It could be worse. She could have accepted money from a totalitarian regime to slander the US to an audience of our enemies. Where's the outrage over that?

Where's the outrage over that?

I've seen plenty of outrage on blogs, though not in the MSM. Then again, the MSM sort of ignored Coulter's latest ramblings as well, so it's a wash in any direct comparison.

If you're asking me personally, yeah, I'd agree, though I'm not so much "outraged" as "resigned" to Al Gore's recent barking insanity. It's sort of like pointing out that "great-grandma Dee Dee is naked and screaming obscenities at the house plants again," as in, "yeah, what else is new."

(no, I don't really have a senile g-grandma named Dee Dee)

Except that Coulter is a private citizen / provocateur, & Gore is a man who came within a hairsbreath of -- no, no, it's too tewwible to imagine...

She is a funny writer, tho

dr.yes conveniently forgets that Stephen Green is one of those--"Muslims! just grow up!" guys, and Althouse deletes comments of people that disagree with her.

and jeffie, coulter is foul. she's an apologist for abortion-doctor-murderers and clinic-bombers too.

sorry.
i'm feeling bitchy because i'm going to have to watch the 40yroldvirgin tonite instead of oldboy.

dr.yes conveniently forgets that Stephen Green is one of those--"Muslims! just grow up!" guys,

Reynolds has been plenty harsh on the overall reaction to the cartoons in the Islamic world, much moreso than I have publicly (though I agree with him). Stephen Green's position does not contradict Reynolds' position, nor does it have much to do with Coulter's ethnic agitation.

This just in: Ann Coulter is still an idiot. Film at 11.

Reynolds has been plenty harsh on the overall reaction to the cartoons in the Islamic world

really? not recently, i think. i would love a recent example where he delineates overreaction. all i've seen is stuff like "muslim man suggestion box". the only link i can think of is the one to alaa, and that was pretty oblique.

and i mean the overreaction to the cartoons on the right, not in the Islamic world.
analogous to Coulter's idiocy.

umm..i mean Green's remarks addressed to muslims are equally unhelpful (as are Coulters) in the war for hearts and minds.
there.

umm..i mean Green's remarks addressed to muslims are equally unhelpful (as are Coulters) in the war for hearts and minds.

I'd call them distinct, myself, especially since I've read the "grow up" sentiment FROM Muslims, but certainly not an ethnic slur. It's the difference between "not coddling" and "attacking." Shrug.

"the lefty bloggers tend to do: Someone stretched out a hand, and she spat on it."

I don't agree with this analysis. I will admit that some "lefty" bloggers spit on "righty" posters in blogs. However, the same is true if you reverse the situation. And in most rational lefty forums, those who "spit" on others without reason are shunned by their peers. There are many "righty" forums where I cannot make a rational argument without being called a commie (I don't get this one?), socialist, anti-American, troop-hater, etc. So, the cornerstone of this argument is weak.

The reality is that those on the right who have been enchanted with Coulter are finally beginning to realize what an evil woman she actually is -- it's great that they woke up. Coulter has finally crossed the line for her fans? Give me a break. Coulter has always tried to polarize, segregate, and create a chasm between those on the left and right. She has always been a racist and a warmonger. But somehow, until just now, her language has been just fine with the right. I dont' get it.

I'd call them distinct, myself, especially since I've read the "grow up" sentiment FROM Muslims

ummm...yes, from Irshid Manji and Amhir Taheri, who are about as representative of mainsteam Islam as Randall Terry and Pat Robertson are of mainstream christians.

and zeyad and big pharoah don't count either--they're bloggers.

AND, the question is, not how you see the remarks, but how the hearts and minds we're trying to win see them.

AND, the question is, not how you see the remarks, but how the hearts and minds we're trying to win see them.

Winning hearts and minds does not mean treating Muslims like children, as CNN does.

Hmm, Vaughn, I take your point about careful use of language (i.e. 'some lefty bloggers' rather than 'lefty bloggers' which implies all). However, you fall into the same trap at the end:

She has always been a racist and a warmonger. But somehow, until just now, her language has been just fine with the right. I dont' get it.

Certainly isn't all of the right. Even Reynolds aknowledges in his post (quoted by Bill) that doesn't like to "give Coulter's attention-getting efforts more attention". One could infer from this that he has little time for her. My impression has always been that she has a hard-core group of supporters (quite large) but that they did not represent the 'right' just as Michael Moore and his followers do not represent the 'left' (at least the people I know in the States who consider themselves leftwing).

Perhaps I am wrong.

"She has always been a racist and a warmonger. But somehow, until just now, her language has been just fine with the right. I dont' get it."

Kav: Allow me to amend.

She has always been a racist and a warmonger. But somehow, until just now, her language has been just fine with MANY on the right.

I would say SOME, but I believe it's more accurate to say many. It's like the light just came on -- Coulter is actually stirring up our enemy by using such language! While many on the right will say that they don't like her language, they do little to discourage her. In fact, FOX constantly puts her on (I don't care one bit, but it's funny that people like Michael Moore, the left's equivalent, almost never appear on prime time television -- damn "liberal media" -- ha!). Herein lies the problem; the perception is that because hardly anybody on the right ever speaks out against her, then it seems that her hateful speech is endorsed by the right.

Back to my original objection. The article that Bill referred to seems to say that Ann Coulter is only doing what "leftys" ALWAYS do. This statement is simply untrue.

Vaughn -

Back to my original objection. The article that Bill referred to seems to say that Ann Coulter is only doing what "leftys" ALWAYS do. This statement is simply untrue.

Go to the link. I understand your reservations about generalizations, but it's a bit less general than you think: Reynolds was more really specifically addressing "lefties" that had been attacking him via e-mail for not condemning Coulter "fast enough."

I took it as him referring to the e-mailers rather than an entire political spectrum, and even wondered about how to excerpt the article to get that connotation specifically across. In the end, I couldn't do it without oddly omitting that lefty line (while keeping the Coulter intro text), or by adding the previous paragraphs worth of context on to the front of the excerpt (too long).