Posted by David Lerman at 6:45 a.m. CST
WASHINGTON—Conservative Republican activists from across the country lined up by the hundreds to see former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney explain why he wants to be president.
The crowd spilled out of a packed hotel ballroom when former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made an appearance.
But there was no shortage of seats Saturday when former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore got a chance to make his case for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
Here at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and firebrand pundit Ann Coulter were treated like rock stars, Gilmore was barely an asterisk among the right-wing party faithful.
A straw poll of more than 1,700 conference participants found Romney was the leading choice for president, with 21 percent of the vote, followed by Giuliani at 17 percent and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, with 15 percent.
Gilmore’s showing was so low — at less than 5 percent — that his name did not appear in the poll results.
The poll, whose respondents skewed heavily to college students, is hardly a reliable predictor of a nominating contest that is still a year away. And Gilmore was quick to dismiss the poll even before the results were announced, saying he had not tried to win the contest as others do by bussing in large numbers of supporters.
``We’re going to win this on ideas,” he said of the nominating contest. ``That’s more important than winning the straw poll.”
But the Virginia Republican’s poor showing in the poll—and his lukewarm reception at the annual gathering of hard-core party activists—underscored the huge challenge facing Gilmore as he tries to jumpstart a dark-horse bid for the White House.
It won’t be easy.
Largely unknown nationally, Gilmore must compete for money, staff and public attention with at least three men who threaten to suck up all the oxygen in the GOP nomination battle: Giuliani, Romney and Arizona Sen. John McCain.
Gilmore’s unlikely quest for the presidency—he formed a presidential exploratory committee in December—comes nearly a half-decade after leaving the governor’s mansion with mixed reviews.
His signature initiative to phase out Virginia’s hated car tax, while never fully implemented, made him popular among some of the GOP faithful. But Democrats—and even some Republicans—faulted Gilmore for pushing ahead with the tax cut despite a weakening economy and leaving his successor with a fiscal crisis.
Since leaving office, Gilmore has chaired a presidential commission on terrorism and homeland security and briefly headed the Republican National Committee. He left the party post after a year because of reportedly stormy relations with Bush administration officials, though Gilmore denied any lingering tension with the White House.
To a large extent, Gilmore’s presidential bid was made possible last fall, after former Virginia Sen. George Allen failed to win re-election amid accusations of racial insensitivity and abandoned his own White House campaign.
But while Allen began his presidential run as a clear heavyweight—he won the conservative conference’s straw poll last year—Gilmore begins as a long shot.
His only real chance of winning, some party activists say, would depend on Gilmore stoking the growing concern among the party’s right wing that their three front-runners—McCain, Giuliani and Romney—are not true conservatives.
Gilmore sought to do just that in a fiery address that questioned the conservative credentials of his opponents.
``The people who have been anointed as the frontrunners in this race are all fine men,” Gilmore told the crowd. ``But they are not conservatives.”
Giuliani, in a far more tepid address, focused on his efforts at crime-fighting and welfare reform, while never mentioning his support of abortion rights and gay rights.
``We don’t all agree on everything,” Giuliani told an overflowing crowd on Friday. ``I don’t agree with myself on everything.”
Romney, a popular former governor hailed as a savior of the Salt Lake City Olympics, likewise faces doubts about his views on social issues such as abortion and gun control because of his more liberal pronouncements during his campaigns in Massachusetts.
Even as he toured the conference exhibit hall with throngs of supporters, a man dressed in a dolphin costume tailed Romney with a T-shirt that said ``Flip Romney: Just another Flip Flopper from Massachusetts.”
And McCain, widely distrusted by his party’s right wing because of his opposition to President Bush’s tax cuts and other issues, never bothered to show up for the three-day conference that drew more than 5,000 activists.
Against that backdrop, Gilmore painted himself as the only real conservative in the race: a tax-cutting chief executive who opposes abortion and serves as a board member of the National Rifle Association.
``I have always been a conservative,” Gilmore said. ``Always. I’ve seen others who were here and they have evolved; they have shifted. I don’t have to shift. I can be who I am.”
To be sure, Gilmore had at least a hearty handful of supporters to cheer him on as he tried to woo party activists from 49 states and the District of Columbia.
``I wouldn’t say he’s good, I would say he’s great,” said Carolyn Meadows, a Georgia businesswoman and board member of the American Conservative Union, which hosted the 34th annual conservative conference. Pointing to Gilmore’s service as a party delegate for Ronald Reagan in 1976, Meadow said,
``If that doesn’t set the stage for him, I don’t know what does.”
But Morton Blackwell, Virginia’s longtime national GOP committeeman, declined to endorse his own state’s presidential hopeful, saying he remained undecided.
``Jim and I are very old friends,” Blackwell said of Gilmore. ``On public policy issues, Jim’s absolutely right. He’s been unwavering. But what’s going to advance us in the long run? I just haven’t decided.”
David Lerman reports for The Daily Press of Hampton Roads, Va., a Tribune Co. newspaper.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I guess since they are now treated like rock stars, they have no trouble speaking their hateful trash about gays. I have no doubt that Ann is probably A-sexual.
Posted by: bill r. | March 4, 2007 6:57 AM
bill r,
I just read the post and there was no mention of "their hateful trash about gays". Nothing about gays at all, in fact.
And how would you describe your comment about Coulter's sexuality?
Posted by: Leo T | March 4, 2007 8:51 AM
A conference with all the GOP conenders, and the Tribune couldn't bother to have one of its own reporters present. Instead, they have to recycle an article from the Hampton Road, VA (!) newspaper.
For the Tribune's "Obama for President" club, if "He Who Walks on Water" isn't there, it isn't news.
Posted by: bruce | March 4, 2007 8:51 AM
Leo T....That was in response to Anns' hateful speak about Edwards. Where is the outrage? Everybody made a big deal about Kerrys' stupid joke that everybody knew was a joke, no matter how stupid of a mistake it was. Here is something that was just meant to be hateful, plain and simple. True, she is not a candidate, but where is the outrage?
Posted by: bill r. | March 4, 2007 10:02 AM
bill r,
OK, I take your point about Coulter vs Edwards. Where's the outrage, you ask? I see it here, in the Swamp for example.
BTW, I think most people know that Kerry is just plain dumb, and that's what they object to about his "joke".
Posted by: Leo T | March 4, 2007 10:35 AM
Bill R,
Yeah, on my front screen 'Goebbel's Granddaughter' calls
John Edwards by the 'f' word to describe gay person.
Had to word it this way.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 4, 2007 11:39 AM
Leave it to the Republic Party to have Ann Coultergeist as a featured speaker at their "conference".
It's little wonder that no one takes the Party of President Rambo,Deadeye Dick Vader and KKKarl Rove seriously anymore.
I want the Wingnuts to nominate Rudy for President,he's a Democrat with an (R) in front of his name.
If they want to compromise their party platform and sell their soul for Rudy,I say go for it.
Posted by: John E. | March 4, 2007 11:40 AM
John E,
Rudy 'Dressed to Kill' Giuliani may be the man to pull the Republics
back toward the left again, and a little sanity.
We know John 'I'm Only Sleeping' McCain is shuffling to the right as
hard as he is able. What a shame. I used to like the guy.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 4, 2007 11:59 AM
John E,
Rudy 'Dressed to Kill' Giuliani may be the man to pull the Republics
back toward the left again, and a little sanity.
We know John 'I'm Only Sleeping' McCain is shuffling to the right as
hard as he is able. What a shame. I used to like the guy.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 4, 2007 11:59 AM
Leo T,
Bill r was referring to Coulter's latest outrageous statements. I think she gets off on the attention. No one takes anything she says seriously anyway, do they?
http://www.solidpolitics.com/
Of course, Coulter has made a living at this, so why should she stop now?
http://newyorkobserver.com/20060619/20060619_Joe_Conason_opinions_conason.asp
Posted by: dt | March 4, 2007 12:03 PM
Indeed there's nothing in this article about what Ann Coulter called John Edwards. I'm confident the actual word would be censored (as it well should have been BEFORE COULTER SPOKE IT), but it refers politely to a bundle of sticks tied together, and it was pretty indicative of Coulter's usual hate-speech. Oh, and -- excuse me -- she never actually CALLED Edwards that. She just said that if she used the word in description of Edwards, she'd be sent to rehab, so she had nothing further to say about him. What a huge difference! Lucky for Coulter, her choice of phrasing keeps her safe from any lawsuits, such as when she calls all liberals traitors but refuses to actually name any one individual who she'd actually say is a traitor.
To be honest, I've gotten pretty much beyond being mad at little Annie. Trying to disapprove of her anymore is a lot like yelling at a dog for c****ing in the house. Apparently she's gotten plenty of positive reinforcement for the bombs she's dropped in the past, so what's the point of trying to train her now? She is what she is, and that's ALL she is.
What I am taking to heart is how, after hearing her say that word, the Republican leaders and shakers in the audience cheered, whistled and applauded. To me, THAT's what really speaks of the Republican sense of humanity. Even if they didn't feel they should drag her off the stage or throw things at her to make her stop talking, or if they felt uncomfortanble booing her or walking out, the audience could still have expressed its disapproval by just not applauding. They chose otherwise. I need no more confirmation of what the party thinks of as proper and decent, and the kind of treatment minorities can expect if Republicans gain control in the future.
Posted by: John | March 4, 2007 12:09 PM
I wonder if the Republicans discussed this at their "Conservative Political Action Conference"?
W.'s approval rating has dropped to 29%.....
Posted by: John E. | March 4, 2007 12:23 PM
Mark Silva posted yesterday that everyone should lighten up and I agree! Ann Coulter was just being funny,she really didn't mean it.If you ever take time to read her articles,she shows the looney left by using a tonge-in-cheek style..
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
JohnE. You posted at 11:40A.M-C.S.T. or almost
2A.M Monday morning in Iraq.
Are you really there? You seem to have alot of time on your hands.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | March 4, 2007 12:28 PM
Just when I thought Star Trek was off the air, the Borg hold a reunion, and Queen Anne gets to activate the robots. After 6 years of Jabba the Veep and C1PO (apologies for a mixed metaphor) failing to achieve anything meaningful (Afghanistan, Katrina, Veteran Health Care, take-your-pick), why Americans even care about this event of chest-beating and ill-will towards everyone not a party contributor is beyond me.
This cabal makes a mockery of true morality, as was demonstrated by a situation (failures dating back many years) first noted in 2004-5 publicly. Despite the Army's claim of "surprise" at these conditions, they had been exposed in a Salon.com series beginning in January 2005. In 2004 and 2005, articles appeared interviewing whistleblower First Lt. Jullian Goodrum on his court martial for seeking medical help elsewhere due to poor conditions at WRAMC, in the Post and in Salon.
Check Wikipedia on WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER for more details.
From Sept. 2005 - the Senate passed legislation introduced by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) that would require the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to notify veterans living in states that have historically received below-average disability compensation payments, and provide them with information on how to request a review of past claims, and how to submit new claims.
"For decades, Illinois veterans have received less disability pay than they earned simply because of where they live," said Obama. "It is our moral obligation to make sure that veterans across the state understand they were unfairly shortchanged, and to explain to them what steps they can take to get what they deserve. This legislation will begin to right this injustice that has affected Illinois veterans for decades."
Posted by: pb | March 4, 2007 4:07 PM
Some more "tongue-in-cheek" wisdom from Ann Coultergeist:
"...a cruise missile is more important than Head Start."
-- Ann Coulter, Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002
The swing voters? I like to refer to them as the idiot voters because they don't have set philosophical principles. You're either a liberal or you're a conservative if you have an IQ above a toaster. "
-- Ann Coulter, Beyond the News, FOX News Channel, June 4, 2000
"Cam Kate":
On [Fox News Channel's February 7th] Hannity and Colmes, Alan Colmes confronted Ann Coulter with the following statement she made at the Conservative Political Action Committee conference:"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too."
Coulter whined to Colmes, "I didn't know we were talking about this tonight, but now that you've sprung it on me..." but confirmed she made the comment and boasted it was a "huge hit with the audience."
Colmes: "You hate liberals. You despise liberals. This is unbelievable, we should execute them to make liberals scared?"
Coulter: "Right. Right!"
-- Feb. 10, 2002
Posted by: dt | March 4, 2007 4:23 PM
All the Republican candidates weren't at the conference. McCain has no use for the far right and he was lambasted on lots of righty blogs for not going. McCain never goes to CPAC. You'd think he'd actually go if he was really "courting" the far right as much as C.Morris thinks he is.
There's a reason for that. He's not courting the far right and never was.
Posted by: Jeff | March 4, 2007 4:45 PM
Jeff,
I hope you are right about John M., but I am not yet convinced.
I have said many times I want to like the guy.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 4, 2007 7:34 PM
Voters, please take a few moments to "google" Rudy Giuliani. What you read there may temper your enthusiasm for this chronic trouble maker and his intemperate response to situations he cannot control.Be warned, he would make shrub look cautious and clever.
Posted by: c.perry | March 4, 2007 7:52 PM
The vicious right wing has never been worse..Ann Coulter now and Mark Levine on radio at night...If you were to ask.."if no weapons of mass distruction were not found in Iraq after invasion why then did'nt we leave" they would hang up after your question. It's probably cover up for more of this incompetence we see in govt.
Posted by: richard | March 4, 2007 8:25 PM
It's true a lot of Republicans weren't at the conference. I don't really care about the difference anymore.
Ann Coulter has been the Republican media darling for 10 years now, give or take,and she's still being invited to speak at Republican functions, there are still newspapers and blogs that carry her articles weekly, Crown Forum publishes her books (which are stocked in bookstores and which people still buy).
If people -- any of them -- are still allowing money to flow into this woman's hands and if they're still attending her speeches, I count them as bad as she is. That extends to people who support the party that pays for her to show up (along with Crown and Coulter's media outlets). So -- McCain and Cheney weren't there (and neither one was, BTW)? Too bad for them, they could at least have had a good laugh, but I still note that they haven't chided the party for inviting her. They're as guilty as the rest of them in my book.
Ahh!! But that's not right and fair, you say? Ask me if I give a r**'s a**, because I don't anymore. I'll back down on that one the week after I see that mention of Ann Coulter cannot be found ANYWHERE, and that ALL the right-leaning bloggers have stopped using Coulter-speak, after their lies have stopped and they behave like responsible adults. I've had it to the t**s with you people saying "Oh, but she doesn't speak to the REAL Republicans" (heh, heh, heh, but we love her just the same).
No more!
Posted by: John | March 5, 2007 6:48 AM
This is classic. The demented and deranged folks from the Loony Left get their dander up over a comment by Ann Coulter, yet look at the stuff from John E., C. Morris and the rest of the D&D Loony Left gang. John E with his KKKarl Rove and C. Morris with "Dressed to Kill" Giuliani.
But let's also talk about Bill Maher's comment that it was too bad that Dick Cheney WASN'T assassinated in Afghanistan last week. Course, that follows up on John E.'s recent comment that Cheney and Paulo both should be shot in the face.
So, really all you Deranged and Demented Loony Lefters have no case to make at all. Go hide in some cave and let the normal folk live happily ever after without your drivel and nonsense.
Posted by: John D | March 5, 2007 8:24 AM
"He's not courting the far right and never was."
Simply not the case Jeff.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253060,00.html?sPage=fnc.politics/youdecide2008
Of course he's courting the far right. He needs the far right if he wants the nomination. That's his best chance at stopping Rudy.
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 8:29 AM
Hey, Johnny D, aren't you the one who has recently called for a number of Democrats to be put in front of a firing squad?
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 8:43 AM
Tony, then why didn't he go to CPAC? HE WAS NOT THERE, people! You can't have it both ways, either McCain gets criticized by conservative pundits and bloggers, as he's been for the past week, for not showing up or he gets your scorn and derision for being there. He wasn't there.
Give some credit where credit is due, at least. Your Fox News link mentions nothing about CPAC. Meeting with some christian broadcasters isn't nearly the same as appearing with the likes of Coulter and the rest of the crazy punditry crowd at CPAC.
Posted by: Jeff | March 5, 2007 8:57 AM
This is classic. The demented and deranged folks from the Loony Left get their dander up over a comment by Ann Coulter, yet look at the stuff from John E., C. Morris and the rest of the D&D Loony Left gang. John E with his KKKarl Rove and C. Morris with "Dressed to Kill" Giuliani.
But let's also talk about Bill Maher's comment that it was too bad that Dick Cheney WASN'T assassinated in Afghanistan last week. Course, that follows up on John E.'s recent comment that Cheney and Paulo both should be shot in the face.
So, really all you Deranged and Demented Loony Lefters have no case to make at all. Go hide in some cave and let the normal folk live happily ever after without your drivel and nonsense.
Posted by: John D | Mar 5, 2007 8:24:55 AM
Proves my point exactly. Ann Coulter and her hatespeak makes the PERFECT voice for Republicans. "But you, but you, but you..." I DO NOT CARE! As long as nutcases like JohnD continue to support the kind of message the attendees of this conference applauded, you ALL are made filthy.
Posted by: John | March 5, 2007 9:39 AM
I never claimed he was at CPAC Jeff.
However, skipping one meeting doesn't mean that McCain is not trying to court the far right,a blanket statement you made. He clearly is making many efforts in that direction.
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 9:48 AM
Again, understanding and comprehension are lost on Loony Lefters. But, Tony, since I've seen countless posts from folks of your ilk in recent months about how it's unfortunate that the Bush assassination movie wasn't real, or lamenting that that the tires blowing out of Air Force didn't result in the loss of life of everyone on board, or shooting Cheney in the face, I thought it was OK to wish deadly harm for your opponents. If not, then let me know! I'm just taking my cue from you guys!
And "John," I don't always agree with Ann Coulter and i think she goes too far sometimes, but how about policing your own such as Bill Maher, Al Franken, Alec Baldwin, John E., and all the other hate talk from your side of the aisle first?
Posted by: John D | March 5, 2007 10:06 AM
Hey Paulo:
It's been TWO WEEKS since I challenged you to provide links and facts to your allegations against the Clintons. Why are you too cowardly to support your own words.
Put up or shut up.
BC
Posted by: BC | March 5, 2007 10:09 AM
Go hide in some cave and let the normal folk live happily ever after without your drivel and nonsense.
Posted by: John D | Mar 5, 2007 8:24:55 AM
You're normal? Oy Vey!!!
Posted by: Catherine | March 5, 2007 11:06 AM
Ok, Johnny, nice to have you on record that you personally have no problem with advocating violence against political enemies.
Why do you hate democracy Johnny?
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 12:01 PM
John D,
Your ideas interest me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: Lucifer | March 5, 2007 12:08 PM
Tony, that depends on your definition of "courting the right." I think if he was serious about getting that block of voters, as serious as many people claim, he'd go to their biggest political event of the year. That's CPAC.
McCain is running a big tent campaign, and yes that means talking to the Christian broadcasters and other groups that he shunned in 2000. But he has not changed a single policy position to win any of those votes. Since when is talking to all voters that'll listen a bad thing? That's campaigning, period. Maybe he should be more like the Democrats and talk about how inclusive he is while excluding anyone who publicly disagrees with him from the conversation. I have a feeling, Tony, that that's the only thing that would satisfy you and your ilk.
Posted by: Jeff | March 5, 2007 12:19 PM
JohnD, don't even THINK about asking me to "police my own" while you're still sounding like Ann Coulter out of drag with every post you send out. Seems to me today that I haven't been nearly hateful ENOUGH, given what the Right has been spewing out, so if you want ANYTHING other than venom out of me, you'll cease your "all liberals are loony" garbage and start some nodding acquaintance with reality.
And you don't always agree with Coulter, huh? Well aren't you the little saint! Does it happen that you agree with her on this? Not "But Bill Maher was worse, Al Franken's a nutjob, John E lives in the basement with his mother." Are YOU in favor of YOUR PARTY's support of Ann Coulter?
I've come down against my party when I thought they did wrong AND I've disagreed civilly with Republicans (sometimes even agreed with them unreservedly) -- when have YOU ever thought for yourself and tried to put forth your OWN olive branches? Is that what you meant to do with "Go hide in some cave and let the normal folk live happily ever after without your drivel and nonsense"? So sorry if that message of peace and healing got lost in the translation.
You're still my best proof that the neocons are too dangerous to govern this country.
Posted by: John | March 5, 2007 12:20 PM
Jeff, you must have missed it, but I didn't criticize McCain for courting the right. In fact, I said he had to do it to get the nomination.
I took issue with your statement that he was not courting them, when clearly he is.
Personally, I think the shift in his additude toward the right , as compared to 2000, is going to hurt him greatly with indepenants and crossover voters, but that's his call.
"But he has not changed a single policy position to win any of those votes. "
You don't think he supported Graham-Levin and the Military Commission acts, which condone the use of torture, in order to not piss off the far right? I disagree.
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 12:47 PM
Are you kidding me? He got the best deal he could and personally negotiated with the White House to save the Geneva Convention Language!
All of that was WAY before he started running for President, too. Negotiating from a position of weakness (i.e. Bush was the president and he was only one senator) McCain got the best compromise he could on an anti-torture bill. I'm sure a much tougher one will be priority one for him if he ever makes it to the Oval Office.
Posted by: Jeff | March 5, 2007 1:34 PM
Tony,
McCain should worry more about catching Rudy than taking shoots at the Dems.
Latest polling shows "Surge" is running nearly 20% behind Rudy.
Posted by: John E. | March 5, 2007 1:42 PM
John -
I can understand you're anger at JohnD, mainly because his comments usually provoke that kind of response. But, you are not making sense to me. Al Franken, Bill Maher and the rest get cheers from the Democrats in exactly the same way you accuse Republicans of cheering Ann Coulter. I just don't see the difference here.
Posted by: no name | March 5, 2007 1:54 PM
no name,
I'm sorry but there is simply no comparison between Bill Maher and Ann Coulter.
First off, in the episode that John D misquotes, Maher does not suggest that he wished Cheney was dead.
Anyway, please provide the "liberal" equivalent to these slanders:
"Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who wrote in a syndicated column on September 12 that in responding to terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"---Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
On Princess Diana's death: "Her children knew she's sleeping with all these men. That just seems to me, it's the definition of 'not a good mother.' ... Is everyone just saying here that it's okay to ostentatiously have premarital sex in front of your children?"..."[Diana is] an ordinary and pathetic and confessional - I've never had bulimia! I've never had an affair! I've never had a divorce! So I don't think she's better than I am."---MSNBC 9/12/97
"I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote."---Politically Incorrect, 2/26/01
"If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."---George, 7/99 (I suppose one could make the same argument against Bush)
"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."---Rivera Live 6/7/00
"I think [Whitewater]'s going to prevent the First Lady from running for Senate."---Rivera Live 3/12/99
"My track record is pretty good on predictions."---Rivera Live 12/8/98
On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: "I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain."---Hartford Courant 6/25/99
"My libertarian friends are probably getting a little upset now but I think that's because they never appreciate the benefits of local fascism."---MSNBC 2/8/97
"Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy."
Of course, the likes of John D will probably go out and defend this nonsense, which is exactly the point. This is insipid, hateful speech that is designed to tear this nation apart. Republicans would be wise to disavow such an intolerant shrew.
Posted by: Bryan | March 5, 2007 2:47 PM
no name,
What did Al Franken, the comedian, say that was so objectionable and on par w/ Ann Coulter?
Posted by: jethro | March 5, 2007 2:52 PM
Bryan -
I was speaking to John, not you.
Oh, here's a quick example for you to help illustrate my point. Do you remember the anti-Republican ad a few years ago suggesting that electing Bush and/or Republicans would make it likely that black people would be chained to the back of pick-up trucks and dragged to death? I sure do - - I can vividly picture the ad in my head. I am still waiting for the Democrats to denouce that ad.
I am not going to waste my time providing a list in response to your comment. Why? Because you, Bryan, have proven to me in the past that you don't really read my comments, you just use them as an opportunity to engage in your own rant. I'm not going to waste my time hunting down quotes for you only to have you ignore my post and continue your rant.
Posted by: no name | March 5, 2007 3:23 PM
more Ann Coulter quotes:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
"While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security."
Posted by: Bryan | March 5, 2007 4:00 PM
no name,
I'm only looking for one quote by the comedian Al Franken that is in the same category as Ann Coulter.
PS was that ad you referenced go back to the similar crime back in Texas. Then Gov. Bush refused to visit and console the victims family but he did not refuse to console and visit the victims of Karla Faye Tucker?
Posted by: jethro | March 5, 2007 4:24 PM
no name,
I hereby denounce the ad that suggested voting Republican would result in increased lynchings.
You don't have to respond to my comments, but your assertion is false. Here is your question:
"Al Franken, Bill Maher and the rest get cheers from the Democrats in exactly the same way you accuse Republicans of cheering Ann Coulter. I just don't see the difference here."
I am pointing out that there is a huge difference between the type political dialogue that each engages in. I am pointing out a few of Ms. Coulter's slanders to remind you of whom you are defending.
So what exactly is it the Bill Maher or Al Franken have said that is on par with: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building?"
BTW, just watched Bill Maher from Friday again and on no level whatsoever does he say that he wishes Cheney dead.
Posted by: Bryan | March 5, 2007 5:01 PM
no name,
I hereby denounce the ad that suggested voting Republican would result in increased lynchings.
You don't have to respond to my comments, but your assertion is false. Here is your question:
"Al Franken, Bill Maher and the rest get cheers from the Democrats in exactly the same way you accuse Republicans of cheering Ann Coulter. I just don't see the difference here."
I am pointing out that there is a huge difference between the type political dialogue that each engages in. I am pointing out a few of Ms. Coulter's slanders to remind you of whom you are defending.
So what exactly is it the Bill Maher or Al Franken have said that is on par with: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
BTW, just watched Bill Maher from Friday again and on no level whatsoever does he say that he wishes Cheney dead.
Posted by: Bryan | March 5, 2007 5:01 PM
Jeff-
Why would McCain compromise his principals to vote yes on two measures that condone torture? These were both AFTER his anti-torture amendment was passed. They beasically gutted his amendment by making it impossible for those being tortured to have access to the courts. Why did he not do the courageous ethical thing and vote no?
Posted by: Tony | March 5, 2007 5:03 PM
Thanks for leaving Leo T/no name.
Scooter is waiting for you to put the cuffs on him.
Posted by: John E. | March 5, 2007 5:06 PM
jethro -
I tried to answer your question earlier, but it appears the Swamp editors don't feel they can reprint offensive comments from Al Franken that have already been reprinted by other newspapers.
Al Franken described Norm Coleman as "one of the [Bush] administration's leading **** boys."
You can see the quote in this news article:
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/1002254.html
Posted by: no name | March 5, 2007 5:10 PM
Maher/Franken = WIll Rogers lenny Bruce
Anne Cooter = Mrs. Goebbels
Remember, fascists know no irony.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 5, 2007 7:37 PM
Jethro -
What did you think? It looks like C.Mo doesn't seem to think Al's comment is smililar to Ann Coulter's. This is my problem...it always seems that nothing the liberals say is too outrageous or offensive, at least for the Democrats.
Posted by: no name | March 6, 2007 8:51 AM
no name/ Polyanna,
Ann Coulter advocates the mass slaughter of foreigners and Americans alike. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Now, has Al Franken ever said that he wished the terrorists struck Houston instead of New York and Washington? Has he suggested that the only good Republican is a dead Republican? Does he suggest that conservatives hate America and wish its demise (after all they have broken the military, blown up the budget, watched and did nothing as a major American city was flooded, did nothing to stop terrorists from attacking two major American cities...)?
Sorry, no name, but calling Norm Colemann Bush's "special friend" is simply no worse than the hate that is spewed each and every day on right-wing radio. This is not moral equivication, or knee-jerk support for "my side." That you can't see that Ann Coulter is on another level from pretty much everyone else is your problem.
Posted by: Bryan | March 6, 2007 9:51 AM
no name/ Polyanna,
Calling Norm Coleman a "behind" buddy is on par with calling Barrack Hussein O'dumbo, Defeatocrats, the Democrat Party, etc. This has little to do with liberal/ conservative.
Ann Coulter advocates the mass slaughter of foreigners and Americans alike. "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Now, has Al Franken ever said that he wished the terrorists struck Houston instead of New York and Washington? Has he suggested that the only good Republican is a dead Republican? Does he suggest that conservatives hate America and wish its demise (after all they have broken the military, blown up the budget, watched and did nothing as a major American city was flooded, did nothing to stop terrorists from attacking two major American cities...)?
Sorry, no name, but calling Norm Colemann Bush's "special friend" is simply no worse than the hate that is spewed each and every day on right-wing radio. This is not moral equivication, or knee-jerk support for "my side." That you can't see that Ann Coulter is on another level from pretty much everyone else, that is your problem.
Posted by: Bryan | March 6, 2007 9:51 AM
no name,
That was offensive but not even close the level of Ann Coulter.
Posted by: jethro | March 6, 2007 10:29 AM
jethro -
I just don't understand. I find the Al/Ann comments equally offensive and am surprised that you and others argue otherwise. I just don't get it. Perhaps my standards are too high or I'm just easily offended.
Posted by: no name | March 6, 2007 11:50 AM
The thing about liberal comedians, writers, etc.; they are actually
humorous. Maher, Franken, Harry Shearer, they are funny to read or listen to.
But Ann, Rush, other right wing 'comedians', have no real humor in them. If you gave them one of Goebbels' 'birthday (Hitler's) speeches' to read you would hardly know the difference.
Once again the conservatives revved up the attacks, and then went crying to momma when somebody hit back.
I still give huge credit to Al F. for pi$$ing off B.O. so badly on CSPAN that Billy had to run away.
Now that was funny.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 6, 2007 11:59 AM
"The thing about liberal comedians, writers, etc.; they are actually humorous... right wing 'comedians', have no real humor in them."
C. Morris.
PJ O'Rourke is funny.
Posted by: Leo T | March 6, 2007 12:16 PM
no name,
I'm referring to her other comments. Al Franken has never made as many outrageous statements as Ann Coulter. The best way to explain it i guess would be many times I'm horrified to hear or read some of the things that have come out of Coulter's mouth, Al Franken hasn't risen...or lowered to her level.
Posted by: jethro | March 6, 2007 2:10 PM
On one level, Mr. Franken's comments against Norm Coleman and Ms. Coulter's SPECIFIC comments against John Edwards are similar in that they are both homosexual slurs. I condemn both of them for perpetuating the anti-gay agenda.
Even within that context, though, Ms. Coulter's comments stick out for simply going one step further. The word she said would likely be bleeped on television, and that makes it more vile than Franken's comments, which I agree completely are insensitive and wrong.
As Jethro pointed out, though, their respective bodies of work are entirely different, with Coulter going out of her way every single day that she wakes up to offend as many people as humanly possible. And she accomplishes that mission swimmingly.
Posted by: Bryan | March 6, 2007 3:58 PM
Leo T,
Yes, I read his book, thought it was readable and humorous.
Dennis Miller can be funny, but usually when he is burning
both sides.
When I was growing up I enjoyed Mort Sahl.
Studs Terkel is a old favorite. More of a writer with humor as a
bonus. Might be to liberal for some. heh heh.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 6, 2007 4:52 PM
Leo T,
Yes, I read his book, thought it was readable and humorous.
Dennis Miller can be funny, but usually when he is burning
both sides.
When I was growing up I enjoyed Mort Sahl.
Studs Terkel is a old favorite. More of a writer with humor as a
bonus. Might be to liberal for some. heh heh.
Posted by: C.Morris | March 6, 2007 4:53 PM
A question to all,
Do you think Ann Coulter is playing a character, much like Stephen Colbert, or do you think she really believes the things that she says?
Posted by: Bryan | March 6, 2007 5:39 PM
A question to all,
Do you think Ann Coulter is playing a character, much like Stephen Colbert, or do you think she really believes the bile that she spews?
Posted by: Bryan | March 6, 2007 5:39 PM
No, I don't think she is playing a Colbert like role. Not clever, or funny enough to pull that off.
I think she enjoys the attention and the 'shock' value of her statements. It makes her the center a attention every couple weeks.
Oops. Almost time for Colbert. Gotta go!
Posted by: C.Morris | March 6, 2007 9:11 PM
"Do you think Ann Coulter is playing a character, much like Stephen Colbert, or do you think she really believes the bile that she spews?"
To be honest, I'm not sure which is worse.
Either she is a hateful bigot who actually believes the vile and violent things she says, or she is a person who is willing to say vile, violent and bigotted things only for the purpose of making money.
Posted by: Tony | March 7, 2007 9:14 AM