CPAC Report: Michelle interviews Sean Hannity
posted at 9:17 am on March 4, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sunday extra!
CPAC Report: Hannity on McCain, Coulter, and Gingrich
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Great Vent!
Michelle for President!!!
Zorro on March 4, 2007 at 9:33 AM
I am looking on EBay for a pen…
Wade on March 4, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Nice interview, I’ve always wanted to be a fly on the wall during a Malkin/Hannity chat….and this was kind of like that.
stevevader on March 4, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Appreciate the Sunday Vent! Thanks!
Hannity seems like a nice enough guy, but waffles on Coulter. Also, the next time Michael Moore says something outrageous, and Hannity wants Hillary, Obama, Edwards, etc. to renounce what Moore says, I hope he’ll remember the response he gave to MM in the interview.
asc85 on March 4, 2007 at 10:01 AM
That won’t happen, ’cause conservatives don’t take on that childish role of victim when they’re offended.
flipflop on March 4, 2007 at 10:28 AM
There was/is a term in the world of electrical engineering called “Potential difference”. I am not an engineer but it refers to the voltage difference between two points. My instructor used this example in a side bar discussion.
(that isn’t exact, but it illustrates the way I learned the concept I am going to illustrate in my next comment)
Ann is the potential difference in the conservative power source. To the uniformed Hannity looks like a moderate next to Ann. If Ann wasn’t there, Hannity would look like the extreme right and all those to his left look moderate. Therefore the center shifts to the left. The conservative movement is trying to shift the center back to the right. The only way to do that is to extend the right wing as far as we can to the right BEFORE becomeing hitleresque. The left has perfected this tactic. My proof? Look at how the center has shifted way to the left. What was unacceptable to the right 25 years ago, is intrenched in the left and tolerated by the right. The left has used the rights ideological rightousness (our unwillingness to be “dirty” fighters) to shift the center unopposed because we refused to get down in the mud with them.
One more comment, what Ann does is a TACTIC. Not everything you see on TV is off the cuff remarks that stand on their own. Ann was doing something, not saying something and THAT is a tactic well known by the conservatives in power. The libs know this also and that is why they are calling for the republican candidates to denounce her. The candidates feel pressure to recuse themselves and in effect fall prey to the dems tactic of keeping the center way left of where it should be. If she is denounced, the center (where the elections are won) will stay way to the left of moderate dems and the conservative movement with all our conservative family values will continue to erode and the libertarian movement will dominate. Look at the republicans candidates. The ones getting face time are holding social progressives. This is considered the center. The american people are cattle and are being pulled to and fro by the two parties. If they were educated in what they are giving up they would vote conservative candidates because most americans are conservative, but the liberals have scared them with their greatest tool. The lefts greatest tool in getting americans to give up their conservative ideals is PCness. Ann stabbed at the black heart of PC, but some conservatives are staunching the blood flow by denouncing the wound because they have been conditioned, much like Pavlov’s dog, to reactively cower and acquiesce whenever they percieve a violation of PC’ness.
There is lots more here folks, but you’re going to have to take it from there yourselves.
I don’t think MM will ever be part of the conservative inner circle. She cannot be a part of the liberals tactic to hold the center to the left. Don’t get me wrong, we need to be moral and it that sense she is right, because we, unlike the liberals will find a moderate position and hold it there. The problem is we need to kill the tactic of PC to get us back to a sane center. The liberals appitite for bizzare behavior is unsatiable and they will, the heck with will, the ARE dragging this country into the pits of hell where we will have to keep our children indoors just as Lott had to do in the city of sodom.
There is lots more here folks, but you’re going to have to take it from there yourselves. Giving all information freely creates lazy thinking. (another conservative ideal)
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:31 AM
Bryan, Michelle
Politics has entered the serious stage, gone are the lightweight candidates like in Maryland and Virginia, gone are the gentle people who are going to debate civilized opposition who has supporters rioting in the streets and the net
Clue:
the opposition makes Huey Long look like a choirboy and they have delusions of grandeur.
Ann was just toughening up the room.
2008 nasty down and dirty – bring it on baby.
question are you on board? or we can continue this discussion in line getting our nationalized healthcare or filling up our “Greenmobiles” at the national oil company.
Big hint – you and Michelle are the first to go – you’ll be legislated right off the webpage if they have the golden three in 08.
EricPWJohnson on March 4, 2007 at 10:36 AM
One more comment?!
Tru2my2 on March 4, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Uh…am I the only one having a hard time parsing this?
flipflop on March 4, 2007 at 10:43 AM
Hahaha…that’s code word for my kids to mean I’m going to blather on for another hour. Feel lucky you aren’t my kids!
Sorry ’bout that. :-p
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I’ll try….
the golden three…
Pelosi? Hillary? Obama?
Legislating off the page….
The golden three, through PCness will come after reasonable moral people like MM and Bryan if the Ann’s of the world don’t bust these liberals right in their mouths?
That’s my best guess. I feel that way because liberals have no boundries and use PC to get us to help them expand those boundries. This thing with Ann was the conservatives first shot across the liberal bow.
Hoooahh! Go get em team!
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:51 AM
But forget that. How do you process my comments?
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Sean or Michelle didn’t mentioned the true Reagan conservative in the ‘08 race for the GOP. Here is Duncan Hunter’s excellent speech from CPAC 2007 on Friday.
http://msunderestimated.com/DuncanHunterCPAC.wmv
(windows media player)
Duncan knocks it out of the park on every issue conservatives care about and the last two minutes when he talks about his Marine Corps father and Marines Corps son is awe-inspiring! Duncan is a Vietnam vet who served in Airborne and Army Rangers.
olympian2008 on March 4, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I want to see that but the service was unavailable. I hope I can remember to go back to it.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:59 AM
The C-Span link.
Duncan Hunter’s excellent speech at CPAC 2007 as aired on C-Span, Friday March 2nd. He is introduced by someone from South Carolina.
This video is four hours and 16 minutes. Duncans speech is at the very beginning. The last part of
his speech is awe-inspiring! (25 minutes)
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_030207_cpac.rm
(for me this link automatically opens Real Player)
olympian2008 on March 4, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I’m still laughing! but you make some good points. PC run amok, and all.
Tru2my2 on March 4, 2007 at 11:04 AM
You obviously don’t listen to Hannity, then.
asc85 on March 4, 2007 at 11:06 AM
olympian,
I don’t have real player. Too clunky. Maybe ap, bryan, or MM will do a blog on it.
Thanks for keeping informed and sharing.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:06 AM
maybe you could send that topic to hot air tips in case the bosses miss your post?
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:07 AM
You’re right…I don’t.
flipflop on March 4, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Since I’m not the original author, I’m taking a guess.
Could the “golden three” be the Democrats controlling the Presidency, House and Senate? Based on the comment “legislated right off the webpage”, that’s my educated guess.
asc85 on March 4, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Thank you for the link, Olympian!
*******
Just a quick thought after seeing the interview.
IHMO, its pretty obvious from the interview that MM has a problem with Coulter. It seemed to me that she was trying to lead Hannity into condemning Coulter based on her own personal feelings rather than simply trying to get Hannity’s opinion. Personally, I think Hannity’s response was the correct one to give.
Other than that, I give the interview two thumbs up. I especially liked her “Reagan” question and the answer Hannity gave.
.
GT on March 4, 2007 at 11:32 AM
csdeven,
Don’t you think that the Michelles and Bryans of the world are busting them right in the mount?
Really, why do you think they despise Michelle with the fury of a thousand demented suns, if not because she’s constantly blasting them with both barrels while simultaneously skewering them with their own idiocy?
The difference between Ann and Michelle? Michelle does it with class. Potty mouth and cheap jokes not needed.
Pablo on March 4, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Do you mean with Ann personally or the way Ann makes her points?
IMHO, MM is holding to her moral roots and feels she must be true to herself. And because she is a well known media figure, her positions have to be out there for public consumption.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:45 AM
mm: “With a single word, Coulter sullied the hard work of hundreds of CPAC participants and exhibitors and tarred the collective reputation of thousands of CPAC attendees.”
Timber Wolf on March 4, 2007 at 11:52 AM
I am glad some conservatives are paying attention and not listening to our party that has sold us out. I believe Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo are the only candidates that are running that are true conservatives and not Rockefellar Republicans.In fact, I would like the two of them to become a team and run as President and Vice President. They both agree on 90% of the issues.
Hannity completely ignores Tancredo and Hunter on his shows and is going for the one world candidates.
Thanks for the link
ScottyDog on March 4, 2007 at 11:53 AM
No. I think they are taking the moral high ground in a battle for ideological survival. They need to be moral because that is how conservatives control themselves and if all conservatives acted this way, we would soon forget what moderation is and we’d become hitleresque. The problem is that conservatives have tried to use the tactic of “lead by example” for way too long and we had been losing ground. MM et al need to let Ann have the effect that she does and not deride her for percieved violations of PCness.
Ann is not that goon Amanda Marquette. Marquette’s mouth is a sewer that is over flowing for the desire to be foul. Ann’s comments are creating a shift to the right for the center on the political spectrum. The extreme shift to the left is the conservatives main complaint about the liberal press etc. Ann is attacking that shift and we are going to criticize her?
That sounds more like the dems critcizing Bush for doing what is neccesary to win the war in Iraq all the while claiming they support the troops.
Yeah, riiiiight.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:58 AM
IS there a “problem” in this Country? Most certainly. IS the problem Ann Coulter? Most certainly NOT. One of our real “problems” is that we are no longer able to call something exactly what it is. It’s almost to the point where what scripture predicts is going to happen has already happened, where things that are “good” are called bad, and things that are “bad” are called good. We are very quickly arriving at that place in time.
People like Hannity and Coulter remain some of the few who are still willing to call em like they are. The liberal democrat traitors for example, who go on about their business of undermining the war effort, yet no one ever calls them out to task for their seditous ways in public and makes them answer for it.
Dissent is one thing, BUT when the bullets start flying and American’s are in harms way, it then is too late for “dissent”, and becomes an instance of “IF YOU ARE NOT WITH US, YOUR ARE AGAINST US”.
A real American may dissent in his opinion, right up to the point of no return. No problem in saying that they are against going to war for this reason or that reason and attempting to sway others to their opinion, but when those who have been entrusted with the responsibility determine the need is there, and war has begun, those who refuse to get in line and aid the war effort are, at that point in time, against us…and are nothing if not seditious traitors to the cause of the United States.
So call the liberal democrats, the Hollyweird elite, and the MSM, the traitors that they truly are. State the truth, and move on from there.
NRA4Freedom on March 4, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Gotta go for a while. See you all later.
Peace and may God bless you and yours.
csdeven
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 12:35 PM
asc85 on March 4, 2007 at 11:09 AM
That was my guess when I read it.
On a HotAir page topic, is there any way to get the “Vent” screen to display as a full screen or at least larger than what it is?
TugboatPhil on March 4, 2007 at 12:43 PM
The commentators on the left deride our troops, compare the president to Hitler, buddy-up to Islamofascists, leak secrets via their newspapers, campaign for the rights of captured terrorists and try to make life easier for Al Qaeda by downplaying the risk of terrorism.
Anne Coulter used the word “faggot” in a joke about Edwards.
SO WHAT?!?!?!?
jeez!
uptight on March 4, 2007 at 12:47 PM
After watching the video over several times, I think it has reached the “personal” level.
Now, I could be wrong. For all I know, they could be good friends. I’m simply basing my opinion on the way she prefaced the question and attempted to force the issue with Hannity after he said he couldn’t respond because he hadn’t heard the offending comment.
I agree with MM about the moral roots but in the interview, it just seemed to me as if she was trying to provide a cover for Hannity to condemn Coulter.
.
GT on March 4, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Great Vent Michelle! More content on the weekends would be a good thing!
I wish I could have attended this event, meet these celebrities, and hear the views of so many clear thinking individuals.
omegaram on March 4, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Time for me to take a break from Hot Air and MM. If Coulter’s “sin” is going to be the moral ramparts upon which we all must stand, I’ll have to demure. Be back when all of the moral arbiters and PC police have moved on to something else.
MCPO Airdale on March 4, 2007 at 1:18 PM
One thing to keep in mind about Hannity’s attitude towards AC’s comment – He can’t exactly be throwing under the bus a likely guest for Monday that will be hyped heavily throughout the day. Like it or not, AC is a ratings asset. AC could take her show on the road and submit herself to Chris Matthew’s insightful comparisons to movies instead.
rw on March 4, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Matthews vs. Coulter.
I’d pay to watch that.
.
GT on March 4, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Youtube has it for free.
With questions like those, how can they call it anything other than Hardball?
rw on March 4, 2007 at 2:33 PM
I love how a plagiarist (not Michelle–who always gives credit–but the other party in the video) is talking about conservative values, when he’s an outright thief. A hypocrite, big-time. Next, we’ll be asking Jayson Blair and Joe Biden, whom they think is the most conservative candidate. Guess he forgot that it’s a basic conservative concept to respect property rights . . . and not to steal.
Debbie Schlussel on March 4, 2007 at 2:51 PM
I love how a plagiarist (not Michelle–who always gives credit–but the other party in the video) is talking about conservative values, when he’s an outright thief. Hardly my choice for the moral compass. More like, a hypocrite, big-time. Next, we’ll be asking Jayson Blair and Joe Biden, whom they think is the Presidential candidate with the best conservative values. Guess he forgot that it’s a basic conservative concept to respect property rights . . . and not to steal.
Debbie Schlussel on March 4, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I’m begining to agree with you. Someone on the other “bash ann coulter” thread said something simular that resonated with me and I finally got what you were saying.
But, I still made excuses for why she did it. I guess I have a soft spot for her. Or I’m trying to be PC. DOH!!!
hahaha
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I was wondering when Debbie was going to show up!
I was wondering when Debbie was going to show up!
Tru2my2 on March 4, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Keeps us informed on how this fleshes out Debbie. I am assuming if you can get some justice, we’ll see you on H&C?
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I love Debbie, despite her faults, and Hannity despite his. Ditto Coulter and the other 6 billion people on Earth in need of God’s grace. No man can be my enemy except by his own choice, and even then is not excluded from the commandment that I must pray for my enemy.
SERIOUSLY, people: If you can’t read the signs of the times, you’re blind. Anybody who heard Breitbart speak Saturday morning should know that this train is pulling out of the station, and it’s a one-way express to the Plains of Meggido. Pray, I tell you.
Ali-Bubba on March 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM
Michelle seems a little star struck at the beginning…
Verbal Abuse on March 4, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Woah, I want more info on this please.
As for Ann’s wording being vular, it was, they should have like a PG warning on her speech, or like a ratings system for each person up there. Now that I think of it, did no one read the speakers speeches before they spoke?(say that 5 times fast).
Aside from that, anyone taking their children should have known. It would be like taking you children to a performance by Whoopi or Dennis Leary.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 4, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Michelle,
Do you mind it when your kids here the term “screw you”? Or is it just the term faggot that they shouldn’t here? It just seems a little hypocritical to play the “I’m glad I didn’t bring my kids along” card so they didn’t hear Ann say faggot, but you can say John screw you McCain and that’s okay?
wytammic on March 4, 2007 at 5:14 PM
wytammic also has a point. I say Michelle has a lot of ‘balls‘ to call Ann on word use.
- The Cat
MirCat on March 4, 2007 at 5:20 PM
here should be hear. sorry
wytammic on March 4, 2007 at 6:34 PM
csdeven,
Pablo on March 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
Pot calling kettle, come in kettle.
Vinnie on March 4, 2007 at 7:36 PM
I still don’t understand the priggish, PC reaction to Ann Coulter’s comments by Michelle and Bryan. As the others making comments have stated, Ann Coulter was making fun of liberals. She was not calling the Silky Pony a “faggot.” She was stating that if she were a homophobic liberal and she were to comment on Silky Pony’s character, she would call him a “faggot” and then check herself into rehab to make amends.
It is simply amazing how some conservatives still don’t get her point.
I was at CPAC yesterday and there were so many great things going on and topics being discussed from the U.N. to immigration to the War on Terror there. Yet the only thing that people seem to be discussing on Hot Air is Ann Coulter’s comments that Michelle and Bryan have so badly misconstrued.
Sean Hannity and others should not apologize for Ann. They should state she was making fun of liberals’ homophobia and the MSM simply has no clue.
januarius on March 4, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Don’t hold your breath on that. Vannity deliberately stole from me for a week. There won’t be “justice,” just more stealing. It wasn’t the first time.
Uh, sorry, but deliberately plagiarizing my work–for a whole week, as your love Sean Vannity did–is NOT a “fault,” it’s a serious character flaw. Did you love Jayson Blair, despite his “faults”? Didn’t think so.
Here’s the info on Sean Vannity’s deliberate plagiarism of my work, which has been blogged about all over the internet. It took Michael Reagan to stick his neck out and call Sean Vannity out about my work on his “Vannity’s America” show.
Hmmm . . . really? When did I plagiarize? That’s a very serious allegation, Vinnie. Where’s the proof? That would qualify as defamation, and you can’t get away with that the way you do with your usual, brainless, absurd juvenile comments and posts worthy of the diaper contents from a 1-year-old. So, again . . . where and when did I plagiarize? Interesting that this is coming from you, who engaged in your own copyright infringement of my material and had to withdraw the material after my repeated cease and desist demands. I’d say we do see a pot . . . or rather YOU do–in your mirror.
Debbie Schlussel on March 4, 2007 at 9:08 PM
The Golden three
The House, The Senate, the Presidency
Sorry for the confusion as the low level communication
EricPWJohnson on March 4, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Pablo,
I didn’t construe as michelle who cannot and willnot get vulgar with Anns utterance – I was talking about those that dare criticise the left.
Hope this clears it up -but hand wringing is a useless gesture in a war thats taking no prisoners
I mean when a grandmothers Jewishness is campaign and national material (like who cares – okay she’s Jewish so what) and a scandal this isn’t for the timid.
2008 is the waters edge
EricPWJohnson on March 4, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Great VENT I did like it all but I think AC was basically right spot on about Edwards. I think he had no problem deaming Foley for going off to rehab or other Dems going off to rehab to get out of standing tall. Maybe I missed it but it is how I felt she was talking about Edwards. I do agree with MM that her choice sometimes might not be the right words but it sure did wake up all the Dems and get thier pants feeling like a wedgie. I wish more would come out and not let them be walked all over by Dean and the other two faced lefty’s like Hillary and the rest and they get away with it day after day in the MSM. We are going to have to get real with these people and move back toward our conservatives values but also not cringe when one takes on the left in thier format. She was foul mouthed as far as I heard ,more to the point.
bones47 on March 4, 2007 at 10:14 PM
The point is that MM has a line and we see what it is. Ann goes further and that is what is required to shift the center back to the right so MM et al can occupy it with credibility.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Shouldn’t you be giving Michael Savage credit for “Sean Vanity”?
Not to split hairs here…
Verbal Abuse on March 4, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I withdrew nothing, not my fault you’re incompetent.
The only reason you showed up in this thread is because Ann Coulter is getting all the attention that you crave, and it just eats you up, doesn’t it, Schlusselupagus?
Vinnie on March 4, 2007 at 10:30 PM
I gave Michael Savage credit for that several times on my website. Not sure how many times I need to do it, but yes, that was the name he–Savage–coined, and I wouldn’t dare take credit for others’ work. Vannity never gave me credit even once, yet repeatedly plagiarized my exclusive work, claiming it was his.
Actually, you did. So quit lying about it. You well know that you violated my copyright and after several requests, when I was about to release my lawyers on you, you finally took it down because, as you said on another website, you are too cowardly for others to learn your true identity through a lawsuit to protect my copyright. As for your juvenile name-calling and baseless utterances, I won’t respond any further to you or anything you say. You’re immaturity is very loud. The only reason I even responded was because of your baseless assertions.
For the record, I like Ann, and we have been friends for several years. And I am happy for all of her success. I wish her more. Ditto for Michelle. Not sure how my commenting about Vannity plagiarizing me has anything to do with Ann. But, hey, on the Internet, anyone with a keyboard–and in your case, a conspicuous, unreciprocated obsession with me–can try to play crackpot amateur psychologist.
All I want is credit for my hardwork–rather than being plagiarized. The chutzpah of me. As for attention, while I get plenty (and not all of it is wanted), it looks like a coward who won’t reveal his real identity gets a lot of very base, juvenile jollies over using my name for attention in blogposts. That’s why he’s posted over ten items about me all over the internet. Again, apparently, someone has a very unhealthy obsession and needs to get a life. And get back on those meds. Quickly.
Debbie Schlussel on March 4, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Vinnie
Name calling and accusation making without support doesn’t make for a well founded argument
I have no idea what is going on but TO GET people like me to care
Links, quotes would be real helpful
Remember the onus is on the Person MAKING the accusation
(That would be you and to an extent her – shes provided her proof)
EricPWJohnson on March 4, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Vinnie:
In the vein of the discussion of Ann and the f-word, I’d just like to say: Thanks for calling me the full C-word on your website, just now. It’s not the first time or the last, I’m sure–being the class guy of conservative values that you are. I’d take a screen-capture to prove it, but you’re so afraid of me, you’ve banned my IP address to keep me from doing so. Actually, I generally don’t even acknowledge these things b/c it brings you the attention you crave (by using my name), which you don’t deserve. But, I just thought the readers of this site, would want to know the kind of “man” you are. That C-word . . . so eloquent. But, from you, nothing surprising or out of the ordinary.
Debbie Schlussel on March 4, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Why don’t you explain to the readers of this site why you spent 3 minutes and 53 seconds searching for your own name on my blog, Schlusselupagus?
I do have the screencap of that.
As far as my “seeking attention,” not so much. It’s just so fun to piss you off.
As far as “conservative values” go, I’ve never claimed to be a paragon of virtue, so that’s a wash on your part.
My wife knows what kind of a man I am, and frankly, that’s the opinion I value the most. And trust me, she’s called you far worse than “that C-word.”
Vinnie on March 4, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Vinnie and Debbie, take your argument somewhere else. You’re both about to wear out your welcome here.
And no, I don’t want to receive email from either of you about this.
Bryan on March 4, 2007 at 11:47 PM
No confusion. I missed it but others got it. Great point by the way. You ought to send that to Bill O. It is succinct and pithy.
csdeven on March 4, 2007 at 11:48 PM
csdeven,
Its for Michelle, Allah and Bryan, they can do what they want with it.
Its going to be a war
Patton was politically incorrect too
THANK GOD!
EricPWJohnson on March 4, 2007 at 11:59 PM
And before we go off on the deep end – the Lincoln Douglas debates were not exactly paying homage to the Marquis of Kingsbury rules
Who said politics had to be this Harvardian discourse – its okay to call your opponent names and characterize and label them as long as its accurate – a big point but a point.
When people start actually saying that they are for entitlements and raising taxes and being honest about freedoms then this can stop
And pigs could fly and we could start getting oil at fair market prices from Arabia as well…..
EricPWJohnson on March 5, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Bryan, I don’t even have your email.
I whine to Allahpundit.
Vinnie on March 5, 2007 at 12:12 AM
Good luck with that.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 12:13 AM
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.
Vinnie on March 5, 2007 at 12:28 AM
Heh.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 12:35 AM
WOW!
Kini on March 5, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Getting back on topic, two things that frost my cookies:
1: Ann Coulter pushed Dean Esmay’s meltdown off the page.
2: I had to explain to my 9 year old son and 5 year old daughter what “screw you” means, since I naively thought that I could watch a Vent in the comfort of my living room with my children present.
Vinnie on March 5, 2007 at 2:09 AM
With apoligies to Opus
Offensensitivity is rampant today…..
EricPWJohnson on March 5, 2007 at 2:11 AM
Vinnie on March 5, 2007 at 2:09 AM
*snicker*
Gianni on March 5, 2007 at 2:14 AM
And ““I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot’.”
accomplishes that how, exactly?
And how does Michelle need that to be credibly conservative? Or for that matter, non-Hitleresqe? There is no logic in your statement.
janarius,
No, she said that she couldn’t talk about Edwards because she’d have to go to rehab if she said “Faggot”. In other words, I can’t talk about Edwards because I can’t use the word I’d need to do so: faggot. Therefore, Edwards is a faggot, but I won’t come right out and say so.
If you can point to anything that states or infers “If I were a homophobic liberal”, I’d love to hear it.
Ann has the right to say whatever she wants. And that bit might have played a lot better on Hannity and Colmes or some such. But it was the wrong joke in the wrong place at the wrong time…unless you’re trying to get your name in the paper. That is what she did, and why she did it and it is to the detriment of CPAC, but for the benefit of Coulter.
Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 6:10 AM
Pablo,
Its a minor poor tastless joke. MINOR.
Geez someone even wrote it fragged the entire conservative movement
Wow!!!
whatever are we going to do when senatorWebb starts calling us names or Howard Dean?
The MArquis of Kingsbury rules went out in early 2002 when Hillary took to the Senate floor and said
“What did the President Know and When did he know it”
and survived that dastardly lying no good condemnation of our side.
when we were blamed forletting 9/11 happen the rules of civilized debates went out.
Folks, especially you Bryan and Michelle, its a take no prisoners fight – if you disagree with it you can join the other side or you can go to countries that have one sided governments, or you can continue to debate the wrong side and argue over tactics. you have 8 months before its too late.
Its up to you
EricPWJohnson on March 5, 2007 at 7:09 AM
Hey!!! I deserve a Hot Air pen too after putting up with the 2+ days of “Ann Coulter is BAAAAAD!!!” headlines and reading the myriad of personal insults thrown between commenters on this site. This place is starting to stink of the DU, except instead of eviscerating “the evil BushCheneyMcChimpyHalliburtonCo” we’re gutting our own.
Sure, Coulter shouldn’t have said something non-PC in a public forum (after all, this is America–the land of freedom of politically correct speech) but folks, get over it. She has never held nor is aspiring to holding elected office.
If the Democrats weren’t complaining about Coulter they’d just be complaining about something else anyway. It’s simply par for the course.
Its time to refocus attention to the real issues… like Briteny Anna Nicole Spears-Smith. Bah!!!
mojojojo on March 5, 2007 at 8:08 AM
BECAUSE it IS extreme. The center of anything is defined by half it’s length. Lets say that right now a ruler that is 6 inches long represents the scope of the workable ideologies within the political spectrum. 3″ is the center, 0″ is the extreme liberal and 6′ is the extreme conservative. (workable is before socialism on the left and fascism on the right)
Right now there is tons of room to expand on the right because the conservatives do not engage in extremism as a group. Most of us are moderate and I would place us at about 5 3/4″ with 1/4′ representing those to our right which are the extreme. I define this as the old mainstream moderate person. Right leaning moderates at 6″ and left leaning moderates at 5 1/2″. WEll THAT WAS THE OLD DAYS. Now the center is defined at the 3″ mark. A place that is so far left of conservatism that the libertarian party has a place to the right of the 3″ mark. The only way to redefine the perception of center is to hold 0″ at its current place and extend 6″ out around 11″ or so. Since the center is defined by the workable length, the new center becomes 5 1/2″! That’s just about where we should be.
Up to this point, the “lead by example” conservatives have been holding at their fixed point, while the left engaged in extremism. This has the net effect of redefining center towards the left. This is why nambla and and lawyers for terrorists have become viable prospects and basically tolerated. Because the right held fixed, the center went more left.
We need to shift back to the right and the “lead by example” conservatives thought they could reduce the extent of extremism by not reciprocating extremism to the right in order to hold center. Why? Because conservatives are basically moral and control themselves. And why didn’t it work with the liberals? Because their ideology is basically immoral and they do not want to control the extent of their extremism.
Here is where Ann comes in. She pushes conservative extremism way to the right, and if she can get a foothold there (by the rest of us defending her ideals, if not the way she uses words) then the extreme right is established and the center is redefined to where moderate conservatives and democrates are. This would be a sane center.
I hope that gets it for you, and even if you disagree with Anns role in this, the concept of the center defined by the extremes is sound.
There is lots more to discuss, such as the acceptance of how far the right can go is defined by how far the opposition has gone. But, the right has it’s limits, the left does not. We would not accept the extreme acceptable edge defined as facism. So a conservative can go so far that the position becomes untenable and the extreme right snaps back to just barely right of moderation. Our limits are defined by our moralities. The liberal has no such restraints. They will push their extremism into the negative areas of their ideology. If we shut Ann up, and they continue on this slippery slope to -3, we allow the center to then be redefined by the left to be at 2 3/4″ instead of the 5 3/4 it is at now!!! Do you realize how INSANE and IMMORAL the ideology of 2 3/4″ is the political spectrum? THEN at that point, because the left is immoral, the extremism we see at 2 3/4 now is nothing compared to what waits for us at -5, -6, and further.
Now, how does the left get us to give up so easily? Political Correctness! They kow tow us into remaining at the “lead by example” level of 5 3/4″ by accusing us of violating the basic tenets of our beliefs. Because we are moral and are committed to leading by example, we do not react in kind in order to hold center relative to the existing ideology of moderation. They left has no such tenet of restraint. Their tenet is immorality defended by the facade of PC.
I hope that clears it up for you. We NEED the Ann’s of the conservative movement, but we are going to need MM et al to occupy the center when we get it back.
csdeven on March 5, 2007 at 9:18 AM
Wow. Big tent, huh?
Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Bryan:
I didn’t asked to be attacked by Vinnie and falsely accused of plagiarism on this site. That you do not expect me to respond to that defamation is puzzling. If someone falsely accused you of that, I’d expect you to defend yourself, and I certainly wouldn’t attack you for doing so. It’s unfortunate that this person–whom I don’t know and have nothing to do with–has taken to using your site to attack me for no reason and defame me. Even more unfortunate is that you’ve chosen to make that morally equivalent with me responding and defending myself from a baseless attack.
Debbie Schlussel on March 5, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Bryan:
Just curious: What is your position on calling women the C-word? That’s what Vinnie–with whom you are equating me–did on his site. Since you are offended with Ann’s use of the f-word for gays, it begs the question why you are not equally offended by this Vinnie person’s use of the C-word for women. And why you are equating me with someone who does that.
Debbie Schlussel on March 5, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Debbie, you have no quarrel with me. Yet. Don’t start one.
Bryan on March 5, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Debbie – Bryan didn’t invite Vinnie to comment on you – I’m not impressed with Vinnie and anyone else following it probably isn’t either. but its not about Vinnie its about Ann, Michelle, Bryan et al and the use of a conservative convention to be rude
Heck anyone can be a jerk on the internet….
Leave it at that…
My advice
EricPWJohnson on March 5, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Michelle Malkin you are not my “role model”. I respect you but that’s taking it to far, crossing the line to a BIG turn off!
mimi on March 5, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Where’s my HOT AIR pen? Don’t tell me EBAY!
Drtuddle on March 5, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Wooooo. Getting HOT in here…
Think I’ll just duck in REAL fast to say that I think Sean is gutless for not answering the question about ANN COULTER head on. Lame, Sean. Just LAME.
seejanemom on March 5, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Hot Air fan’actics going to put Ann Coulter’s head on a stick! It’s round up time!
mimi on March 5, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Debbie, I hope you’ll continue to post comments on Hot Air…I think it’s really neat that someone like you posts on Hot Air!
However, I can see Bryan’s point. To me, not only is it off-topic, it was also getting excessive. The few times I get into slap-fights with other posters on Hot Air, I just eventually stop responding, and actually stop reading the comments on that section so that I don’t get further inflamed.
You are by far the more credible of the two, and you made your points very well. No need to belabor them.
asc85 on March 5, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Bryan, that is unfair to allow Vinnie to post his comments about Debbie, allowing them to go uncontested. A hit and run.
Vinnie slammed Debbie, she has every right to defend herself. And you have even more of an obligation to force Vinnie to link or prove what he is saying about Debbie.
Debbie linked and proved her point about Hannity, now how about Vinnie proving his point. Once Vinnie proves his point we can move on.
Don’t stop the fight after a low blow is thrown.
It can be resolved with one posting from Vinnie: Either the link showing he is correct, or an apology–a real apology.
I am sure Debbie will move on.
right2bright on March 5, 2007 at 12:10 PM
The word F**g*t can be eliminatied, just like the word J*p, or n***er, or any other word demeaning word…the exception is, in what context.
Just say the sentence: “You must be a Republican.” Depending on the context it could be a postitive statement or an accusatory one. Just by the tonal inflection.
Ann’s use is just out of line in the context it was being used.
right2bright on March 5, 2007 at 12:26 PM
No it isn’t. It’s juvenile. It’s a schoolyard taunt in a stupid joke. And to a lot of people, including many on the hard right, found it offensive.
Are you really saying that calling people faggots is emblematic of extreme conservatism? Because if that’s the best they’ve got, they can just turn the lights out now.
I know a place where you can find plenty of extreme conservatism. It’s called Saudi Arabia. Do we need that here?
Pablo on March 5, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »