you will about Delay, but the man knows how to get things done. I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this circus is a disgrace. Of course, I think the whole “debate” game is stupid, anyway. It’s glorified hazing. It’s the political equivalent of the Miss USA Swimsuit Competition. It’s just plain stupid, and it in no way indicates who is the best person for the job. It simply allows the Joe Schmo public to be lazy, precluding the requirement for actual research into the candidates’ views and voting records. A “debate” (scare quotes intentional) gives the quick sound bites, and the people in the spin room distill it for the lazy public. How about instead of a stupid “debate,” the networks in play set up 90 minutes for speeches, and give each candidate ten minutes to lay out what he or she stands for and why we should vote for them? Let them sell themselves. They know what issues are important to the voters, and if a candidate doesn’t know, he or she won’t deserve our votes and really ought not be running at all.

Now I know my very negative opinion of this Idiocracy Debate format is firmly in the minority on the internets, but that’s nothing new around here. (Then again, even the Save the Debate Coalition didn’t cheer about the result of it.) I’m more tech-oriented than most in the political blogosphere, so it’s definitely not tech-phobia. It’s just my basic belief that we voters and the office of the Presidency deserve better.

You may not agree with my opinion of the format or of debates in general, but if you agree that last night was a travesty because of CNN’s incompetence or malice (take your pick–I never attribute to malice that which is more easily and likely due to stupidity or incompetence, myself), then check out Red State’s battle cry.

Read the rest of this entry »