Thank you, Ann Coulter

Her bizarre behavior has finally forced some conservatives to to admit that they're not as obsessed with homosexuality as James Dobson thinks they should be, and that maybe they're even tired of homosexuality as a political issue (via AmericaBlog).

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Not a bad day's work for a professional pot-stirrer.

In other news, I had a pretty busy weekend, but some of it was fun. If you haven't seen Little Miss Sunshine yet, you're really missing out -- I saw it Friday night and it was awesome. Now that I'm hooked up with the Netflix, I'll hopefully get to see a few other films that got Oscar nods...

Schadenfreude-a-palooza

I'm finding it hard to believe that Ann Coulter is as stupid as she appears to be. She makes her living by stirring the pot, so you'd think she would be on her best behavior, anticipating that her many enemies would put her, and her work, under a microscope. (Then again, the same standard applied to Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Tom DeLay and a bunch of other poliltical lightening rods, and they couldn't figure it out. When will people learn?)

As I've been following the saga of Joe Lieberman this past week, I've been wondering why people are so confused about how political parties work. (We've been having a related drama here in Chattanooga this week, as Democratic officials have been shocked to discover that they are expected to support Democrat candidates and not those of the opposition.) Here is the way things work in a nutshell: if you want to be an official member of a political party, you will be expected to support the candidates fielded by that party. If you want to play à la carte politics, you should not become an official of a political party. If you hold an elected office of a political party, you are expected to adhere to the general philosophy of that party. If you become enamored with your party's nemesis, don't be surprised if your party goes shopping for a better candidate. And if you're an official member of that party, you will be expected to support the nominee, even if he's not the incumbent. OK. Is that clear now?

(Oh, yeah, and if you read a local politics blog, don't be suprised to discover that it's a partisan site... Sheesh! Why is that such a shock for some people?!?)

I know some people wanted to see Ken Lay rot in prison, but he dodged that bullet. I hope his numerous victims are able to pick over what's left of his estate. If there is a hell, it's a bit more crowded today.

And finally, how much does it suck to be a falafel-lovin', lefty-hatin' Bill O'Reilly and see a snarky, smug liberal overtake your deranged, hate-spewing show in the ratings?

I guess neither Ailes or O'Reilly realize that when you tie your entire show and network to a president, you become as popular or unpopular as Bush has. Or as Nickolas D. Kristof said in the NYTimes [alternate link]:

"The real victims of Fox News weren't the liberals it attacked, but the conservatives who believed it....."

The Cult of Bush?

This great article from Glenn Greenwald goes a long way toward explaining some of how I feel as a former republican. There's a lot more to it than I'm quoting here, so I recommend reading the whole thing, but here are a few short exerpts:

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

One can see this principle at work most illustratively in how Bush followers talk about Andrew Sullivan. In the couple of years after 9/11, Bush followers revered Sullivan, as he stood loyally behind Bush, providing the rhetorical justifications for almost every Bush action. And even prior to the Bush Administration, Sullivan was a fully accepted member of the conservative circle. Nobody questioned the bona fides of his conservative credentials because he ascribed to the conservative view on almost every significant political issue.

Despite not having changed his views on very many, if any, of those issues, Sullivan is now frequently called a "liberal" (at best) when he is talked about by Bush followers. What has changed are not his political views or ideological orientation. Instead, he no longer instinctively and blindly praises George Bush, but periodically, even frequently, criticizes Bush. By definition, then, he is no longer a "conservative."

He then quotes Sullivan at length, who offers numerous examples of just this dynamic. I admit to accusing some supposed democrats of not really being democrats (*cough* *joementum* *cough* *cough*), but I do so when they betray the ideology of the party, not because they fail to support the positions of an individual.

That "conservatism" has come to mean "loyalty to George Bush" is particularly ironic given how truly un-conservative the Administration is. It is not only the obvious (though significant) explosion of deficit spending under this Administration – and that explosion has occurred far beyond military or 9/11-related spending and extends into almost all arenas of domestic programs as well. Far beyond that is the fact that the core, defining attributes of political conservatism could not be any more foreign to the world view of the Bush follower.

As much as any policy prescriptions, conservatism has always been based, more than anything else, on a fundamental distrust of the power of the federal government and a corresponding belief that that power ought to be as restrained as possible, particularly when it comes to its application by the Government to American citizens. It was that deeply rooted distrust that led to conservatives’ vigorous advocacy of states’ rights over centralized power in the federal government, accompanied by demands that the intrusion of the Federal Government in the lives of American citizens be minimized.

Is there anything more antithetical to that ethos than the rabid, power-hungry appetites of Bush followers? There is not an iota of distrust of the Federal Government among them. Quite the contrary. Whereas distrust of the government was quite recently a hallmark of conservatism, expressing distrust of George Bush and the expansive governmental powers he is pursuing subjects one to accusations of being a leftist, subversive loon.

Indeed, as many Bush followers themselves admit, the central belief of the Bush follower's "conservatism" is no longer one that ascribes to a limited federal government -- but is precisely that there ought to be no limits on the powers claimed by Bush precisely because we trust him, and we trust in him absolutely. He wants to protect us and do good. He is not our enemy but our protector. And there is no reason to entertain suspicions or distrust of him or his motives because he is Good.

We need no oversight of the Federal Government’s eavesdropping powers because we trust Bush to eavesdrop in secret for the Good. We need no judicial review of Bush’s decrees regarding who is an "enemy combatant" and who can be detained indefinitely with no due process because we trust Bush to know who is bad and who deserves this. We need no restraints from Congress on Bush’s ability to exercise war powers, even against American citizens on U.S. soil, because we trust Bush to exercise these powers for our own good.

The blind faith placed in the Federal Government, and particularly in our Commander-in-Chief, by the contemporary "conservative" is the very opposite of all that which conservatism has stood for for the last four decades. The anti-government ethos espoused by Barry Goldwater and even Ronald Reagan is wholly unrecognizable in Bush followers, who – at least thus far – have discovered no limits on the powers that ought to be vested in George Bush to enable him to do good on behalf of all of us.

And in that regard, people like Michelle Malkin, John Hinderaker, Jonah Goldberg and Hugh Hewitt are not conservatives. They are authoritarian cultists. Their allegiance is not to any principles of government but to strong authority through a single leader.

Just to be clear, I don't think this is a trait that is limited to the lunatic fringe people like Malkin, Coulter and others of their deranged ilk (like the bloggers to which Greenwald repeatedly refers). Blind loyalty is required from republicans even by those in the supposed mainstream of the party -- loyalty not only to Bush, but also to his principle retinue -- just look at the way people reacted to criticism of Dick Cheney's disasterous handling of a hunting accident (before he'd even said a word, people were tumbling over each other to deflect the blame for the accident from Cheney as though he were some sort of diety, instead of a human); or look at the way mainstream republicans (with no objections from members of the party) are bending over backwards to make it possible for the unbelievably sleazy Tom DeLay to continue slithering his way through Congress (and even onto the committee that is investigating his close friend and financier, Jack Abramoff).

For a glimpse of how actual conservatives quite recently used to think, one should read this article at FreeRepublic.com, which decries the dangerous loss of liberty and privacy as a result of the Clinton Administration's use of a "secret court" (something called the "FISA court") which actually enables the Federal Government to eavesdrop on American citizens! Worse -- much worse -- the judicial approval which the Government (used to) obtain for this eavesdropping is in secret, so we don't even know who is being eavesdropped on! How can we possibly trust the Government not to abuse this power if they can obtain warrants in secret?

Conservatives used to consider things like this to be quite disturbing and bad -- and the eavesdropping then was at least with judicial oversight. Now, George Bush is in office, and all of the distrust we used to have of the Federal Government exercising these powers has evaporated, because we trust in George Bush to do what is best for us. He should not just have those powers, but many more, and he should exercise all of them in secret, too, with no "interference" from the courts or Congress.

That is why I say that whatever else these Bush followers are, they are not conservative.

Remind me again how to spell schadenfreude?

Finally, we've decided that syndicated columnist Ann Coulter has worn out her welcome. Many readers find her shrill, bombastic and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives.

This is the word from the Arizona Daily Star, which as part of a greater reworking the paper has given Ann Coulter the boot (thanks to egalia for the headsup).

How do you spell schadenfreude?

Ann Coulter totally got smacked down by a Canadian news correspondent Wednesday night.

Coulter: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
McKeown interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter: "I don't think that's right."
McKeown: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
Coulter (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
McKeown: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
Coulter: "I think you're wrong."
McKeown: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
Coulter: "I think Canada sent troops."
McKeown: "No."
Coulter: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."
McKeown tags out in script:
"Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."

That'll teach Coulter to appear on a TV station that doesn't script its "debates." (via Will Pitt)

UPDATE: Turns out, Ann's jumped the shark. Who knew? She barely made it onto the 50 Most Loathsome People in America list:

Coulter plummets down the list as she slips into irrelevance. As her columns degenerate further into absurd, incoherent attacks against her own personal paranoid fantasy of fanged, drooling, Saddam-loving liberals who hate America and childish France-bashing, we find our outrage slowly giving way to a baffled "I can't believe I used to go out with you" feeling. Her arguments are ridiculous, her vitriol forced, her hatchet face even harder to look at. Still, she insulted a one-armed war veteran, called reports of the hundreds of tons of missing munitions in Iraq false, claimed Wesley Clark was pro-infanticide, and blamed Abu Ghraib on the presence of women in the armed forces--they're not all like you, Ann--and on and on. It's just not worth debunking someone who has no credibility in the first place.

I can't argue with that. But, to whom will we now turn for incoherent, vitriolic entertainment? Michelle Malkin?

UPDATE: See the video of Ann's performance! Crooks and Liars has the video (via Aravosis at AMERICAblog).

Please, sir, can I have another?

Will the media survive 2005? As the feeding frenzy begins in the wake of the CBS-commissioned report on the Rathergate saga, one has to wonder.

And although the panel's report found no political bias by anyone at CBS, it was clearly a setback for the mainstream media against an administration that has often stiff-armed or ignored journalists, whom Bush calls an unreliable "filter" between him and the public.

Of course, Bush wouldn't know whether the press is reliable or not, since he openly admits that he speaks from a position of ignorance.

Bush has often asserted that he does not read newspapers or watch television, preferring to get news from his top aides.

The obvious irony there is that here's a man who gets all his news filtered through republican sychophants and he's claiming that the media is a biased and unreliable filter -- but Bush is nothing if not willfully ignorant.

As for the rest of the story, it's the usual free-for-all. Republicans claim that this vindicates Bush and his "service" record (it doesn't -- everyone knows that he did get preferential treatment and that he did not serve honorably), and proves that the media has an anti-Bush bias (apparently they've never turned on the radio or watched cable news) and the Democrats, backed into a corner, can do nothing but shriek the name "Armstrong Williams" repeatedly. Ugh. When can we put some grown-ups in charge?

UPDATE: The right wing nutjobs continue to howl about the CBS investigation, but they're absolutely silent about the missing WMD. Go figure. For some perspective, check out Rathergate vs. Saddam's WMD (which has been picked up in the mainstream, btw).

Wonkette's back, xmas is dead and Coulter wallows

Whew. Wonkette is finally back from vacation, rehab, or wherever it is she goes.

We were stuck in the back country of New Hampshire for Christmas, cut off from civilization and decent liquor (no Blackberry and nothing but Gordon's gin...) so we had no idea that, apparently, the liberals succeeded in replacing Christmas with Kwanzaaukka, the official holiday of gay marriage. Conservative activist Paul Weyrich told the Washington Post that, in fact, "the campaign to eliminate Christmas from our society is well underway." Please let us know if the campaign is accepting donations or needs someone to phone bank for them.

I say we shouldn't get rid of Christmas completely, but just replace it with something that wouldn't be so appallingly embarassing if Jesus ever were to show up for his birthday party. We could start by getting rid of the frantic consumption, dead trees and mindless regurgitation of silly christian mythology and replace it with a serious effort to achieve the supposed goals of Jesus.
But back to Wonkette...

Meanwhile, Ann Coulter has shown herself to be a closet evangelist for the Christmas cause, and has used her website to send out a subtle appeal to those who practice a different faith:

        To The People Of Islam:
        Just think: If we'd invaded your countries, killed
        your leaders and converted you to Christianity
        YOU'D ALL BE OPENING CHRISTMAS
        PRESENTS RIGHT ABOUT NOW!
        Merry Christmas

We're thinking this is one reason to convert most Muslim's haven't thought of, but, ironically, "Because we want to give them Christmas gifts" was actually in the first draft of Colin Powell's UN presentation.

Ha. I checked Ann Coulter's web site, and she really did put that up there. Wow -- bitter hate and willful ignorance all at once! That's quite a combo.

No, not THAT one...

Here's a photo that could potentially freak out a few people who watch the talking heads on TV...

But, no, it's Chattanooga's own Ann Coulter and she's running for mayor. I went to her campaign kickoff this evening at the Imperial Ballroom at the Choo-Choo and there was a very impressive crowd there. I'm not sure who I'm going to support in the mayor's race yet, but she's in the running.

In the meantime, the OTHER Ann Coulter (the one with the adam's apple) has gone off her meds again, and this time, Canada has caught her deranged eye (thanks again to SistersTalk):

Reading Coulter's lingo, she's hoping Canada will be punished severely by the United States, as it's been officially declared an enemy of the state. That woman has some serious psychological issues.

That's putting it mildly. Go read Sister's exerpts or the Media Matters version, with Tucker Carlson also taking a turn at the Canada-bashing. It's pretty hilarious until you realize that Coulter isn't trying to be funny. Then it's just scary.

Also, for a friend who was surprised when this came up this evening: if you're an atheist, don't bother running for office in Tennessee. You're not allowed.