Friday, July 09, 2010
War! What Is It Good For?
Bill Kristol said that Steele should resign; Ann Coulter then wrote a column declaring that Kristol should resign and raised the seemingly-verboten question whether "permanent war" had become a conservative precept.
That column has triggered requests for open discussion on matters of war and peace -- Afghanistan in particular, but the broader question of foreign policy interventionism. Conservatives Matt Lewis and David Freddoso discuss the lay of the land.
In the past, it's been said that a slip of the lip can sink ships. It would appear that Steele's slip of the tongue (if one can charitably call it that) may actually spark a conversation within the GOP that leads to the ships, planes, tanks, etc., returning home.
And here's an interesting irony: The fact that this debate is breaking out in the Republican Party is one more indication that Ron Paul's 2008 campaign (and its war-skeptic rhetoric) may prove to be one of the most influential efforts by a presidential also-ran ever.
Stay tuned.
Labels: Ann Coulter, Bill Kristol, conservatism, Michael Steele, war on terror
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Celebrity Smackdown 2009
All is not lost!
Yeah, there are a couple of wars going on. And, yes, there is a mini-, almost-but-not quite -Great Depression enveloping the world.
But there is cause for hope: A lot of famous and semi-famous people are really happy to declare their hate for one another! It's Celebrity Smackdown-A-Rama. And, we're not talking about Trump's Apprentice wannabes either.
The GOP vs Rush bit a week ago looked like it was going to fall by the wayside, with Republicans realizing they had been expertly set up by Democrats to get into a Rush-denunciation fest. Then Newt reignited things on Meet the Press, saying that hoping for the president's failure was “irrational.”
Rush then unloaded on the former speaker on Monday:
“I'm frankly getting tired of talking about Newt. I mean, it's a pointless exercise. I'm surprised by nothing when I'm dealing with people in the media who think they're in politics. ... They are fly-by-night operators, and most of them stand for nothing until they see a poll about what the American people want, and then they go out and try to say one way or another what the American people want while trying to falsely hold onto an ideology at the same time — and you can't count on them. You can't depend on them. They will sell you out; they will throw you overboard to save themselves, faster than anything. And they'll use you on their way up as often as they can at the same time.
"I mean, next week Newt could come out and profess his total admiration and love for me if it would serve his purposes. They're running TV ads against me. Newt Gingrich wishes they were running TV ads against him."
Of course, Rush is someone in the media who thinks he's in “politics.” Limbaugh is great at what he does, but it's not like he's ever run a political campaign or won an election. But, so what? The ego has landed on everyone! Newt, for his part, may have staged the whole thing, knowing how Rush would react. After all, Newt is one of the few in the conservative movement who has enough independent cred that he doesn't have to worry about offending dittoheads. The former Speaker won't be “apologizing
Just as these two were swiping at each other, another precinct was to be heard from! Yep, ladies this time! Meghan McCain decided to take after Ann Coulter and settle some scores left over from the presidential campaign in the process:
Is she for real or not? Are some of her statements just gimmicks to gain publicity for her books or does she actually believe the things she says? Does she really believe all Jewish people should be “perfected” and become Christians? And what was she thinking when she said Hillary Clinton was more conservative than my father during the last election? If you truly have the GOP’s best interests at heart, how can you possibly justify telling an audience of millions that a Democrat would be a better leader than the Republican presidential candidate?
Coulter, surprisingly didn't immediately return fire. Possibly because she was busy Monday going at it with her best frenemy, Bill Maher.
Not to be outdone, however, CNBC's money madman decided that Jon Stewart had been too unfair to him on a recent “Daily Show.” Stewart actually went after examples of analysts on the network getting predictions wrong. Admittedly, Stewart did take great pleasure pointing to Cramer's boosting of Bear Stearns several days before it collapsed. So, Cramer responded to Stewart. He also hit the airwaves to dismiss Stewart as just an “entertainer.”
Interestingly enough, that's the same word many of Rush's denouncers in the Republican Party use to dismiss his lines. Hmmm....does this mean that Stewart could be the (a?) leader of the Democratic Party? Joe Scarborough might want people to believe that as he happily tag-teamed with Cramer to slap at Stewart. Of course, Stewart wouldn't let that alone – so he dumped on Cramer again.
Cramer vs. Stewart vs. Scarborough!!!
McCain vs. Coulter vs. Maher!!!
Newt! vs. Rush! (you know you've made it when you only need one name) vs. everybody!!!
Now, none of this is up there with the intellectual firepower of William F. Buckley vs. Gore Vidal. But as end-times entertainment, it sure beats a string quartet on the Titanic
Labels: Ann Coulter, Jim Cramer, Jon Stewart, Meghan McCain, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh
Friday, February 01, 2008
Ann Meets Shark, Jumps...
|Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Ann of Green Unstables
We saw this coming a while ago -- and said so at the time. I'm glad to see that some others on the right are calling this for what it is.
Ironically, her quote in the post from last summer references a certain golden-tressed heir-head, recently arrested for driving with a suspended license DUI (five weeks after being sentenced to probation for alcohol-induced reckless driving). And given the title of this conservative column, we appear to have reached a perfect storm of blonde meltdowns.
UPDATE: Oh the irony!!! It seems that someone our blonde friend has been palling around with at CPAC has an interesting background (and, according to some sites to which this family-oriented blog cannot link, an interesting "foreground" -- WINK! WINK! -- as well). I've met the gentleman in question a few times as I have a number of friends in the Columbia U. military community. I would never have guessed.
Labels: Ann Coulter, conservatives, CPAC




