<p>Ann Coulter doesn’t have a radio show.</p>
<p>She’s on FOX often enough that she almost has a teevee show. Plenty o’ exposure.</p>
<p>
Really? How often is that, and how do you know this?</p>
<p>I love me the FOX news channel. I get all the best news that way (may not be the “real” news, but it sure is the “best news”).</p>
<p>Fair and Balanced - You Decide. :)</p>
<p>Yeah, the liberals just haven’t learned the trick of making fun of widows, Parkinson’s sufferers, and teenaged girls the way those yock-a-minute right wing jokesters have. And look how they’ve elevated the mentality of their listeners! No wonder we can have spirited discussions of public policy these days without people accusing those with oppposing viewpoints of “hating America” or being “■■■■■■■■”. It’s the nuanced (and oh-so-witty) education folks have picked up from Rush and Co., don’t you think?</p>
<p>Nope, I think we just can’t count on the liberals to “do talk radio” like the conservatives.</p>
<p>Thank God.</p>
<p>I’ve been thinking “We Make It Up, You Decide” might just possibly be closer to truth in advertising. And I have to wonder if good ol’ “Baghdad Bob” isn’t working as a consultant in the back room.</p>
<p>Well, it’s really just equal time. The liberal side has CBS.</p>
<p>^^Well there you go, two cases in point, in a row–#86-87. Who wants to listen to such bitterness? No one! It’s the same think with your blogs, guys—bitter, unpleasant personal diaries of anger that simply allow head-banging opportunities to vent spleen instead of forums that enlighten and entertain.</p>
<p>Of course they will. :)</p>
<p>Oh, Ann Coulter is entertaining alright. I particularly liked her little diatribe against the 9/11 widows. Very enlightening too. No wonder people like that “funnin’”, and lack of spleen venting, that goes on with conservatives. It’s just so <em>fun</em>! Making fun of people is a real art form!</p>
<p>
Well, it is actually; isn’t that what makes Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher so popular with people on your side?</p>
<p>I know it is hard for you to tell the difference, Driver, but making fun of gay people and widows is not the same as making fun of Bush’s bumbling. One is HUMOR, sarcasm,satire, etc…the other is MEAN, below the belt and utterly humorless.</p>
<p>I see…so James Lileks’ lampooning of Andrew Sullivan is “below the belt” because he’s gay? It seems to me that you make Ann Coulter’s point regarding the sanctified status of the so-called Jersey Girls and other designated “victim groups”–they must be allowed to make whatever political statements they want while remaining immune from any criticism. (What Lileks said to Hewitt had nothing to do with Sullivan’s sexual orientation, and everything to do with his odd debating style in a specific interview). But–you would have to listen to understand that.</p>
<p>Btw, you brought Coulter into this, not I. I’ve commented on her before, here:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1879898&postcount=43[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=1879898&postcount=43</a></p>
<p>There’s no denying that making fun of people who are different from the lampooner and his/her audience is a classic art form. It does make people laugh. But it depends on demeaning the target of the lampoon (and I’m not talking about the clip Driver linked to - not having heard the original interview it was simply not funny; I’d have to reserve judgment as to its potential cleverness since I don’t know what they were making fun of – and have no intention of investing any part of my life to find out.) When you demean people or institutions which hold power, it can be a valuable tool. A “roast” of a liked and respected person is both funny and endearing. But when you use it to divide large groups of society, or to legitimize prejudice against powerless individuals and groups, it can be a bad thing. I’ve heard enough of Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and the like to recognize that they’re not about lampooning the powerful - although they’d like to convince you, in “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” fashion, that those they deride actually do wield secret power. (Those evil lllliiibberalls.)</p>
<p>Just caught the new “Hannity on America” show, btw…it’s very well done TV.</p>
<p>BORAT - A Study in Sensitivity.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.borat.tv/[/url]”>http://www.borat.tv/</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat</a></p>
<p>It’s also so stupid, it’s funny…except the anti-Semitism part.</p>
<p>Someone at the Philadelphia Inquirer has been listening to Hugh Hewitt or reading the CC Parent’s Cafe. Lileks on the Democrats’ first 100 days in power.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15881975.htm[/url]”>http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15881975.htm</a></p>
<p>Absolutely, we’re winning…</p>
<p>How disappointed the caricaturists will be if Pelosi actually does become speaker.</p>
<p>Driver, there was no bitter, unpleasant anger in my post as you try to imply. Now, if I’d said that I looked forward to seeing Rick Santorum’s head on a pike on Election Night or was enjoying the prospect of Curt Weldon’s head tumble into the basket, you’d have a point. But I said no such thing and wouldn’t.</p>
<p>Though I do wonder if Weldon picked up case of rabies…it would certainly explain the foaming at the mouth on multiple issues.</p>