by Alan Colmes
COLMES: That we shouldn't have gone there.
COULTER: Don't you think we're in the middle of a civil liberties emergency every time John Ashcroft talks to a Muslim? . . .
COLMES: If you're going to say treason—I would be curious to know if there's anybody in particular you would accuse of treason.
COULTER: Oh, sure. A whole book on it. How about the Rosenbergs? How about Alger Hiss?
COLMES: Who that is alive today on treason?
COULTER: As I was saying, how about the man who advised Franklin Roosevelt of Yalta. After Roosevelt was warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy.
COLMES: And who that is alive today would you accuse of treason?
COULTER: Look, I wrote the book, let me answer the question. I understand what the question is. I'm sorry, we're going to have to wait to get the cables from Saddam Hussein of the traitors today. . . .
COLMES: I ask you, is there anybody today you accuse of treason? Probably, you don't want to make that accusation against anyone in particular, liberal or Democrat.
COULTER: You're consistently missing the point of this book. . . . But my question to you is how would liberals behave differently if they were in Saddam Hussein's pay? How would they behave differently if they were in Osama bin Laden's pay? Answer that question.
COLMES: When you say treason, it is a very serious charge. . . . If somebody is guilty of treason, they should be tried and executed, right?
COULTER: I am saying liberals consistently root against their own country.
COLMES: Name who. Name one who should be accused of treason.
COULTER: This a silly game to be playing. I keep trying to name them and you interrupt me.
As you can see, there were only a half dozen or so opportunities to answer the question. Certainly not enough time to come up with one name. Coulter's previous book, Slander, claims liberals lie and don't want what's best for America. In the final line of her book she calls liberals "savagely cruel bigots who hate ordinary Americans and lie for sport." Now, this may amaze and annoy some of my liberal brethren: I actually like Ann Coulter. She has been nothing but kind to me personally. It's when she starts ranting about liberals that I see an unrecognizable Ann Coulter. I can only surmise that this is good shtick to get liberal blood boiling, and not the reasoned views of a sane person.
Kenneth Timmerman devoted his book Shakedown to just one liberal, Jesse Jackson, and accused him of shaking down corporations for his own profit. But we have a White House that holds private meetings with energy executives—who also happen to be big campaign contributors—and those meetings result in policy decisions. I don't hear the Jesse Jackson critics complaining about that. Conservatives have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to define liberals as liars who are bad for America, rather than acknowledging that while liberals may think differently, they are just as well intended.
Paul Wellstone
Conservatives think they're smarter than liberals, and they also believe they're nicer. I found out just how "nice" some conservatives are in the aftermath of the tragic death of Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota:
From: Howard
Sent: Friday, November 15,2002 10:03 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: misc
Alan:
It's a real shame that you were not with Wellstone on his last flight.
Why don't you renounce your citizenship and move anywhere in the middle-east since you are so enamored with these filthy bastards?
People like you will assure Republican dominance for the foreseeable future. Keep up the anti American ideas.
From: Colmes,
Sent: Friday, November 15,2002 10:05 PM
To: Howard
Subject: RE: misc
How kind of you to wish that I die in a plane crash. Very American to want someone with whom you disagree on an issue dead.
Many people on both sides of the political aisle agreed that Paul Wellstone was one of the nicest people in Washington. It's an outrage that the Republicans politicized his memorial service for their own political gain. Yes, I am accusing the Republicans of doing the very deed they tried to pin on Democrats. They knew very well that it was the Wellstone family that organized the event, not the Democratic Party. For one thing, if the Democratic Party had organized it, it wouldn't have been as well organized. (It was Will Rogers who once said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.") If this had been intended as a political event, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary, Jesse Ventura, and other top politicians would have been on the dais and would have spoken. Mark Wellstone, Paul's son, was criticized for his rallying cry, "We will win! We will win!" spoken in grief a few days after his father's death. Critics who blasted this grieving family for what they said at an emotional memorial service ought to be ashamed of themselves.
You might wonder how Senator Wellstone would have regarded the controversy surrounding his memorial. But you don't really have to scratch your head on this because Peggy Noonan told us. Incredibly, the talented former Bush 41 speechwriter wrote a "memo" from Paul Wellstone to Democrats that was published in the Wall Street Journal's "Opinion Journal," so that we could rest easy knowing what Paul was thinking. The memo from, I'm hoping heaven, states, "I know what you were trying to do the other night, or what you sort of meant to do. But it was bad." Thanks for telling us, Pegg. . . er, I mean Paul. After "Paul" chastised Democrats for using his death to score political points, he imagined what it would have been like had things been different, and Senator Lott had been the victim: "Imagine Trent Lott died in a plane crash last week. Please—stop cheering. That's the problem. Knock it off. Imagine Trent Lott dies, and there's a big memorial back home in Mississippi in some big auditorium ... I walk in— Paul Wellstone walks in, out of respect—and the 30,000 people in the auditorium jeer me."
This is truly amazing. Not only did Ms. Noonan know what Senator Wellstone would have been thinking, but she also knew that Democrats would cheer if Trent Lott, God forbid, died in a plane crash. Before you can speak for the dead, at least be fair in your characterization of the living. I know there are trance mediums who claim to speak to the dead, and I also know there were many Americans of all political persuasions who loved Paul Wellstone and may have had some insight into what his thoughts would have been. But Peggy Noonan? I mean, I love the woman, even though I don't agree with her; but Edgar Cayce she's not.
At the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles I had the chance to meet Senator Wellstone for the first time. We talked about how both of our families are Russian-Jewish, that we both had a parent born in the Ukraine, and that we came from similar roots. He also told me that he wanted to get together again and talk about our similar backgrounds because family was so important to him. I regret that that day can never come. But not everyone in America feels the same way I do about Paul Wellstone:
From: Vorganis
Sent: Saturday, October 26,2002 10:02 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: Paul Wellstone
If you think for one minute, I care that Paul died "I DON'T." He got what was coming to him the Leftist Socialist Scum bag, America Hater.
... OH what a relief he won't be in HEAVEN what a SHAME, but in HELL... FINALLY FINAL JUSTICE have a good time Paul in HELL.
I must say that Vorganis impresses me. He, she, or it is able to divine who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. I don't think John Edward was ever this accurate on "Crossing Over." While Vorganis might wish to use his dancing shoes on Paul's grave, were he to try on the senator's shoes, I doubt he could walk an inch.
Within hours of the crash of Senator Wellstone's plane, the name "Mondale" was immediately floated as a possible replacement. But even before the former vice president had a chance to consider a run, the Republicans began producing television ads in which their candidate, Norm Coleman, contrasted Mondale and himself. And while these ads were being produced, the right was criticizing Democrats for "scheming" to put up a candidate
before the body was cold. So it's improper for the Democrats to think of their options when a candidate dies five days before an election, but it's perfectly acceptable for Republicans to produce commercials attacking that yet-to-be named candidate.
Switchers versus Fighters
After the 2002 election I got a lot of e-mail that said, essentially, "We won, you lost, you're a jerk." Some people think it's more important to be with the winning party because to the winner go the spoils. But to the person who is steadfast regardless of which way the winds are blowing go a good conscience and a good night's sleep. Some people look at political parties as they would a sporting league. They want to be in first place and they want to be on the winning team. I love the people who write to me and say, "I was a Democrat all my life, but Bill Clinton is so morally reprehensible I'm going to become a Republican now." Or, "I'm peeved that the Democrats put up Frank Lautenberg at the last minute to run against Torricelli; I'm leaving the Democratic Party." That's like saying you don't like some of your fellow males, so you are changing genders and becoming a woman. Men can really be bastards. They think with their genitals, declare war, are poor listeners, and keep very messy rooms. Women are more compassionate, intuitive, and kind. I think I'll become one.
I always get annoyed at the postelection party-switchers. I can understand an evolution in thinking that may lead one from right to left or, God forbid, left to right, but to switch party affiliations right after an election because your party lost is circumspect. After the Republican rout in 1994, when Newt Gingrich's "Contract With (On?) America" swept conservatives to victories in both houses of Congress, guess which way the party-switching went? House Democrats Nathan Deal of Georgia, Greg Laughlin of Texas, Billy Tauzin of Louisiana, Mike Parker of Mississippi, and Jimmy Hayes of Louisiana all defected in 1995. On the Senate side that year, the same move was made by Benedict, er, I mean, Ben Nighthorse Campbell. In fact, in the past twenty years, among members of Congress, fourteen Democrats have become Republicans, and only one Republican has become a Democrat. That Republican-turned-Democrat was Long Island congressman Michael Forbes, who lost his seat after he party-switched. Good. We lefties know real Democrats when we see them. Let the other side accept the fairweather friends. Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire left the Republican Party when it didn't look like he'd get the presidential nomination in 2000, saying, "I want my party to stand for something." He returned to the Republican fold once his presidential ambitions were dashed and then realized he was in a political no-man's-land. I guess the Republican Party, at that point, did stand for something: committee appointments.
When Vermont senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party, it wasn't at a time when Democrats were the majority. The move did give the Democrats a majority in the Senate for a short time, but by the slimmest possible margin; and he became an Independent, not a Democrat. When Jeffords refused to support President George W. Bush's $1.6 trillion, ten-year tax cut, he helped to hand the new president his first big defeat. As a result, Bush 43 refused to invite him to the White House to honor a Vermont resident who was named National Teacher of the Year. Bush 43 was probably thinking, "Payback's a bitch." Jeffords proved that payback is also a switch.
Classless Warfare
When Republicans gained the White House in 2000, the conservative crowing was intense, and then they tried to get liberals to eat crow after the election of 2002.
From: Lilly
Sent: Tuesday, November 12,2002 12:57 AM
To: Colmes
Subject: The end of days
Colmes,
Hehe!!! You a Dem and you lose ... GOP in the house ... GOP in the senate ... we go kick some a**!!! Yippie skippie!!!
Liilly
Wilmington, DE
With conservatives controlling all branches of government, here are some things we have to be "yippie skippie" about.
Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum actually said he'd fight for the right to discriminate against certain groups to promote the Republican's faith-based agenda. On November 25, 2002, the Washington Post reported, "Santorum has told the White House that, during the debate over welfare reform, he will fight for a provision to allow religious groups to discriminate against certain people— gays for instance—when hiring if they don't share their religious beliefs. 'I will make that stand,' Santorum said."
Santorum gained more notoriety for an April 22, 2003, interview he gave to Associated Press reporter Lara Jakes Jordan. During an hour-long discussion, Santorum commented on a case before the Supreme Court involving a Texas antigay sodomy law. Houstonians John Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested and jailed after police officers, responding to a false alarm, found them enjoying consensual sex in Lawrence's home. Apparently, it's permissible to have some kinds of sex in Texas if you're straight, but not if you're gay. Amazingly, some consensual behaviors even between straight, married couples have been illegal in Idaho, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. But let's see them try to enforce that one. Asked about the pending case, Santorum said, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. ... I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist, in my opinion, in the United States Constitution."
What's amazing about this statement was missed by most of the pundits who attacked Santorum for making it. He didn't just blast the concept of gay consensual sex; Santorum doesn't think anyone has that right. Most of the coverage of Santorum's comments put the modifier gay in parentheses after the word consensual, but the truth is he didn't make that distinction in the interview with Jordan. Conservatives tried to excuse Santorum on the grounds that Ms. Jordan is married to an adviser to Senator John Kerry, who was busily seeking the Democratic nomination for president at the time. But this was not a "gotcha" interview, and the only agenda seemed to be Santorum's.
I was particularly amused by Santorum's explanation that "I have no problem with homosexuality—I have a problem with homosexual acts." I attracted some negative e-mail when I flippantly questioned one night on Hannity & Colmes whether this meant that he didn't like Siegfried and Roy.
Conservatives, in addition to being mean, can also be clueless. In a November 20, 2002, Wall Street Journal editorial called, "The Non-Taxpaying Class," the conservative paper, usually in favor of tax relief, pined for a system where the poor could pay more. It referred to those who make $12,000 or less a year as "lucky duckies": "... almost 13% of all workers have no tax liability and so are indifferent to income tax rates. And that doesn't include another 16.5 million who have some income but don't file at all. Who are these lucky duckies?"
It's disingenuous to say that almost 13 percent of workers have no tax liability. What do you call payroll taxes and sales taxes? In the December 3, 2002, issue of the New York Times, Paul Krugman helped us further understand the charmed lives of these "lucky duckies": "If you include payroll and sales taxes, a worker earning $12,000 probably pays well over 20 percent of income in taxes. But who's counting?" Conservatives carp about how the rich pay so much in taxes and how the poor don't pay because they can't. But the working poor do pay the very taxes that should be cut, the payroll taxes, which take a proportionally higher bite out of their paychecks, while barely putting a dent into the incomes of the wealthy.
While the right sees those who don't pay income taxes as lucky beneficiaries of government subsidies for education and child care, the people who don't owe federal income tax are people who basically can't afford to pay that tax. They also can't afford to pay their rent, clothe their children, or eat three squares a day. Providing a basic net for decent Americans who, for whatever reason, can't live the American dream right now, is the very least a good-hearted society should do. Why is it we never compain about the price of guns, but we balk at the price of butter?
Wha
t's wrong with caring for the poor, the downtrodden, the infirm, and the needy? In a capitalistic society, not everyone has luck fall his or her way. Conservatives love to brag about America being the greatest, the biggest, the richest country in the world. Then why do they begrudge the small percentage of their fellow Americans who need a helping hand? Only 2.3 percent of Americans were on welfare in 1999, down from 5.5 percent in 1993. It's not socialism to demand that everyone in America have the right to a warm place to sleep at night, proper nutrition, and the right to a living wage. We can afford it. When an administration decides to go to war, not enough hard questions are asked and answered, and cost is never an issue. Only 2 percent of the federal budget goes to welfare, compared with 16 percent for defense.
But years are spent haggling over the few who need assistance, as though the welfare rolls are rife with fraudulent users who only want to live off our taxpayer dollars. And you know what? There are people like that, and there always will be, but statistics show that these people are a very small minority of those getting help. Seventy percent of welfare recipients are off the rolls within two years, although there is a 58 percent rate of recidivism. But the average family on welfare winds up in the system for about six years, not a lifetime. Nevertheless, Americans who have fallen on hard times have been victims of increasingly hostile rhetoric from ideologues who needed to add the modifier "compassionate" because the word they had been using to define themselves didn't speak for itself.
Ronald Reagan often told the story of a "welfare queen" who went to pick up her welfare checks in a shiny, new welfare Cadillac. This woman had either thirty or eighty aliases, depending on when Reagan was telling this story. But the real problem with this "welfare queen" was that she didn't exist. This was a figment of Ronald Reagan's imagination, but one that defines those who need government assistance in the minds of many to this day.