TheAgitator.com
My Lunch With Ann Coulter
Wednesday, August 6th, 2003So when a fellow libertarian friend told me she had an extra ticket she couldnâ??t use to an event featuring Ann Coulter, my first thought was to de-friend the friend. Attending a Coulter event with any intent other than to openly mock her, it seems to me, is the mark of a traitorous libertarian, a turncoat who ought to be ousted from the movement and hung by herâ?¦.
Aw, hell. I canâ??t even pretend to be as polemical as Ass-Kickinâ?? Ann.
Actually, I was excited to use the ticket. Who could ask for better blog fodder?
(click on the “more” link to the right…)
I already have one great Ann Coulter story:
Iâ??ve seen her cry.
It was about five years ago at a C-PAC convention (C-PAC, for you right-wing neophytes, is short for Conservative Political Action Conference an annual gathering of family values types, blue blazers, and neatly pantsuited ladies — the kind of crowd to whom Alan Keyes really does make sense).
At any rate, Ann was on a panel that also featured conservative codger Reed Irvine and someone else who escapes me, but for some reason I want to think was Terence Jeffrey, opiner, scribe and talking head who makes his home at the very conservative Human Events.
What I do remember is that Annâ??s two male co-panelists wouldnâ??t let her get a word in edgewise — mean boy-bullies that they were — and the panel concluded with Ann struggling to choke back tears. I snuck back behind the panel after the session, of course, hoping to witness more drama. And thatâ??s when I saw Cold-Blooded Coulter in sobbing hysterics. Sheâ??d been bullied. And now she was crying.
Iâ??ve never taken her seriously since. Not that I would have otherwise.
The first thing I learned about the luncheon Iâ??d be attending was that it was primarily an event for conservative women. It was sponsored by the Clare Boothe Luce Institute, and put on in conjunction with the Heritage Foundation as part of a summer luncheon series for D.C.â??s society of high-collared gals.
Even when I called to RSVP, I was initially told there was a long waitlist, and that only women would be considered. I persisted, and within a few hours was told that the waitlist had in fact been satisfied, and that, yes, I could attend. I had actually considered using the event as material for a Fox column (though Iâ??ve since concluded itâ??s best for the blog), so when asked, I described myself to luncheon attendees as â??a columnist for FoxNews.com.â?
Appropriately, in the cab ride over, my cabby had tuned his radio to the â??Dr.â? Laura Schlessinger Show. I say â??appropriatelyâ? for a couple of reasons. First, because Dr. Laura is to â??psychologistâ? what Ann Coulter is to â??serious public intellectual.â? That is, both make their living under the guise of being one, but neither actually is one. Iâ??d also learn later that Dr. Laura was the Clare Boothe Luce Instituteâ??s 2002 â??Woman of the Year.â? And Ann of course was todayâ??s Clare Boothe Luce Institute speaker.
Iâ??m not exactly sure what to make of this Coulter/Schlessinger synergy. On the one hand, Dr. Laura and Ann Coulter annoy me in similar ways. Both are grating, shrill, and speak in uncompromising blacks and whites. The world of Ann Coulter and Dr. Laura is one of good or evil, of sluts or saints, of patriots or treacherists, and never the in-between. Both suffer from raging fits of hypocrisy. Coulter, for all her talk of conservative values, leads a fairly swinginâ?? social life, and for awhile dated Bob Guccione, Jr., publisher of the decidedly unconservative Spin magazine, and son of legendary pornographer Bob Guccione, Sr. (publisher of Penthouse, among others). As for Dr. Laura, you may remember a few years ago that the woman who regularly scolds women for making poor decisions has evidence of her own poor decisions still plastered all about the Internet (warning: not only is the previous not a work-safe click, it really isnâ??t safe for anyone).
I wonder what would happen if a young Dr. Laura — or a contemporary Ann Coulter — called Dr. Laura for counsel?
I digress.
The event apparently was so well-RSVPed and highly anticipated that it had to be moved from the Heritage Foundation to the Capitol Hill Club. Youâ??d think John Mayer were opening. Or with this crowd, Johnny Mathis.
The CHC, by the way, is young Republican central, home to many a neat scotch, wing-tipped shoe, and pocket hanky. Spit, and youâ??ll hit an Adam Smith tie. If youâ??re not driving a Grand Cherokee, prepare to sit at the losersâ?? table.
Fortunately, it was casual Friday, so I was wearing a poloâ?¦erâ?¦I mean Polo. Yes, the real thing. With the horse and the guy and the mallet and everything. Still, I worried, I might have problems getting in. This, after all, was an event for conservative women. Iâ??m a libertarian man. What if I giggled when someone suggested we put Ronald Reagan on the ten-dollar bill? What if I failed to bow my head with sufficient reverence upon hearing the name â??Jeanne Kirkpatrick?â? And thatâ??s just ideology. This event was for women. I wouldnâ??t have passed for a lesbian, much less an Eagle Forum poster girl. I hadnâ??t shaved. I have close-cropped hair. I wore slacks.
Also I have, you know, the penis.
I decided Iâ??d humor my way in. Woo them. Win them over. So upon approaching the most senior-looking woman behind the registration table, I smiled, put the best twinkle in my eye, and pushed the charm full-throttle.
â??Iâ??m a man,â? I said. â??See? No breasts. I suppose youâ??ll want to see my papers?â?
Icy stare. Okay, so Iâ??m no Mitch Hedberg. But come on — not even a courtesy laugh?
â??Your name?â?
â??Radley Balko.â?
No eye contact. No smile.
â??Okay,â? she said. â??Youâ??re fine.â?
Geez. Tough crowd.
The dining room looked like it might seat 200 people. I was fifteen minutes early. It was about half full — probably eighty or so ladies, most of them young, most clutching a copy of Treason to a well-wrapped, tightly-packed, decidedly unjiggly bosom.
And lapel pins. Lots and lots of lapel pins. All stars and stripes. Small flags. Big flags. Flag broaches. Bejeweled flags. Surely the highest concentration of American flag lapel pins this side of the Talladega infield.
I decided it might be best if I were inconspicuous. So I sat at a table in the far corner, next to the black person. Okay, maybe thatâ??s not fair. There were other black people in the room. The waitstaff, for example. And I think one of the cameramen might have been mixed.
Our lunch menu featured a Ceasar salad with a few rubbery cuts of chicken breast, some crust of bread, and fruit for desert — Roman gluttony by Coulter standards.
Still, I thought the whole thing was an appetizer — itâ??s a salad. Itâ??s a first course, right?. I spent most of the lunch waiting for the main course. Where was the red meat? Would there be gravy?
Protein? Please?
Never came.
Of course, even what I got would feed Ann Coulter for a month. I couldnâ??t see her plate, but rumor had it our star speaker dined on half a cigarette and a quick tongue swipe across the backs of two postage stamps. Even then, I hear, she had the post-lunch groggies.
(Yes, I made the entire previous paragraph up.)
The room décor featured oil paintings around the exterior of gallant men in military fatigues, one of a woman I recognized as Barbara Bush, and several others I didnâ??t recognize, but each of whom wore pearls, and a haircut contemporary for her time — but stylish and sensible, of course. It was like an homage to Betty Crocker through the decades.
In her short story â??Revelation,â? Flannery Oâ??Connor aptly describes ladies of a certain age and conservative demeanor as â??pleasant.â? In fact, the plight of the â??pleasantâ? woman is a recurring theme Oâ??Connorâ??s work.
She doesnâ??t use the word as a compliment.
Oâ??Connorâ??s â??pleasantâ? southernly women are outwardly cordial, inwardly hostile, backwardly-thinking, and terribly gifted passive-aggressives. I thought of Oâ??Connor when I was soon joined at my table by three decidedly â??pleasantâ? Republicanly women.
One worked on the Hill, but wouldnâ??t tell me which office; one declined to tell me where she worked at all (after I told her I was a writer); and the third worked for an agency that facilitates overseas adoptions. They blended so well with the rest of the room, I remember just a few things about them. But here is what I do remember:
I remember that the lady who worked for the overseas adoption agency was the friendliest of the three. In fact, it might not even be fair to call her â??pleasantâ?. She was downright enjoyable. A real person. When I mentioned I sometimes write for Fox, she asked if I knew â??E.D.â? or â??Hannityâ? or â??Alan.â?
I told her Iâ??d once done a radio interview with Alan Colmes (which is true), and that Sean Hannity and I sometimes hit the strip bars together (which isnâ??t). She laughed — and Iâ??m pretty sure it was genuine. I liked her.
I remember the woman who wouldnâ??t tell me where she works was the most outwardly but least inwardly friendly of the three — the most â??pleasant,â? you might say. â??So how did you get in here, anyway,â? she asked, with a probing stare and a prosthetic smile.
â??Iâ??m a writer,â? I said.
With that, she shot me a piercing, contemptuous look. Like Iâ??d just stepped out of a polished Iroc with flame decals, wearing leather chaps and a spiked collar, to pick up her daughter for a date. She also offered this bit of commentary just before Ann walked in:
â??You know, I always thought that after September 11, we should have closed off the borders to all foreigners for a year, and done a head count of every Muslim.â?
The others, I remember, nodded in knowing approval.
The third of the pleasant ladies wouldâ??ve been virtually unmemorable except that she wore this trippy, powerfully and horizontally striped blouse featuring more shades of pink than a yearâ??s subscription to Hustler. It looked like one of those optical illusions where your mind makes you think stuff is moving, but it really isnâ??t. It was the kind of blouse you might think she had to recharge at night.
Soon our little gathering had hit the roomâ??s capacity. It struck me that I was squeezed into a room with a couple hundred women — a few of them attractive — and I had yet to mentally undress a single one of them. This struck me odd. I guess country clubbers just donâ??t do it for me. I suppose I like a woman who isnâ??t afraid to eat off a paper plate from time to time. Or it could have been the fact that, despite it being late July in Washington, there just wasnâ??t a lot of skin around.
That would soon change, of course. Because Annâ??s entrance was near. And what we all love about Ann is that though she thinks like Phyllis Schlafly, she dresses like Ally McBeal.
We heard a tap-tap-tap on the microphone (which later went out), and just as the ladies all about us were whispering â??C-SPAN!, C-SPAN!â? yes, indeed, the C-SPAN cameras flickered red lights. Just near the back, I spotted two others from my gender. Two men, with ties. They dressed like Congressmen might, though I didnâ??t recognize them if thatâ??s what they were (unlike a Senator, itâ??s rough being Congressman. Because you are pretty damned important, but most people canâ??t tell just by looking. Must be frustrating for the poor fellows).
They took seats near the cameras, naturally.
Most ladies had by now pushed away their plates. The air hang heavy with an electric cocktail of estrogen, anticipation, and rock-star idolatry. The conservative movementâ??s Mick Jagger was about to take the stage — only skinnier, cockier, and a touch less sophisticated (Mick attended the London School of Economics, after all). And if you believe rock lore, Mickâ??s probably better at pleasing a man, too.
â??First Libel, then Treason,â??â? one woman whispered. â??I canâ??t imagine what sheâ??ll call her next book! What could be worse than Treason?!?â?
â??Sheâ??s so beautiful,â? another said. â??No one should get such beauty and brains.â?
By this time, two of my libertarian friends — Joanne and Kate — had joined me at the apostacistsâ?? table. Or at least at our little corner of the apostacistsâ?? table.
Kate reminded me that Ann had actually once flirted with the idea of running for Congress from Connecticut — and under the Libertarian Party banner, no less. The reason? Coulter didnâ??t like the moderate, RINO ways of Rep. Chris Shays, whom she thought should be kicked out of office for being a â??pantywaistâ? of a Republican (on this issue sheâ??s right, by the way. Shays is a pantywaist). Unfortunately for Ann, the Connecticut State Libertarian Party rejected her as a candidate. This caused Coulter to fire off a nasty screed about how Libertarians care only about the drug issue, and thus, she could never be a Libertarian, and didnâ??t really want to be one, anyway — much like the girl who doesnâ??t make the cheerleading squad, then becomes editor of the school newspaper, and writes about how empty-headed and shrill cheerleaders can be.
â??Whatâ??s that say about you,â? Kate mused, â??when the party of the blue people, the druids and the tin-foil hats rejects you as a candidate?â?
Indeed.
And then, like that, she entered. A wisp of a thing.
The exaltation bubbled first from the middle of the room, near the door. It then spread like dengue, and enveloped the whole of us in rapturous applause.
A quick read of the roomâ??s faces:
Our star is here! Among us! Gooseneck, dammit! Get a peek! Move, so I may see! What would she say? Would she be feisty? Funny? Sexy? Would she slay those dastardly liberals with her daggered wit and incisive invective?
You bet she would!
But weâ??d have to wait.
First to the microphone would be Michelle Easton, President of the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute. Hazards of getting to the show early: You get good seats, but thereâ??s always the chance that the opening bandâ??s gonnaâ?? suck.
Easton first asked all the interns and college students in the room to raise their hands, a move I can only guess was requested by our two Congressmen friends sitting in the back. I looked to see if either of them took notes, but couldnâ??t catch enough of a glimpse to say. Ah, it was late July, anyway — much too late into the summer intern season to fire up a fling.
Easton next made a pitch for her organization, then launched into a lengthy, glowing, rhetorical cunnilingus of an introduction for Coulter — one that had to have killed at least three thesauri in the making.
I have written in my notepad:
â??Strong, articulate, courageous and witty, despite vicious attacks from her detractors.â?
A line that really needs no ridicule. Coulter of course has made an entire career of vicious attacks, none of them strong, articulate, courageous, or witty (though I admit, she can be funny from time to time).
I scribbled a note to Joanne.
â??No mention of getting fired from National Review?â?
Easton went on. And on. And on.
Once Coulter finally took the podium, visibly moved at the introduction, she noted how nice it was to be in front of a friendly crowd, none of whom were waving â??placards.â? She must have had a bad experience with placards, because she mentioned them four times in the next several minutes.
Coulter spoke fast, so my notes from her speech are largely excerpts, a few quotables, and my own summaries of some choice lines of argument. I guess the best way to do this is to relay what Iâ??ve written to you, then provide my own analysis.
So here we goâ?¦
Coulter started with an odd series of one-liners and quips about how liberals â??do nothingâ? when it comes to Americaâ??s national security, how theyâ??ve been â??doing nothingâ? for years, and how theyâ??ll continue to â??do nothingâ? until weâ??re reduced to a pile of smoldering mushroom-cloud-caused coals. A few lines from my notes:
â??Liberals doing nothing is what caused 9/11.â?
Of course, we had a Republican in office in the eight months leading up to 9/11. And if we take the man responsible for 9/11 at his word — the at-large Osama bin Laden — it wasnâ??t doing nothing that caused 9/11, it was doing something. Specifically, our presence in Saudi Arabia, our bombing and imposition of sanctions on Iraq, and our involvement in Gulf War I. The sanctions and sporadic bombings of Iraq were done by both Republicans and Democrats.
You could make the case that all of these things were necessary (though I wouldnâ??t), but you certainly canâ??t argue that any of them could be defined as â??doing nothing,â? or that they were done by particularly liberal or conservative parties. Some we might lay at Clintonâ??s feet. Others at Bush the Elderâ??s.
But the United States â??doing nothingâ? certainly isnâ??t what inspired the perpetrators of 9/11.
â??Terrorists donâ??t respect doing nothing. They respect a show of force.â?
Only if you kill every last one of them. Otherwise, it just makes them more determined.
Look at Israel.
When are people most likely to lash out at you — when you’ve left them alone, or when you’ve put your stuff in their backyard?
â??Liberals have been doing nothing when it comes to defending America for the last century.â?
Hmm. Seems Ann might want to brush up on her history. We entered the first World War when Woodrow Wilson was in office. He was a liberal Democrat. We entered World War II when FDR was in office. He was liberal a Democrat. Korea? Truman. Democrat. Vietnam? Kennedy. Democrat.
Those would be your four big wars from the last century. And Annâ??s wrong on every one of them.
You can also credit Clinton for Kosovo, Bosnia, and bombing raids on the Sudan, Afghanistan (including al-Qaeda training camps), and Iraq.
With the crowd in her palm, Ann then moved to patriotism, treason and censorship:
â??Dissent isnâ??t proof of patriotism.â?
Actually, a pretty good point.
The anti-war left I think too often is unwilling to keep its own house in order. Criticizing U.S. foreign policy and offering reasoned, constructive alternatives is perfectly patriotic. So too I think is a little dignified outrage when things get out of hand. Lengthy screeds about how America is the root cause of all the worldâ??s suffering simply canâ??t be disguised as patriotism.
You can be a patriot while criticizing your country. Itâ??s tough to be a patriot while hating it.
Coulter of course is incapable of such nuance. Actually, sheâ??s probably capable of it, but it doesnâ??t suit her purpose, which is selling books. And so she lumps all criticism of Bush, of war, of empire, of inattention to civil liberties — all of it — as treacherous, traitorous and contemptible. If Coulter had stopped at â??dissent isnâ??t proof of patriotism,â? sheâ??d have come dangerously close to making a point. But she didnâ??t. She of course went too far the other way: Dissent isnâ??t proof patriotism, itâ??s proof of treachery.
Next, Ann went the catfight route, and took on Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks.
She made the somewhat wry (but hardy original) observation that the Dixie Chicks â??went on the cover of Rolling Stone, and Time, on Larry King and the front page of the New York Times to tell everyone â??theyâ??ve been censored.â?? When youâ??re griping all over the media, Natalie, let me tell you something: youâ??re not being censored.â?
Cute. But isnâ??t this the same Ann Coulter who goes on Larry King, MSNBC, Fox and CNN to complain about how conservatives never get to have their say in the media?
Isnâ??t this the same Ann Coulter whoâ??s been profiled in Slate, Time and who Iâ??ve seen pitching her book on every major news outlet (and this from a guy who generally changes the channel the moment her famished mug pops on screen), but then later said in the same speech that â??liberals are responding to my book the way Muslim clerics did to The Satanic Verses?â?
Isnâ??t this the same Ann Coulter who whined in the speech that Time magazine was biased for choosing an unflattering photo of her for its profile of her — obviously overlooking the fact that Time Magazine was doing a profile of her?
Seems to me that Ann Coulter has met the Dixie Chicks, and she is they.
Actually, thereâ??s one small difference between the two. Natalie Means let slip one small example of stupid (if not politically stupid, at least stupid in that it caused her grief) in front of a foreign audience during wartime. Ann Coulter wrote 200+ pages of semi-researched, revised, premeditated stupid.
Ann next focused on the steak and mutton of any effective conservative screed: Democrats and liberals. She said of the Democratic Party â??if theyâ??re not working for al-Qaeda, then theyâ??re being cheated out of a paycheck.â?
Again, a cute line, but hardly backed by facts. The Democrats have been just as willing to buckle on Iraq, on civil liberties, and on submitting to yet another vast, bureaucratic mess called â??Homeland Securityâ? — in which actual intelligence on al-Qaeda can again get lost in the morass of red tape, infighting and turf wars — as the Republicans have been willing to engage this crap. In fact, Democrats have led the charge on many of them.
I think itâ??d be great if there was some actual dissent on Capitol Hill — or as Coulter might put it, some treason. Thereâ??s been far too little.
But Coulterâ??s favorite trick is to intersperse the labels â??Democratâ? and â??liberalâ? when each or the other suits her purpose.
When describing opposition to the Cold War, for example, she uses â??liberal,â? enabling her to charge her ideological opponents with treachery (and to conveniently overlook examples of Republican detante (Nixon going to China) or Democrat confrontation (the Cuban Missile Crisis, Bobby Kennedy’s camraderie with McCarthy). But later, in the speech, she threw in a line about how the â??Democratsâ? were also the party of â??white supremacists,â? and opposed to civil rights, which I guess was a reference to the fact that most of the segregationists and vocal opponents of the Civil Rights Act were Democrats.
True.
Of course, it was those Democratsâ?? ideological offspring that are today Ann Coulterâ??s allies. The whole â??southern strategyâ? revolved around capitalizing on the bigotry of southern, blue-collar Democrats to bring them around to the other side of the aisle. And while rhetorical bomb-throwers like Ann Coulter are quick to point out, for example, that Al Goreâ??s dad voted against the Civil Rights Act, or that more Republicans than Democrats favored it, they fail to point out that the kinds of Republicans who did support it were the very kinds of â??pantywaistâ? Republicans like Chris Shays that Ann Coulter wants out of the party — liberal, Northeastern Republicans.
From there, we went to the question and answer session, which was far more saccharine than the fruit and dollop of whipped cream we got for desert. Most every question began with:
â??I just want to say how much I admire you,â?
or,
â??I just want to say I love your spunk,â?
or,
â??Not only are you beautiful, but you also have guts.â?
My favorite:
â??Do you find it hard to be taken seriously when youâ??re so beautiful?â?
To which Coulter responded,
â??I love it! You know, when I tour college campuses, I always find that the prettiest girls in the room are the ones in the College Republicans.â?
Before I left, there was one reasonably substantive question, which came from a young lady who asked what Coulter thought of the prescription drug benefit. Her answer was preposterous.
â??As president,â? she said, â??you can really only hold your ground on about three public policy areas. For Bush, itâ??s terrorism, the judiciary and tax cuts. You canâ??t ask him to stay consistent on any thing more than that.â?
â??You canâ??t put all your hopes in a Republican president,â? she said.
She then went on to blame, yes, the media, for President Bushâ??s lavish spending habit, and added this particularly baffling line:
â??You canâ??t hold Republicans responsible for every bill that crosses the presidentâ??s desk.â?
You canâ??t? Donâ??t Republicans have the votes to shoot down any piece of legislation in either house of Congress? Doesnâ??t President Bush have the power to veto any bill he sees? Doesnâ??t Coulter, who fancies herself a â??constitutional lawyerâ? know this?
Of course she does. Her point of course is that the media pushes the policy agenda, and that Republicans risk political capital if they take on too much at once. But if her president can only hold the line on three policy areas, and is forced to utterly and completely capitulate on all the others, then her president is, frankly, weak, inept and impotent as a leader. Wasnâ??t this the president who promised â??not to govern with polls?â? Is it asking too much to take him at his word? Vowing to sign the biggest entitlement program in 40 years is not practical compromise — strageric or otherwise. If youâ??re a legitimate proponent of limited government, itâ??s called â??grabbing your ankles,â? particularly when your party controls the White House and the Congress.
I went to see Ann Coulter expecting to see a vapid, intellectually dishonest example of someone forgoing all desire to be taken seriously in the interest of a quick route to TV gigs and million-dollar book deals.
Ann Coulter just signed a $3 million book deal.
As for â??forgoing all desire to be taken seriously,â? well, letâ??s just say I didnâ??t leave disappointed.
Wow, sitting in that room powerless to make a scene must’ve been like watching an episode of the O’Reilly factor on TV.
Good write up though, except that the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks is Natalie Maines, not Means..
Does anyone know if Coulter was a legacy admission to Cornell?
Amusing note. Just looking at anncoulter.org, part of townhall.com.
In the ‘Sponsors’ block, I find a link ad, saying
Columnists Wanted!!!
** become a columnist **
Click on the link, and it turns out I am offered a chance to be a columnist for “Useless-knowledge.com”.
How… appropriate.
Great summary, almost as good as your day in the life of a protester series.
The Undercover Agitator
Radley Balko sneaks into a luncheon honoring Ann Coulter. Wry commentary ensues….
Pretty girls are in the college republicans because it’s easier than thinking. I apologize for saying that, but not for thinking it.
and ugly girls are college democrats for the same reason
wow balko, you saw a girl cry. what girl doesn’t?
You know what’s better than seeing a girl cry? Making them cry. On a less serious note, I think Radley inlcuded that aside because of the image Coulter projects. She wants to be seen as an ass kicking/take no shit kind of woman. For me, seeing her cry would indeed be odd because I always thought she was a cyborg.
I saw the speech on C-SPAN almost every statement she made was laughable.
“You know, I always thought that after September 11, we should have closed off the borders to all foreigners for a year, and done a head count of every Muslim”
I am not calling you a liar, Radley, but that sounds too cliche to have actually been said. But I guess when you are surrounded by 160 plus “plesent” women you may hear a few cliche’s (Its much easier than having to coming up with their own thoughts)
pleasant,
sory spelin’ aint mi stonge sute
thanks for the report, i was going to waste money on her book b/c i’m a sucker for promo-hype and skeletal blondes. but seriously, i know americans have miniscule attention spans (thus atari and extreme perspectives from the right and left), so what politics books are out there that anybody can recommend being worth reading?
Some of my favorite politically related books:
Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States – Joseph Story
Federalist Papers – Hamilton, Madison, Jay
The Fountainhead (fiction and a little longwinded, but good) – Ayn Rand
Free to Choose – Milton and Rose Friedman (more econ than poli sci)
Tragedy of the Commons – Garrett Hardin
God of the Machine – Isabel Patterson
Democracy in America – Alexi de Tocqueville
Cato’s Handbook for Congress – The Cato Institute (i think you can still download the pdfs at cato.org)
I also read and enjoyed Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States…. even though he’s just a little left of me.
I’m sure I could list more, but I’d have to find my notes to pick out the really good ones.
Never got why everyone is so enamored with her, she is not even that pretty. Guess having blond hair goes a long way with Republican men. She cannot speak very well either.
Jealousy is an ugly emotion.
Saw Coulter get spanked on Hardball last week by C. Hitchens. She speaks like she can only reiterate a few cheat sheets she crammed before the show. Odd obsession w/ Joe McCarthy, which I think she picked up just to have some contrarian schtick and like you pointed out sell books. Is she just posturing?
Reporting on having seen Ann cry helps deflate her macho, tough-gal image and rhetoric (and more importantly the usefulness such rhetoric in general), and that’s a good thing. OTOH, I’d say it’s pretty damn foolish and arrogant to not “take…seriously” someone for such behavior. Mind you, there’s plenty of other fine reasons not to take Coulter seriously, but I’d say that anecdote is not one of them.
I have a link to Ann’s web site and get emails that tell me when she has a new column on it. I try to see past all the grand statements and window dressing to look for any point that she may be trying to make. But more and more they are lost in the maze of name calling and an unwillingness to at least be fair on the facts. I think Radley describe it as it “being either black or white” with Ann. Which is what I get from reading her column. I have not yet read her books and can not comment on them. The point I am trying to make is that I am finding it hard to take her serious when she seems to be doing the exact same thing she is accusing the left of doing. And that is distorting the facts to make her point. Is she a serious journalist or just trying to sell books?
Good call on the comparison to Flannery O’Connor’s characters. I get the same feeling around some country club types. They’re just so “pleasant.”
“You warthog from hell.”
I watched the event on CSPAN as well. Radley has done a nice job of describing it, and his added commentary is fascinating.
I fully agree with the evaluation that Coulter lacks depth and apparently sees the political world in black and white.
However, having said that, the main threat to the libertarian tradition in this country is from the socialism, not from conservative Republicanism. Coulter performs a valuable service by publicizing their attempts to undermine the foundations of our liberty. She’s using tabloid techniques to get that public attention, and its working. She deserves credit for that, and to be left alone to do the dirty work she’s chosen.
Same goes for David Horowitz.
Larry,
Unless you consider Ashcroft and Poindexter to be socialist… I have to disagree with you.
Regardless of idology, extremists that wish to impose their values on others all threaten the foundations of our liberty.
B Kiefferâ??
First, I agree with you that Ashcroft and Poindexter are a threat to our liberties.
But, they’re individuals who remain in their positions only because of the President. They can be gone tomorrow (in fact, I thought I had heard recently that Poindexter was resigning).
The day Ashcroft has American citizens murdered as Janet Reno did in Waco, with Presidential approval, is the day his continued presence will seriously concern me.
Neither man, nor any extremist Republican movement that I am aware of has targeted free-market Capitalism for destruction, as has the socialist movement. If they are successful, its’ ALL over.
I wrote the earlier comment because it seemed to me that too many libertarians are distracted by the day-to-day issues and personalities, and are not watching the more fundamental threat from the left. The Socialist Party in the country, a.k.a. Democrats, is hell-bent on trashing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and making us all property of the State. To me, THAT is THE threat.
About the crying…
You know, in Spiderman, when Peter Parker’s uncle is killed by the robber Petey let get away, and it changes his whole outlook and purpose in life and gets all serious?
Maybe Radley saw Coulter having a moment kinda like that, after which she turned up the hard-assitude and crankdom.
(I’m not real familiar with what her public persona was five years ago. Was she more understated and rational?)
Evidently, there are not as many libertarian hard ons out there for Ann Coulter as there are for Seven of Nine.
Some of these points are legit, but I think you’re, generally, shooting in the wrong direction. So much for fusionism.
Some of Ashcroft’s recent actions seem like they would occur in a Socialist government.
B Kieffer and Isaac,
Although your list is quite good, I must say that Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People is a far better read thatn Zinn. I am actually about to finish reading both, I read them in tandem, and Johnson is by far the more researched and less bias of the two. Also, if you want to read political commentary you should try F.A. Hayek Road to Serfdom.
Larry Talbot writes: “The day Ashcroft has American citizens murdered as Janet Reno did in Waco, with Presidential approval, is the day his continued presence will seriously concern me.”
What exactly do you think Bush and Ashcroft would do to an analogous heavily armed, fortified compound full of Muslim American citizens?
Cal Ullmann writes: “Some of Ashcroft’s recent actions seem like they would occur in a Socialist government.”
Ashcroft dwells in that hazy area of extremism where there aren’t many differences between left and right.
Ashcroft’s actions would fit in well in socialist countries like Soviet East Germany, or in right-wing South American countries.
Thanks, Radley!
Best, funniest read today.
HReardon,
I’m actually reading Johnson’s History of the American People right now, and it does take a less slanted approach.. so it’s a wonderful suggestion.
I guess I mentioned Zinn for balance since I just finished off Daniel Boorstin “The Americans: The Democratic Experience” which practically had me humming America the Beautiful… damn that’s a great read. Anyone who wants to know why America is the greatest nation on earth? Boorstin nails it.
I’m embarrassed to have excluded Hayek. Road to Serfdom is good, but his better work IMHO is Consitution of Liberty. It’s a little slow in places, but definitely required reading.
Jon H.
“What exactly do you think Bush and Ashcroft would do to an analogous heavily armed, fortified compound full of Muslim American citizens?”
First, if you think the compound was either heavily armed or fortified, I would suggest that you don’t recall the facts correctly. But lets set that aside for now.
Am I to understand that (1) you agree with the Clinton-Reno action against a Christian sect in Waco, but (2) you would not agree to the same action by Bush-Ashcroft under the same circumstances against a Muslim sect?
May I ask why you make that distinction?
B Kiefferâ??
Re: “I’m actually reading Johnson’s History of the American People right now, and it does take a less slanted approach.. so it’s a wonderful suggestion.”
If you like Paul Johnson’s style, he has another book called Modern Times which is World History from the Twenties to the Nineties. Also, he just wrote an excellent little book on Napoleon.
Since Howard Zinn is an avowed Marxist, and you indicate his book was slanted, was there any one entry that you thought was over the line? Just curious.
Larry Talbot,
At the hazard of speaking for Jon H, I don’t think he was advocating one course of action or another, only claiming that Ashcroft’s reaction would be no better in similar circumstances than Reno’s.
However, I would like to ask you if you have any hard evidence that the ATF “murdered” the people in the compound at Waco? And are you denying that the compound was armed, or only not “heavily” armed?
Larry,
At one point Zinn compares the plight of African-Americans experiencing racism in the United States prior to WWII to that of Jews being exterminated in Germany. I found that to be a little over the top. The idea that the US shouldn’t have entered WWII simply because we had problems at home is preposterous. An argument can be made against the necessity of our involvement, but the way he framed his argument left me unable to take him seriously.
I’ll have to check out Modern Times… thanks for the tip.
fyodor,
You have asked me about something that I thought was generally accepted knowledge. And, clearly, I can’t use the limited space here to lay the all of the facts out.
So, first of all, I’m going to recommend the two films by Michael McNulty: (1) the Academy Award winning, WACO: Rules of Engagement, and (2) the F.L.I.R. Project. The first one should be readily available at video rental stores like Blockbuster. It is irrefutable eveidence in itself. The second is a follow-up, examining the Infrared images that were captured at the scene.
If you would rather read a book, I’d recommend “Send In The Waco Killers” by Vin Suprynowicz. The book is a series of essays on a variety of libertarian issues, but the key chapter is on Waco. The book is available in paperback.
And finally, at the risk of behaving inappropriately on someone else’s venue, I’m going to suggest that you check out my own blog about a week from now. I’ll make it a point to summarize all of the Waco information that confirms this was a case of government murdering its own citizens. And it was done using military weaponry (the tanks), which is violation of federal law.
Radley, please forgive the reference to my blog, but I’ve included your site as a recommended link on mine.
Larry
>>>I am not calling you a liar, Radley, but that sounds too cliche to have actually been said.
Funny, that’s exactly what I thought. A little too perfect for the piece. Gotta underscore that cliche of the Republican paranoid bigot.
I have to say that I’ve been a libertarian long enough to have stopped hating all Democrats and Republicans.
While I don’t buy into her social conservatism, I have to say that I enjoy watching her work. I can disagree with some of what she says, but I no longer feel obligated to disagree with all of it simply because she’s not a libertarian.
Johnson is less biased than Zinn? Really?
I found Johnson (in ‘Modern Times’, the only one I’ve read) to be pretty far right. I mean, he called the 1970s the “attempted suicide of the west” for crying out loud – in a chapter title. Whether you agree with him or not, its a little more than slightly biased.
Still a very good book, however. Maybe I’ll check out Zinn for comparison.
Radley – very funny article.
Great piece. Great story. I saw her speak on C-Span too, couldn’t imagine the patience it must have taken to be in the audience…being of the ‘left of center,’ somewhat libertarian persuasion, I have to say that I might be a converted Balko fan. Having read some of your stuff courtesy of a friend who sends me Fox News links, we may not agree on all things economic or political, but damn you’re a funny blogger.
To the guy Talbot and anyone else out there who equates Democrats with Socialists, relax a little will ya? There are alot of ‘democrats’ who believe wholeheartedly in many libertarian fundamentals. That’s why they call it a political SPECTRUM. There’s room for discussion and debate and enlightenment on all sides. I get a little tired of being called a commie or a socialist or anti-American or whatever. That shit’s getting tired. Let’s talk about things that are right for the country, not who can call who the worst names on internet sites.
Anyway, thanks Balko, you’ve opened my eyes and I appreciate your commentary. I’ll be coming back to the agitator regularly now.
Jeff,
First of all, let me personally apologize to you if you took offense at my referring to Democrats as Socialists. I was a liberal Democrat and ACLU member most of my adult life and would never have taken offense at the label. I thoroughly agree that name-calling is ignorant and a waste of everyone’s time and energy. I used it as short-hand to convey a pointâ??not as an insult, but apparently I only muddied the waters.
I’d be glad to talk about what’s right for the country with Democrats, or with Republicans, but there is a stumbling block right off the bat. There is a fundamental difference of position on the role of government that I don’t see can be breached. Maybe just it’s my brand of libertarianism, but to me government is a repressive force, robbing us through taxation, and seeking to control our every behavior, all to accomodate the desires of the constituencies that keep the politicians in power.
You say that “There are alot of ‘democrats’ who believe wholeheartedly in many libertarian fundamentals.” Please help me out here. Give me one fundamental that you feel we agree upon, and lets give it a shot. I’m game.
Larry
Shrill Blonde Harpy
I HEREBY DECLARE THAT I SHALL NOW REFER TO HER WHOSE NAME WE DARE NOT SPEAK AS:
THE SHRILL BLONDE HARPY
Whenever I see the Shrill Blonde Harpyâ??s name mentioned in a blog, I shall encourage that writer to take a more indifferent approach.
B Kieffer writes: “At one point Zinn compares the plight of African-Americans experiencing racism in the United States prior to WWII to that of Jews being exterminated in Germany”
Are you sure he was talking about when Jews were being *exterminated*, or just the pre-Holocaust restrictions Jews lived under during the 30s?
The Nuremburg Laws, passed in 1935, barred Jews from voting, from holding public office, etc, and are not unlike the Jim Crow laws which were in effect until 1954.
Additional laws in the 30s instituted segregation. blocked Jews from using public schools, theaters, cinemas, and resorts.
Just because pre-WWII blacks didn’t eventually end up in ovens doesn’t mean they had it much better than their Jewish contemporaries in Germany.
Does Zinn even bother to mention the ONE HUNDRED MILLION people killed in the last century by their own Communist governments? It’s a blind spot that most Marxist historians seem to display.
Larry,
Generally accepted knowledge, eh. I’ve heard about the infrared stuff, don’t know enough about it to know how incriminating it is. I’ll check out your blog next week. But even if you convince me that the ATF intentioally killed those people, this happened during a circumstance of legitimate law enforcement. It could have easily been avoided had the Davidians not resisted arrest. The precedents being set by Ashcroft’s decisions may not be so easily avoided. Moreover, they are more clearly a reflection of conservative philosophy, whereas any shortcomings of Reno’s decisions more likely reflect the drunkenness of power. There’s no guarantee that a libertarian administration would not have done the same thing either.
Coulter Stories
I like Coulter’s writing style, bombastic and in your face, but I realize EVERYTHING she says should be taken with
fyodor,
Since the Waco incident began with an allegation that the Davidians had violated federal gun laws, at least I can say that it would not have begun in this fashion under a Libertarian Attorney General. Libertarians are strong supporters of the Second Amendment. A Libertarian A.G.would not have enforced any such gun laws whether they were on the books or not.
And, even if that were the key element in the government’s decision, resisting arrest is not a capital offense, even though many law enforcment officers behave as if it were whenever one of their own has been killed.
Finally, I don’t know what to make of your remark, “Moreover, they are more clearly a reflection of conservative philosophy.” It seems to me that categorizing some specific government abuse of power as liberal or conservative is immaterial. It’s wrong no matter what the philosophy of the abusers.
Larry
Uh, your history on the “Southern Strategy” and the supposed ideological heirs of today’s conservatives is off-kilter, since it repeats myths that have been debunked already. The “Southern Strategy” is mostly an ideological foil used by Democrats to attack Republicans. It also costs them votes, since most southerners rightly recognize it as a slander against themselves.
Also, Laura Schlesinger has said many a time that the sins of her youth were what led her to her strong moral beliefs of today. That ain’t hypocricy, that’s learning from experience.
Other than that, I liked your piece. It was funny. Just FYI. ;-)
fyodor,
The best recent evaluation of Waco appeared on the Cato Institute website. In fact, I’m sure that Radley even had something to do with getting it there.
It is a Policy Analysis by Timothy Lynch titled “No Confidence: An Unofficial Account of the Waco Incident.” I think you will find that it supports my contention that this was a classic case of government out of control.
Larry,
My remark about Ashcroft’s abuse of power being a reflection of conservative philosophy makes better sense when understood in the context that I was essentially responding to your claim that Democrats pose a greater threat to liberty than Republicans. Of course abuse of power is wrong no matter who does it. But it was you who brought up the Waco incident as evidence of your aforementioned claim. And of course a libertarian A.G. would not have been as anxious to prosecute weapons crimes. But my point was that Reno’s failings in the situation in question (which were crimes, if you are correct) were those of a frustrated and arrogant law enforcement officer willing to do whatever it took to get a particular criminal, as opposed to being based on liberal philosophy. It is not liberal philosophy to bring in tanks and do whatever it takes to catch a criminal. Frustration and arrogance are human traits that can occur in anyone of any particular poliitcal POV. That’s why I say it could happen even to a libertarian A.G. Now, it may make sense to take liberal dogma to task for putting an underqualified woman in that position of responsibility, but it doesn’t make sense to use Waco as evidence that liberal philosophy is such that it makes Democrats a clearly greater threat to liberty than Republicans, which is how I interpreted your comments above.
Also, of course resisting arrest is not a captical crime, and I never said it was, only that Waco was a more limited situation than the precedents being setup by Ashcroft, which have greater implications for the rights of the citizenry in general.
fyodor,
Thank you for elucidating.
I’ll accept full responsibility for taking the conversation off track with the Waco comment. What happened there could just as easily happened under a Republican administration. It was, however, big government out of control, and both major parties are at fault for allowing that to happen, and to continue.
Liberty is usually defined as freedom from government coercion. Neither party has clean hands with respect to supporting big government, but it seems to me that Democrats are unanimous in advancing government control over the citizens. Income redistribution is a core program for Democrats. On the Republican side, there is at least a contingent of conservatives that speaks up for limited government. No?
Ann Coulter Not A Machine?
The Agitator has a good (long) Ann Coulter story. She actually cries?
Larry,
Well, good to see the discussion has come back to earth! Be sure that I certainly understand the argument that Republicans are the better lesser of evils for libertarians. I generally hold a mild preference for Democrats, partly because of areas in which I veer off from libertarian doctrine. But your latest description of your preference for Republicans is the kind of thing I fully understand and appreciate, and not something I would particularly care to debate about without being prepared for a long series of novel-sized posts. It was your seeming to call the Democrats the party of socialists and murderer’s that pressed my buttons enough to speak up! Whether the events at Waco amount to murder or not, it sure was a thoroughly screwed up outcome, and if Democrats take the presidency again, I sure hope they do a hell of a better job at handling conflict than that!
Okay? Thanks for the discussion. Now time for me to bug out! :)
geez, this whole column was a load of drivel…
I’ve got an argument going on on a board about Coulter right now. The extreme far rights are the ones who are jerking off at the thought of her, while the liberals are far more critical of her, calling her a liar, shrill and too damned skinny.
The far rights also say that any “woman” who thinks Coulter is “ugly” has got to be some unattractive liberal hippie, and that she is SO beautiful. I feel like puking when I hear how they’re getting themselves off on her and her views. To me, she’s just completely sickening. They seem to buy into the myth that beauty is actually only skin deep.
Politics aside, she would be as ugly as they come no matter what her personal views were, because she is not out to soothe the masses, only stroke her own ego and hear herself talk. At least the women of the left have a lot better skills at their trade–women like Molly Ivins, Arianna Huffington and Maureen Dowd have something Coulter never will have–a keen intellect combined with a genuine concern for the welfare of others, AND the integrity to check their facts a lot more than Coulter ever could.
Great piece Radley!!
This posting is a little late, but I have just begun to research Coulter since reading Al Franken’s book. It’s become obvious to me that frontal attacks will never be effective against this vociferous, hateful and deceitful woman, since she seems to thrive on the attacks (and attention) of her liberal opponents.
The most effective weapon is obviously to ridicule her, and while I don’t like to see anyone’s name dragged through the mud, letting her know that we are really don’t take her seriously and are only amused by her antics, will I think finally silence her poison pen.
Thanks again!…brilliant writing as well!
Dear Larry:
Hope you read this. Just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading the debate between you and Fyodor. One of your comments bothered me though:
“The Socialist Party in the country, a.k.a. Democrats, is hell-bent on trashing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and making us all property of the State. To me, THAT is THE threat. ”
Help me out here! I’m a very passionate liberal, and I get a little queezy when democrats in this country are being protrayed that way. How are democrats threatening the declaration of indepence or the constitution? Seriously, enlighten me..(and I’m not being in the least bit sarcastic, but very sincere)
(A little backround on me….originally canadian…..recenty naturalized here)
I might be a bit of a neophyte when it comes to american politics, but I see actions of a republican white house and views of many conservatives being so far to the right that they smack of fascism..(and no…I do not use that term lightly) I find that very disturbing.
I don’t know much about the libertarian movement in this country, but I’ve felt pretty much in agreement with what I have heard and read. (I might actually be a ‘closet’ libertarian without knowing it, who knows?)
One other thing I would like to share with you, one observation.
I’ve noticed a real aversion in this country to taxation of any sort. I don’t know if you are aware of this, but taxes in canada are very high in comparison. Do canadians complain about high taxes? Of course they do. They also realize that we wouldn’t have a universal healthcare system or much our of our social safety net without them.
One thing that has occurred to me very strongly, having lived here for almost 2 years now, is that taxation is a form of wealth redistribution….(sure…duh….but I honestly only made the connection a short time ago)
Yes, there is a much greater tax burden in canada, but you don’t see poverty in canada like you see here in the U.S., and from my observations, you don’t see the hoplessness that accompanies that either.
Anyhow Larry, thanks for the rant
I came across this article and it sums my thoughts up on Ann perfectly:
I am no longer offended by Annâ??s opinion on this subject, despite my post above.
Why? Because itâ??s just one more bit off fluff from a pundit whoâ??s sole purpose in life seems to be to writing books so that that like-thinking people can sit around saying â??Yeah, SEE!â? as they read it.
Unable to think for themselves, her readers just know â??Liberals badâ? and so if they have Rush or Ann to provide them with ammunition, then they can sound intelligent.
My specific change of heart came from two quote I saw in the â??From the Publisherâ? writeup on the book. Specifically:
â??Liberals have a preternatural gift for always striking a position on the side of treasonâ?
â??Everyone says liberals love America, too. No, they donâ??t.â?
In other words â??If you donâ??t agree with me you an should shut up and let people who think like me make all the decisions. That is the only way to love the country.â?
Obviously this is the antithesis of what America is about. And since this is the #1 theme of the book, I can therefore pretty much not worry about finding credibility in anything else Ann Coulter or her books have to sayâ?¦and I have better things to do with my life then shoot fish in a barrel.
“The price of democracy is eternal vigilance.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Those who are willing to trade a little liberty for a temporary security deserve neither security nor liberty.” – Benjamin Franklin
“Eye for an eye makes the world blind” – Gandhi
i love you you sexy man
Thanks for affording me the opportunity to read the stuff you guys put here. In my recently-begun study of the Libertarian musings here, some questions spring to my uneducated mind. For instance, how is a libertarian different from an anarchist? There seems to be a fine line between the two, and sometimes it is difficult to make out. This is especially evident in the above post wherein the writer states that a libertarian atty. general would never have enforced the federal weapons laws against the Branch Davidians in Waco. So now we can choose which laws to obey? Taken to its natural conclusion this kind of thinking could be the father of total anarchy…a return to the wild wild west. Is that what we want? or is it just the law of unintended consequences rearing its ugly head?of course, to paraphrase heinlein, smart people just do what they want to do any way…is this the libertarian aim? I am pretty curious about the whole thing. Some of the posts here are pretty intelligent, but some of you need to be re-educated, concentrated, or interned. Ann Coulter may need to be horse-whipped in front of the town hall for her effrontery, but pointing out that 4 major conflicts occurred while Democrats were in office does little to strengthen the writers argument against her. That they were running things at the time of those events is a mark AGAINST them, not one in their favor. Of course WWI and WWII were mostly no-brainers. JOJO the trained seal would have seen that we couldnt stay out of those…cast your mind back to your 9th grade history, remember the sinking of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
But Korea and Viet Nam? Two cases where democratic busybodies and their hand-wringing advisors couldnt mind their own business. The domino theory? Bullshit. But back to anarchy….who wants to barter for everything they ever get? Who wants to hunt their own food every day for the rest of their lives? Marx aside, it is government and society together that gives money its value. Governments collapse, and the paper money it backed becomes worthless…witness the mark, circa 1919…and the kopec from the same era. But alas, dialogue has become diatribe……..Iguess the bottom line is : What are we trying to achieve here? Somebody fill me in quick!
Society of Conservative Students
On Saturday, March 13th – one week from now – members of SCS, along with a few others, will be taking a trip to Decatur, to see Sean Hannity speak. This might provide me with some blogging material… I had this thought some time after reading this exc…
Atari?
You suggested that those on the left who hate the American government aren’t patriots. Maybe not. But, I’d point out that it’s pretty easy to love your country and hate your government. If the US government has done bad things it doesn’t mean you hate America if you hate the things your government has done.
She is among the chickenhawks
Media Personalities
Ann Coulter, conflict avoided: Desert Storm
Bill Bennett, Did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Bill Kristol, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Bill O’Reilly, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Brit Hume, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Charlie Daniels, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Chris Matthews, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
George Will, did not serve conflict avoided: Vietnam
David Limbaugh, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Frank Gaffney, did not serve. conflict avoided: Vietnam
Gary Bauer, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Jerry Falwell, did not serve. conflict avoided: Korea
Joe Scarborough, did not serve. conflict avoided: Desert Storm
Lee Greenwood, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Michael Medved, did not serve
Michael Savage, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
Ollie North, Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, at least he served.
Pat Buchanan, did not serve,
Pat Robertson, he was in Korea in uniform briefly, but his daddy the Congressman got his reassigned to Japan.
Ralph Reed, did not serve,
Rush Limbaugh, did not serve (4-F with a ‘pilonidal cyst)
Sean Hannity, did not serve. conflict avoided, Desert Storm
Ted Nugent, did not serve, conflict avoided: Vietnam
baurwtaoair xsauooim
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22
http://www.ringtones-dir.com/get/ ringtones site free. ringtones site, Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE. From website .
http://www.ringtones-rate.com/mp3/ ringtones site. Free nokia ringtones here, Download ringtones FREE, Best free samsung ringtones. from website .