ImGod

I wouldn't classify her as an entertainer. John Stewart of the Daily Show is an entertainer that uses politics. She is a hired hit woman used by the extreme conservatives to preach the good of ultra right wing Republicanism against the evil of any thinking that's not.

She was "hired" for the party through their big media connections. The crap coming out of the party and the media is one of the reasons I've moved out. There are a many moderates I know that have left, or are close to leaving, the Republican Party. That's one reason why the Democratic Party has been shifting to the right.

Arken

If I went on national TV and said, "I wish someone would assasinate the president." It would be considered a threat and I would be thrown in jail.

Blixy Sticks

Okay, now ImGod is Dead On. Who's next?

DarkBronzePlant

Sauron, I like your point, especially the comparison to WWF. You are probably right.

Bill

Oh, I'm sure that they pick and choose what they like from her writings. But I specifically mentioned her book The Virtue of Selfishness, which may well be their manifesto!

== Bill

Bill

I've repeatedly heard Rush Limbaugh mention that he was, himself, an entertainer. He did this in the context of casting derision on the possibility that Al Gore might become a commentator for some new "liberal" network that is being touted as an antidote to Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, and the rest of the conservative crowd.

I think it is a fair critique, for exactly the reason you mention. The bulk of the audience for the conservatives appears to be clueless yokels who are conservative by default. Liberals tend to be thinkers, and they generally would not tune in to hear some other liberal bash conservatives, so there won't be much of an audience for a liberal version of Limbaugh, etc.

Sic transit gloria mundi.

== Bill

openeyes

I can't really figure what her point was either with that comment. It's almost as if she's saying women are so emotional and irrational and don't play by the rules, but then she seems to reinforce this stereotype with her own statements.



I think I've been more embarrassed by some of the things I sometimes post on this board (which even at worst is not nearly as stupid as the stuff she spews) then Coulter is by having her statements published in a national magazine or preserved in her book.

MortalWombat

How about this: She deliberately says such inflammatory and off-the-wall right wing crap in order to:

1. To test the waters for the higher-ups in the Republican party to see what can be said without getting called on it.

2. To de-sensitize people to extreme views so that the higher-ups don't look so bad when they start saying it too.

Graeme

To be fair, the WWF has freely admitted that pro wrestling is all fake for years now. It's just that instead of saying 'fake', they use the euphemism 'sports entertainment'...

But you do make a good point. I refuse to believe that any educated person could seriously believe the crap she spews.

Bill

Three points:

1) Anything involving the President of the United States is a special case because, sometime after the Ford assassination attempts, Congress enacted special laws to give extra protection to the President. Due to the history of assassination attempts on the President, the courts have generally allowed the government to agressively pursue people who threaten the President. But even so, the government generally does not arrest people who threaten the President (the jails would fill up too rapidly). Instead, they generally only arrest people who they believe make serious threats against the President (like, they might not vote for him in 2004; now that's SERIOUS! ).

2) There are some extremely fine-line nuances to what is actionable here. First Amendment concerns allow a lot of leeway in what is said before it becomes criminal. In the usual situation, there has to either be a threat of immediate violence (such as "hate speech" in public where the listeners are in the presence of the people who are having "hate speech" spewed at them; like "look at that ****** over there!"), or some sort of an overt action on the part of the threatener to actually carry out the threat (i.e., you go down to the hardware store and pick a good old fashioned alarm clock out of a bin of cast-offs..... in other words, the circumstances must demonstrate that you intended to carry out the threat).

3) The people making these decisions are government prosecutors, and at this point in time, those would be almost entirely Bush appointees (it takes some time for a President to replace all of the US Attorneys around the nation; but it does happen, sooner or later). Now, if Coulter had threatened The Washington Times, that would be another matter entirely!!!

In any case, the people who would have to initiate a prosecution know that Coulter is an entertainer, and because she has an audience, she is allowed to get away with a lot more than any "average Joe" (like any of us here) would be able to get away with.

== Bill