Via the American Mind (HT Glenn).
With Ann Coulter you should only expect a bad stand-up comedian with a conservative schtick. That’s what CPAC attendees got today. My expectations were low, yet she proceded to go below them…
Ouch.
Related Posts
-
Maxine Waters Tries Walking Back Violent Rhetoric Against Trump
Tammy | February 7, 2021 -
Public Podcast: Weekend Update 1-10-21
Tammy | January 10, 2021 -
Giuliani Says Fight Not Over After SCOTUS Rejects Texas Challenge
Tammy | December 11, 2020 -
Microwave Energy Likely Behind Illnesses of Americans In Cuba & China
Tammy | December 6, 2020
This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
23 Comments | Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
-
Subscribe
For exclusive media, daily podcasts, live TAM Chat & more
Join the Tammy Army
Follow me on Facebook:
Follow @HeyTammyBruceSign In
-
Donate
Donations are always welcome from subscribers and non-subscribers.
FAQs
She’s not a Bush-bot like Rush or Hannity. She knows when the king has no clothes. I like her and you too, Tammy!
An interesting reaction from “conservatives” who are disparaging the MSM for being too cowardly to print the Danish cartoons. Don’t these gentlemen believe in free speech and expression?
Yes, and Saturday Night Live’s comment that Ann “looked like a kneecap” must have been HYSTERICAL because everyone in the crowd laughed at it. Not a lot of complaints after that juvenille gem.
Ann just calls them like she sees them. All I can say about the SUPER SERIOUS response to her comments is…in the words of Sgt. Hulka in the movie “Stripes”, “Lighten up, Francis”.
I don’t know if the term “raghead” belongs in polite conversation, but everyone should know by now that polite conversation is not what Ann Coulter is about. But love her or hate her, I think there is one thing we can all agree upon: man, that is one shiny forehead. She has to be botoxing.
I haven’t followed Ann closely, so I’m not qualified to comment intelligently, but what the heck. I’ve had her tentatively qualified in my mind as a “high heat, low light” commentator, meaning her rhetoric seems more potent than her facts. For example, in her “Treason” book, i’m told she was a defender of Joe McCarthy and a detractor of the sensible Democrats of the 1950’s. This “the other team is always evil” attitude is something I don’t like in Democrats, so I don’t want to encourage it on my team. Prah Qwan’s comment above made me wonder how old she was. I had assumed she was an upstart youngster because she’s got that look (yes, the shiny forehead is part of it), but Wikipedia claims she was born December 8, 1961. I’m not sure how to calculate women’s ages, but I think it works out to something like Tammy is 25 and Ann is 26.
Actually, if anyone actually bothered to read Ann’s book, they will find out that there were few if any “reasonable” democrats in the McCarthy era. There were, however, a lot of Soviet apologists.
McCarthy’s crime was to identify known Soviet operatives operating at the highest level of the US government. Ann’s crime is that she tells the truth about the demonization of Senator Joseph McCarthy, and in an era still dominated by leftist history revisionism that’s enough to get you burned at the stake.
John H. Schneider II
Mc·Car·thy·ism
The use of unfair accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.
Ain’t it ironic that Senator Joe was actually the victim of McCarthyism to such an extent that even today some Republicans think he was the bad guy?
I’ve read elswhere that Ann was very popular at CPAC.
I have learned more from Ann Coulter than anyone out there with the exception of Tammy Bruce. And just like Tammy Bruce, it is not so much that Ann Coulter comes loaded with more facts than rhetoric (although both of them do), but rather that she provides the way for us to research and find this stuff out for ourselves. I other words, they teach us how to think and learn for ourselves. “Treason” is one of the better books that I have ever read, and comes loaded with footnotes. While I cannot compare it to “The New American Revolution” by Tammy Bruce (my personal favorite) I have to admit that it opened my eyes to things I apparently knew very little to nothing about. It’s refreshing to study some of this stuff and find out that what she is saying, no matter how she is saying it, is absolutely right! Besides, nobody out there is as daring as she is to take the message she is TO THE PLACES SHE IS. Most conservative speakers give their speeches from podiums that are set up in “friendly” territory. Ann goes to college campuses and other places that are well established havens of left-wing politics. Hey, Tammy Bruce is my favorite, and if you’d ask me why I would point you to her newest book. But Ann Coulter is definately a hero of mine as well!
One question: does anyone know if CPAC is impressed with, say, Al Franken? I can’t tell if he’s supposed to be a funny man or a smart man, but always come away concluding he’s neither!
As a longtime reader/student of Ann, I have to defend her and say that she is anything but “high heat, low light.” Her observations are wickedly intelligent and humorous. Which for so many of us is the perfect combination.
I share wholeheartedly the comments made by ShesTheOne. I’m literally amazed at Ann’s courage…she’s a woman of steel.
Ann and Tammy are the best out there. They both possess a great intellectual capacity, a sharp wit, and they are great communicators. They challenge us to think and to learn. (Especially Tammy because I don’t always agree with her and I have to think about the reasons why.) But thank goodness there’s one thing they do NOT have in common. Tammy doesn’t have to travel with a bodyguard round the clock.
TH:
“For example, in her “Treason” book, i’m told she was a defender of Joe McCarthy and a detractor of the sensible Democrats of the 1950’s. This “the other team is always evil” attitude is something I don’t like in Democrats, so I don’t want to encourage it on my team.â€
Treason…..FIFTY YEARS of treason! Maybe the other side is evil? The book deserves everyone’s reading. It wasn’t that the Democrats didn’t know there were communist in the government, it was they didn’t care! I have always thought there was two books there, but then what would I know.
I know many conservatives that find Ann shrill, I for one love her. Something about those Conservababes I find irresistible….
I find it a bit ironic that in the link given, another link at the top says so much about Tammy’s book, The Death of Right and Wrong. I have never had a book I have loaned out so often. Another Conservababe…..
Tink:
You have stated how I feel much better than I ever could myself!Very well put!
TH:
I agree with you that “Treason” deserves everyone’s reading, especially after the history lesson we have been given by Hollywood with films over the years that have villified McCarthy.
I guess the one thing that seperates Ann Coulter and Tammy Bruce to me is that while I love Ann Coulter’s style and commend her for saying it like it is, I find Tammy’s decency in her style even more commendable. Styles aside, both women are very attractive and I’ll take both of them just the way they are!
Point of order, gentlemen. It’s true that there really were Reds and others dangerously sympathetic to the Soviet Onion. And it’s true that the Russians were pulling as many of the strings as they could get their hands on. And it’s true that we were seriously damaged by some of these spies, such as the traitors who gave our atomic secrets to Stalin. And it’s true that some of the people who Joe McCarthy badgered ultimately did turn out to be tainted. Even so, McCarthy was, to put it generously, a loose cannon. He ran around waving his ever-changing secret lists, smearing here and there with innuendo and murmers of shadowy connections. I don’t believe he successfully exposed any Soviet agents in his time (that is, he didn’t get anyone convicted of anything or bring anything new to light), but he certainly put the fear into the entire nation, as we ran around administering loyalty oaths to each other and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. At the end of the day, he had lost the hearts and mind of the nation, and he made the noble cause of fighting Communist look like paranoia. Consider the analogy of the current efforts of, for example, the NAACP or trial lawyers. The NAACP tells us they fight racism, and trial lawyers tell us they make our manufacturers more accountable and our products safer. And indeed, racism and unsafe products are a very real problem. But the NAACP and the trial lawyers are so out of hand that I nowadays shrug when I hear a charge of racism or dangerous consumer goods. I figure it’s just another huckster or rabble rouser in search of political or monetary plunder, and I hope my vote can neutralize the power of these self-aggrandizing demagogues who claim they are “protecting” me. Do you think maybe that’s what Joe McCarthy did for anti-Communism?
As far as McCarthy being a “loose cannon”, I kind of got that impression from reading Ann’s book “Treason”. She did not make him out to be a saint. I wasn’t around at the time, so I have to respect your observations about this, but if I hold what you are saying up to the light of today’s senate (a room full of “loose cannons”)I certainly will not draw any conclusions of right or wrong based on whether or not convictions are made at the time or even bringing anything new to light.From everything I researched from Ann’s book, she is deadly accurate. It seems that those who were questioning McCarthy were putting a lot of words in his mouth. Could it be that that is where all the fear came from? Think Biden, Kennedy and Kerry today. Hey, as long as those cameras from CSPAN are on you know these actors are going to give you a good show!Transcripts of the hearings support Ann Coulter’s view. McCarthy was right, and it wasn’t found to be so until very recently. Still to this day he is villified.
Talkin Horse:
One more thing. You stated:”Point of order, gentlemen. It’s true that there really were Reds and others dangerously sympathetic to the Soviet Onion. And it’s true that the Russians were pulling as many of the strings as they could get their hands on. And it’s true that we were seriously damaged by some of these spies, such as the traitors who gave our atomic secrets to Stalin.” All those things being true, I would have to say that they were cause for great concern! You’re making this statement rather casually in the comfort of looking back on it. But AT THE TIME, wasn’t it indeed a great fear? Soviet spies within our government? From everything I’ve gathered, FDR’s “Uncle Joe” Stalin posed a great threat to the world. Thank God for McCarthy, “loose cannon” or not! And the same for Ann Coulter!
I have to go with Horse in the above discussion. A real danger does not automatically make every response legitimate. To make that argument you would have to excuse all the rioting muslims in this cartoon debacle. The offense it real, but the response is improper. When the “Piss Christ” art was foisted on us, the Christian response was to ask the government to censor tax payer funded art; not an unreasonable request considering that art should in some degree reflect the values of the buyer of that art.
For what it’s worth, I’m too young to remember McCarthy, but my father worked in Hollywood during that era. His comment was that everyone was in fear of the blacklists, because if your name appeared, then you couldn’t get work. But nobody would admit that the blacklists even existed, so you couldn’t fight the thing because it wasn’t really there. A lot of kids leaned Left during the Great Depression when it seemed that capitalism had failed and only a commanding government, Communist or maybe Fascist, could save us. So a lot of people dabbled with the Reds in the 1930’s. By the 1950’s, some had grown up (and of course some did not), but a lot of good people were in fear that they would be denounced for some some youthful affiliation. I don’t want to dismiss the harm done by traitors, because the problem was real and the dangers were real. Some say, for example, that the Communists might not have had the confidence to launch the Korean war if not for the atom spies who gave the bomb to Stalin years before he could have developed it on his own. But you had to look at the people on a case-by-case basis, because some of them were just blathering kids who couldn’t find a job but they later grew up. Even Ronald Reagan was a progressive in his youth.
Talkin Horse:
“For what it’s worth, I’m too young to remember McCarthy, but my father worked in Hollywood during that era. His comment was that everyone was in fear of the blacklists, because if your name appeared, then you couldn’t get work. But nobody would admit that the blacklists even existed, so you couldn’t fight the thing because it wasn’t really there.â€
That was not McCarthy (the left subverts history again.) That was HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee)and Nixon. McCarthy was in the Senate and HUAC was part of the House. Hiss had been convicted two weeks prior to McCarthy’s West Virginia speech. McCarthy was only interested in Communist IN the government. Important part there, IN the government. His mistake, as the Venona files have shown, was underestimating the communist in our government! There were hundreds in every branch and at every level.
McCarthy named a total of 57 people and did not wish to disclose their names publicly. It was the Democrats that insisted he do so. One cannot dismiss what the Democrats did to Whitaker Chambers and Elizabeth Bently and not think they were guilty of or originated the true meaning of “McCarthyism.â€
Talkin Horse:
“A lot of kids leaned Left during the Great Depression when it seemed that capitalism had failed and only a commanding government, Communist or maybe Fascist, could save us. So a lot of people dabbled with the Reds in the 1930’s.â€
McCarthy made it a disgrace to be a communist and domestic communism would never recover. Thanks Joe.
Talkin Horse:
“Even Ronald Reagan was a progressive in his youth.”
Just not sure where that fits in.
Wilson, the “blacklists” I mentioned were not necessarily the same as McCarthy’s ever-changing list. Nobody quite knew what the Hollywood blacklists exactly were, because the studio executives would deny they even existed, or so my father told me. But the phenomenon of getting drummed out of Hollywood was real. And the situation became a feeding frenzy. You might be looked upon with suspicion if someone saw you reading Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”. And these excesses, and the reaction against them, may well have set the stage for the leftist moonbats of our era. I was in high school in Los Angeles the 60’s, and it was cool to wear a Mao pin and extoll the virtues of Communism. It was widely understood that the USA was no better than the Soviet Union. So McCarthy didn’t exactly vanquish our internal enemies or their ideology. Okay, it’s an imperfect world and things are always clearer in hindsight. I admit that I don’t know exactly what we’re supposed to do about people who get these evil ideas like Communism or radical Islam into their heads. We can’t sit around congratulating ourselves at how tolerant we are while we wait for them to kill us; on the other hand, I just don’t see that McCarthy fixed the problem either. And I mentioned Reagan because during the 1940’s he was a liberal Democrat and a member of liberal political organizations, including the United World Federalists and the Americans for Democratic Action. That was typical of the era, and it made the kind of record that might have put a man at risk, although of course Reagan went on to vigorously oppose and expose Hollywood Communists, and testified before HUAC as a friendly witness in 1947. And most of the nation admires Reagan for standing firm against our enemies, but do you notice how he’s not tainted by the excesses of McCarthyism? And Reagan, when he became president, helped make it once again respectable to oppose Communism. Is it possible that Reagan did something right that McCarthy did wrong?
I never got the impression from reading Ann’s book that McCarthy’s list was “ever changing”, so maybe you could point me to where I could research that out. I do believe his list may have grown with time.
I’m very impressed with Wilson’s post. I have just begun rereading Tammy Bruce’s book “The New American Revolution” and find it interesting that on page 66 and following is a great story about two conservative women who bought into the perception that the Left was selling. Because the Left said that it was THEY who held the moral high ground, these women felt they should concede and instead stick to conservative strongpoints such as economic freedom and limited government. You see, they bought the lie! And I guess the same could go with how you want to interpret McCarthy. All this mysterious non-existant “blacklist” in Hollywood due to McCarthyism to me sounds like Al Gore in his argument about Global Warming! It’s all OUR fault, isn’t it? I think a lot of it comes down to where you want to get your information, and whether or not you are willing to piece it all together with a little research of your own. So, if you choose to get the story from Hollywood and the Left, you will see it one way. If you choose to get the story from someone like Ann Coulter, you may be challenged to think about it a little. And in the end, the facts are all there.
As for me, taking Hollywood and the Left’s version of this story about McCarthy is like watching today’s news headlines and getting my perspective of it from Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore!
Hi, ShesTheOne, a couple of points: First, as I said in my initial comment, I haven’t read Coulter’s book, so I wasn’t qualified to comment meaningfully about her. Nor am I an expert on the phenomenon known as “McCarthyism”. However, I have faithfully reported the big picture as I understand it, which has been supported by both my general knowledge of the history as well as what my father (yeah, a Democrat, but he was there) told me. Take it for what it’s worth. I guess it boils down to two questions: Were McCarthy’s methods unnecessarily dirty, and was he effective in battling domestic enemies? We’ve kicked it around enough, so I’ll leave it at that. Oh, and you asked about the number of people on his lists. You can check, for example, McCarthy’s Wikipedia listing and you’ll see that the lists seemed at least a little bit mysterious.
Talkin Horse:
“Wilson, the “blacklists” I mentioned were not necessarily the same as McCarthy’s ever-changing list. Nobody quite knew what the Hollywood blacklists exactly were, because the studio executives would deny they even existed, or so my father told me. But the phenomenon of getting drummed out of Hollywood was real.â€
What? You mean they had to fire the butler and take out the trash? (Vintage>>Ann C.) lol!
I just don’t understand your “ever changing list.†Unless you are confusing it with the Tydings Committee hearings or when McCarthy was misquoted in his West Virginia speech.
You must ask yourself if there is an unspoken black list in Hollywood today. Let’s see…I’m pro-gun, pro-life, out-spoken lover of America etc. Think I would miss any opportunities? Was Whitaker Chambers not blacklisted? The man, after being editor of a major news magazine, couldn’t find a job. Had it not been for his writing of his book he would have died totally penniless. Look what darlings Hiss and Lattimore became AFTER they were known spies. They were loved and welcomed in academia.
Talkin Horse:
“ And the situation became a feeding frenzy. You might be looked upon with suspicion if someone saw you reading Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”. And these excesses, and the reaction against them, may well have set the stage for the leftist moonbats of our era.â€
The moonbats were upon us THEN. In referring to McCarthy, the threat was REAL. You must have an understanding of Yalta, we never lost China, and who represented the US in the founding of the UN etc. Neither FDR nor Truman was ever told of the Venona files. Why? Somebody didn’t trust somebody? Good old “Uncle Joe†as someone said earlier.
Talkin Horse:
“I was in high school in Los Angeles the 60’s, and it was cool to wear a Mao pin and extoll the virtues of Communism. It was widely understood that nal enemies or their ideology.”
Talkin Horse:
“on the other hand, I just don’t see that McCarthy fixed the problem either.â€
It still exists today, under different names, but it’s still here. He was just one man that was cut a thousand cuts. Just look how the press twisted the exchange between McCarthy and Welch. Search the NYT archives for Chambers, Hiss, and McCarthy, it will tell you. Wait…could we use a McCarthy today?
The problem is in fixable, evil will always be present.
Talkin Horse:
“And I mentioned Reagan because during the 1940’s he was a liberal Democrat and a member of liberal political organizations, including the United World Federalists and the Americans for Democratic Action. That was typical of the era, and it made the kind of record that might have put a man at risk, although of course Reagan went on to vigorously oppose and expose Hollywood Communists, and testified before HUAC as a friendly witness in 1947. And most of the nation admires Reagan for standing firm against our enemies, but do you notice how he’s not tainted by the excesses of McCarthyism? And Reagan, when he became president, helped make it once again respectable to oppose Communism. Is it possible that Reagan did something right that McCarthy did wrong?â€
Neither was Walt Disney. Two totally different scenarios.
Just for the record, in 1984 Whittaker Chambers was posthumously given the nation’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, by no other than President Regan. In 1988 his home in Maryland, Pipe Creek Farm, site of the famous “Pumpkin Papers†incident was placed on the National Register of Historical Places. I just love that Ronnie guy.
Ok…I’m long winded…sorry.
To Talkin Horse:
I just want to make something very clear here. I consider this argument to be nothing more or less than a friendly discussion about something we both may agree or disagree about. I appreciate your comments, and I respect your Father’s point of view. My Father died two years ago, but he was a Democrat as well. He would have taken your side of this debate. It was my Father who a while back recommended that I see the film about this very subject starring Robert DeNiro. I think it may have been entitled, “Guity By Suspicion.” I love my Father more than anyone on the planet, and always will. No matter what he believed, I give strong consideration, whether or not in the end I agree or not. I give the same respect to your Father and you.
Since both of us were not around during the time, and rely on the story that others tell us, just consider the time we ARE living in RIGHT NOW. Here’s an example: We are in a war. A lot of people are in fear that we are going to bring back the draft. However, every branch of our military has increased in enlistments AFTER 9/11, and our President has repeatedly said that we will not go to the draft. Still, the fear remains. And a lot of politicians on the Left are feeding that fear. But the strange thing about all of this is that it is ACTUALLY the DEMOCRATS who keep suggesting that we vote on bringing back the draft! So, they (the Dems) tell you to be afraid that this war will bring back the draft, and then what do they (the Dems) do? They call for a draft! My point is this. I wonder, just wonder, if this whole “Hollywood Blacklist” was cooked up in the exact same way. Is it possible?