Liberal civility: an oxymoron

[SuperScout]

"WHY CAN'T YOU BE CIVIL?" LIBERALS SCREECH, WHILE HURLING INVECTIVES"
When liberals start caterwauling about civility, it reminds me
of when my kids were young. When my daughter Anna was 5 and my son, Jonathan was 4, World War III broke out in our household at least once a day. Anna's modus operandi, as she explained it to her grandfather, was: "I hit Jonathan. He hits me. Then I tell Mommy."

In essence, that's the liberals' civility scam: They hit us. We hit back. Then their media lap dogs begin howling about incivility and yapping about the decline of gentility in the political debate (which, if I'm not mistaken, started with the presidential election of 1800).

It comes on cue; Ann Coulter writes a book and liberals start
spewing about mean-spiritedness. In her latest foray ("Godless: The Church of Liberalism"), Coulter observed that the "Jersey Girls" -- four 9/11 widows who turned themselves into tools of the hate-Bush establishment -- reveled in their celebrity status. OK, she called them "harpies" too.

Low blow! the media referees of political pugilism cried. (These
self-appointed refs always seem to be gazing off into space when
liberals rabbit-punch conservatives, or deliver a debilitating kick to the groin.)

Conservative obnoxiousness is a marketing device, the pundits
explain. Coulter does it to sell books. Rush Limbaugh does it to boost his ratings. "There's something about the momentum of sustaining a reputation based on noise," sniffs Roger Rosenblatt, "culture critic" for Time Magazine (whose idea of intellectual colloquy is eye-gouging anyone to the right of Mother Blood). Rosenblatt explains, "Someone like Coulter, in order to sustain a reputation that she's forged for herself, is likely to think, "What can I say now?" Eventually, how insulting can you get?"

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former enabler-in-chief who
spent most of her married life plotting to destroy the reputations of women who accused her predator-husband, ran to give the Jersey Girls a big hug. "Perhaps her (Coulter's) book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the lady widely known for her warmth and humanity sneered.

But Coulter's comments about the Jersey Girls weren't gratuitous. She devoted a chapter in her book to the way the left picks spokesmen whose suffering is supposed to immunize them from
criticism -- Cindy Sheehan, Nick Berg's father, Christopher Reeve, the Jersey Girls etc. When we respond to their crackpot carping, we're admonished for our stunning insensitivity.

Meanwhile, the left has perfected the gentle art of character
assassination, while complaining about the politics of personal
destruction. Their idea of a civilized dialogue is calling us really-mean Nazis, while our mouths are taped shut.

The quintessence of liberal civility is the thoughtful fashion
in which the left expresses its disagreement with the policies of
George W. Bush. When a liberal writes a book about the 43rd.
president of the United States, the words "lies," "liar," "stupid" or "evil" must appear in the title. The trifecta of liberal Bush-bashing would be a book titled "The Evil Lies of Stupid Bush" (or, "The Stupid Lies of Evil Bush").

Illustrative of the liar-liar-pants-on-fire school of liberal analysis, here are just a few of the titles offered on Amazon.com --
"The Lies of George Bush" by David Corn, "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You," by Paul Waldman, "Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush," Jerry Politex, "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" by Christopher Scheer, Lakshmi Chaudhry and Robert Scheer, "Bush Lies In State" by Michael McCourt and "Aliens And Cowboys: Bush's Legacy of Lies" by Jefferson Lang.

Coming soon to a bookstore near you, "Neener-Neener/ I-Know-You-Are-But-What-Am-I? -- The Intelligent Liberal's Guide To Political Discourse" by Franken Rodham Moore.

Or, consider the way liberals routinely demonize their opponents:
Evangelical Christians -- Ignorant, superstitious, violence-prone fanatics intent on establishing a theocracy and putting homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, feminists, Moslems and Ron Howard in death camps.

Gun Owners -- Homicidal maniacs who want to arm toddlers with
howitzers and kill Bambi.

The U.S. Military -- Stone-cold killers, Lt. Calley-clones programmed to indiscriminately murder women and children and torture detainees.

Pro-lifers -- Religious fanatics, misogynists who want to turn
women into breeding stock, violence-prone fetus-worshippers who care about life only in the womb.

Immigration Reform Advocates -- Xenophobes who are betraying
America's nation-of-immigrants heritage and have an irrational fear of diversity as well as anyone named Juan or Jose.

Politicians Who Support the U.S. Presence in Iraq, but either A)
Didn't serve in the military, B) Served, but didn't see combat or C)
Served, saw combat, but failed to win the Medal of Honor -- Chicken Hawks, nancy boys, hypocritical jingoists who'll defend America to the last drop of the other guy's blood.

In academia, where leftists are demigods, the dialogue has
reached heights of elegance and refinement worthy of a Victorian
drawing room. Take Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who called the Americans who died in the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" responsible for America's "mighty engine of profit," while their killers were heroes who made "gallant sacrifices" to strike a blow against the American Reich.

Can Roger Rosenblatt be reached for comment? I don't recall
Senator Clinton condemning Churchill's comments as "heartless."
Besides the fact that she loves America and doesn't sound like a
raving lunatic, here are the essential differences between Coulter and Churchill: 1) Coulter isn't paid by Colorado taxpayers, 2) Students aren't forced to sit in a classroom and listen to her. (Actually, no one is forced to listen to her.) and 3) Professors aren't getting all weepy while defending her academic freedom.

Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference between us and them is that we can argue as well as
inveigh. They can only hurl invectives. In her new book, Coulter is caustic and cutting. She also makes a devastating case against liberal crime-control policies (the ultimate oxymoron), abortion, stem-cell research, global warming, evolutionism and public education.

Liberals can't argue because -- 1) Their positions are illogical
and indefensible 2) They've controlled the culture for so long that
they've lost any debating skills they once had (their mental muscles have atrophied) and 3) Since they consider opposition to their agenda by definition evil, they think it's beneath their dignity to debate us.

That's why liberals can't succeed at talk radio -- that, plus
the fact that they're humor-deficient. I may not always agree with Rush, but he's an articulate, persuasive advocate. As a talk show host, Al Franken (author of the carefully nuanced book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot") is a great -- whatever it is he's supposed to be.

Because liberals can't debate, they are forever telling us that
on certain issues "the debate is closed" -- words I've never heard
from a conservative.

That and demanding that their viewpoint be subsidized. Speaking
at the "Take Back America" conference on June 15 (these days, the left is always taking something back), Rep. Bernie Sanders (VP --Vanguard of the Proletariat -- Vermont), urged his fellow progressives to take on "right-wing nuts" (how's that for civility?) in talk radio -- perhaps Sanders should teach them how to dial a telephone -- and demand that conservative stations and newspapers provide "alternative points of view."

Apparently, controlling the networks (with the exception of
FOX), America's newspapers of record, Hollywood, public education and the liberal arts faculties of 99.9% of colleges and universities isn't enough. Sanders wants to force conservative media outlets to subsidize the opposition. ("Mommy, Rush has a weekly audience of 20 million. Make them give me my own talk show!")

Coulter's book now is #1 on The New York Times Best Sellers
List. Clearly, we need a government program to force book-buyers to purchase liberal tracts. As a survival skill in the political arena liberals shaped, conservatives have learned verbal street-fighting. But at least we're not hypocrites.

We don't sucker-punch the other guy and then start whining about the appalling lack of civility when he hits back.

[Seascamp]

In the humor of it all, Whoopee Goldberg has been assigned the task of whittling Ann Coulter down to size. Good match up; both are very bright, quick of mind, sharp of tongue, talented, fiery and spunky. Goldberg is a step-up and light years ahead of the University beefy boy political punks that have been tasked to intimidate, bully and attempt physical harm, or worse. So some grander mind has taken the Liberal?s version of the ?Dignity Battalion? or the SA or the Red Guards, or whatever they call themselves, out of the play and put in someone of note-worthy stature. And suffice it to say, the University Liberals, once again, have managed to take them selves out as credible voices of descent. Behaving just like NAZI SA punks whilst denouncing someone as a NAZI is way too thin and lacks in credibility. But tiz the way, light, path and very best of now ex-Prof. Churchill, eh, so I expect nothing will change in that particular arena.

I?ll take Coulter over Goldberg in the first round by a KO, but I doubt they will go head-to-head simply because Goldberg is way out of her venue. I see Goldberg in the role of lead torch barer and with spike and mallet in hand, racing through the midnight village hollering, ?kill the monster, kill the monster?. That?s cool, but the down-side risk is to make Coulter the more rational voice, reach a wider audience, and in the turmoil of it all, keep grabbing the best seller list spotlight. Ouch, that has to hurt.

All n?all, a successful pundit is going to catch heat, and the more heat they catch, the more successful they become so long as they have the ambiance of credibility. The luminaries at Air America, PBS, Hollywood, etc., haven?t come to grips with this relationship of heat vs. credibility and are an outstanding example of downside risk results, and in desperate need of subsidies.
The last of the SLA butchers will be out of prison soon, so maybe Rep. Sanders can grab them up and do some funding expropriation ?for the people? of course. We're talking expert bank robbers and vicious killers of innocents hitting the streets again, right in the nick of time.

Scamp

[reconeil]

First-off, don't believe that viciously vindictive and
perpetually undermining American LEFTISTS,...
should ever be so benignly called: "Liberals".
It's just too people-deceiving at best, and some
socialists and communists are actually more liberal than them.

So then, and in a more realistic context, I guess it
fair saying that apparently (both ways) America's Leftists
just never heard the old saying that:
"People living in glass houses should never throw stones",...
since actually quite stupid.

After all, even such stupid fools must realize that many
Americans have good memories, have witnessed "Their" daily
perversions, diversions and misdeeds,...and aren't basically all amnesiacs?

Neil

[SuperScout]

Mea culpa, I too have fallen prey to the wily words of the editorial pundits, and adopted the 'liberal' word in lieu of the more accurate description you offered. Trouble is, the socialists don't see themselves as the threat they actually are, and hence don't participate in any dialogue. Or maybe it is that they know they can't win, being losers they are. Now there's some quick logic: if one is a loser by definition, how can one be a winner?

I'll take Ann Coulter in a debate with anybody the leftists can put up, even money. And the quotes that have surfaced here about Ann Coulter are either misquotes, taken out of context, or outright lies.

Seascamp: was that a Freudian slip, or is your better than average sense of humor getting even sharper: "And suffice it to say, the University Liberals, once again, have managed to take them selves out as credible voices of descent." They indeed are the voices of descent, trying to take up down some rathole of ruin.