Is it me, or is whining becoming the official battle cry of the Edwards campaign?
The latest complaint? How they are being mistreated by Ann Coulter.
No Coulter apologist himself, however, Allahpundit at Hot Air argues that Ann is getting a bad rap on this latest controversy, in which she supposedly jokes about jihadis killing John Edwards.
For background, Allah links to an important contextual referent.
As I noted yesterday, Joe Trippi wrote me personally to let me know that the “right wing wingnuts” so fear John Edwards’ vision that they simply must attack him. Or, in the case of Coulter, presumably, fantasize about his death.
Today, Elizabeth Edwards emails me to let me know that the vile right wing noise machine — led by the likes of Coulter and Malkin and other hardcore, decidedly unlady-like shrews — will only stop their opportunistic attempts to distract from the dynamic specifics of John’s vision if you give the Edwards campaign your money.
Which, well, that seems a bit counterintuitive to me, but perhaps I’m just reading it wrong:
Dear Friend,
Last night I had an important talk with Ann Coulter and I want to tell you what happened.
On Monday, Ann announced that instead of using more homophobic slurs to attack John, she will just wish that John had been “killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Where I am from, when someone does something that displeases you, you politely ask them to stop. So when I heard Ann was going to be on “Hardball” last night, I decided to call in and ask her to engage on the issues and stop the personal attacks. I told her these kinds of personal attacks lower our political dialogue at precisely the time when we need to raise it, and set a bad example for our children.
How did she respond? Sadly, perhaps predictably, with more personal attacks.
John’s campaign is about the issuesâ€â€but pundits like Ann Coulter are trying to shout him down. If they will not stop, it is up to us cut through the noise. Help us fight backâ€â€please give what you can today.
Of course, some of you may question the sincerity of such a plea — particularly coming as it does from a woman who smeared a neighbor in the press, and who was (rumor has it) responsible for the Edwards campaign’s decision to bring into its, er, folds, a particularly egregious Vagina Warrior not famous for her civility. Or her choice in hairstyles.
To which I say, how DARE you question Ms Edwards desire not to see her husband attacked.
Too, some of you might be a little skeptical about Ms Edwards stated intentions for calling into “Hardball” to confront Coulter. Which is to say, rather than coming off as a courtesy call to ask Coulter to “engage in the issues,” the gambit may strike the more cynical among you as being somehow carefully planned and gimmicky — as a way to elevate her own profile and the profile of the campaign.
And that’s just preposterous. Elizabeth Edwards cares only about the issues — and those of you who’d argue that she’s angling to be this election cycle’s Teresa Heinz-Kerry or (circa 1992) Hillary Clinton are simply AFRAID TO ENGAGE JOHN ON THE ISSUES.
Which, from what I can gather, are (in no particular order) the “right wing wing nuts'” war on John’s Vision, and the necessity of giving to the campaign in order to prevent the “right wing wing nuts” from distracting from John’s message — a message that has them RUNNING SCARED, forcing them to attack John’s Vision, something that can only be prevented by giving and returning attention to the dynamism of John’s VisionMessage.
Whatever that happens to be.
So shame on those of you who want to make this campaign about personal attacks. This country needs leadership. And nothing says leadership more than having your wife run interference for your campaign in order to butch it up a bit.
God Bless the Bunnies.
****
update: “Hardball” is saying Coulter knew about the call beforehand. So it is not proper to call it an ambush, but still proper, I think, to call it a stunt.
Of course, it would be interesting to know how long before the show Coulter was told, and whether or not she had time to prepare. Clearly the Edwards campaign did.
John Edwards Hair:”There was this one time at a trial when John gently flicked me away from his eyes, and like magic the entire jury fainted from the sheer voluminosity that I possess. Then that stupid bitch tried to fix me and we blew the wholse case. I’ll never let her touch me again.”
Ann says she’s going to discuss the issues, and accuses Edwards of being a shyster lawyer and taking big $$ from poverty groups for speeches, and Elizabeth Edwards says THAT is hate speech as well.
I guess anything is hate speech.
That’s a damned nice bit of editing the Edwards campaign did with the ABC clip, isn’t it? It was nice of Ann to point out that they seem to be “cutting through the noise” be replaying the quote for fundraising purposes.
Ah, if only they still had Mandy and her polite, reasoned discourse on the issues.
The truth is always “hate speech” to the reactionary left.
SILKYPONYPHOBE!!!
The real fear of the Edwards campaign is that America’s response to his candidacy is “Edwards who?”
Whats really terrible about coulter is she is bright enough to have been editor of Law Review. She knows exactly what she’s doing. Like when she reacts, in the clip, by saying that Edwards is asking her to stop writing columns.
But the weirdest part of the clip was when she asked why John wasn’t making the call. Maybe he was doing other work. Maybe he was at home, taking care of the kids. The ones still alive. What a nice pair those two make.
Is anyone else as sincerely horrified that either Silky, the Messiah or Shrillary might actually become president?
This is what the Dems are reduced to? A selection that actually makes Kerry look reasonable?
FDR is surely spinning in his grave.
“Ann says she’s going to discuss the issues, and accuses Edwards of being a shyster lawyer and taking big $$ from poverty groups for speeches, and Elizabeth Edwards says THAT is hate speech as well.”
And don’t forget them illiterate Carolina yokels in the jury!
Nothing says I can stand up to the evilright-wingnoisemachine(TM) like having my wife call a talk show and tell someone to stop attacking me.
She has cancer, you know. Also, their son Wade died.
I think Edwards is probably aware of the calls of catfight! that would ensue were he to confront Ann directly.
OMG Dan I did not know – can you please delete my comment?
I’d call it a brutal KO by Ann over this chick. Ann packs a terrific left, but this other chick, she just wants to dance….
Those darn right-wing wingnuts, always right-winging their wingnutty way and denigrating the completely innocent, manly, and yet sensitive, hair atop John Edward’s head, which is, after all, only trying to save us from ourselves.
MORE CONDITIONER FOR ALL MY PEOPLE!!
OMG Dan I did not know – can you please delete my comment?
Just write Silky a check, happyfeet, and all will be forgiven.
The clear, bright white idea of either of these two in the white house makes me light headed. Perhaps they both had a conversation with the Kerrys along the lines of, “You two just watch; we’ll really show you the definition of arrogance, sanctimonious, shilling egoists!”
And don’t forget them illiterate Carolina yokels in the jury!
What she said was :As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can’t deliver babies. And to charge a, a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don’t talk to me about, about how to use language.”
Ann smeared the jury because they bought the load of manure Edwards presented. Juries that reach shitty decisions deserve to be smeared.
Edwards’ notion of “The Two Americas” has to come from his success as a trial lawyer. There’s one America full of the people who buy his bullshit, and there’s another America full of all the people he dismisses during jury selection.
IMPORTANT ACTION ALERT – Ann Coulter appears in public and the left has a totally predictable hissy fit. The whole left side of memeorandum yesterday afternoon was lit up with hyperventillating reactions to Coulter. They think she’s worse than genital mutilating homosexual stoning Islamofascists. No accounting for taste.
“Comment by shine on 6/27 @ 10:12 am #
But the weirdest part of the clip was when she asked why John wasn’t making the call. Maybe he was doing other work. Maybe he was at home, taking care of the kids. The ones still alive. What a nice pair those two make.”
And maybe he has Absolute Moral Authorityâ„¢ because of his child’s tragic death.
And maybe he’s just a pussy hiding behind his wife’s skirt.
And now from the AP, we have the historical revision:
So, did he not listen to the clip, or is accuracy optional? You make the call.
Amazing, really. We’re supposed to believe that Johnny E. will be one tough S.O.B. when it comes to being CIC and defending this great nation. Yet he can’t handle a little tasteless ribbing from a syndicated columnist and has his wife shake her finger in a campaign- and media-coordinated stunt. I think Lizzy E. should be spending her time calling her neighbor to mow his lawn.
The Democratic lineup this time is so pathetic and scary at the same time, that they manage to make Richardson look good.
“Ann smeared the jury because they bought the load of manure Edwards presented. Juries that reach shitty decisions deserve to be smeared.”
The judge and the appellate court in the case also “bought” the manure. So it seems like the amount illiteracy in the Carolinas just keeps growing.
“And maybe he has Absolute Moral Authorityâ„¢ because of his child’s tragic death.”
I doubt it. But it might appear that way to someone absolutely being impolite about that tragic death. I’ve heard in the south they like folksy politeness. Coulter’s a yankee no?
“And maybe he’s just a pussy hiding behind his wife’s skirt.”
People don’t stand up for themselves, or each other (even the dead ones) in your family? Women don’t? Southern women?
I doubt it. But it might appear that way to someone absolutely being impolite about that tragic death.
And who brought up the child’s death?
It wasn’t Balthazar Getty.
I’ve heard there are places in the world where the man raises children and the women go to work!
I’ve also heard that you don’t look very presidential when you’re arguing on the phone with some bony chick on TV, but, hey, maybe Edwards could do Paul Harvey’s gig for awhile. That would make him a cutting edge hero to the majority of PW readers
We made him do it, Pablo.
“but, hey, maybe Edwards could do Paul Harvey’s gig for awhile. That would make him a cutting edge hero to the majority of PW readers”
Well, at least we’d get the rest of the story for a change. Before he begs us for more coinh.
Timmy, 24 hours after the media setup/dustoff Lizzie was e-mailing, asking for cash! Can you say calculating?
I knew you could…
#
Comment by Pablo on 6/27 @ 12:02 pm #
I doubt it. But it might appear that way to someone absolutely being impolite about that tragic death.
And who brought up the child’s death?
Ann Coulter did in a book where she used Collins-esque humor to claim he was insincere about his child’s death. That, I think, was a high point in American democracy. Anne’s so good and pretty
The stunt was coordinated. Matthews notes that they told Ms Edwards she could call in — Coulter looks like she wasn’t given prior notice — which is what I find so phony and contrived about the whole thing.
Couple that with the revisionism from the AP and the leftwing blogosphere — why aren’t they going after the manipulative editing job by the Edwards campaign? Because they believe truthiness trumps truth, and Coulter needs to be punished, so the method is immaterial so long as the intent is laudable — and you’ll see exactly what we’re up against in this country.
Contrived outrage that no one close enough to the incident is truly outraged by, turned into a lie that is then disseminated as truth by a media hellbent on getting an ideological fellow traveler (Digby’s absurd suggestions about the media being conservative aside) into the White House.
In a time where we have the “fallacy of proof” and admonitions that disinterest or “fairness” are both intellectual constructs meant to futher the evil status quo of conservative hegemony, is it any wonder that “progressives” have decided now is the time they can get by acting as gods — creating worlds by inventing and defending the narratives that define them?
I don’t think the fact that Elizabeth Edwards called in to Hardball to publicly tell that pusillanimous Coulter to top the insults makes her plea any less worthy of respect. Even if the worst suspicions of her right wing detractors were true and Elizabeth Edwards were just performing an act for political gain, it is absolutely clear to me why she would not welcome the kind of distasteful conduct of Ann Coulter, and why she would feel compelled to publicly humiliate her. Ad hominem attacks on Edwards don’t diminish the merit of her plea. Ann Coulter should actually shut up.
IANAL, but I thought judges and appellate courts are not supposed to make decisions as to the truth of matters, but only deal with the procedures of the trial.
Learn something new every day.
“Ann Coulter should actually shut up.”
Which, of course, would just solve everything for you, wouldn’t it pedro?
Darn those pesky free speech laws…
Or she could just ignore it. You know, shrug it off, let it slide, don’t let it get under her skin… the usual stuff we expect of our political class.
Or maybe Laura Bush should start making some phone calls?
[…] got the text. You can add this pathetic manufactured controversy to the big A’s long list of easy […]
Pedro —
She did, however, welcome the presence of someone who continues to call the Duke 3 “rapists,” and who likes to wax poetic about the holy spunk — and the sheepminded Catholics who have been conditioned to reproduce ever-subsequent generations of uteri plunderers.
People in glass vaginas shouldn’t throw stones, pedro.
Sure, I can say calculating. Not to correct you, by the way, but it was 12 hours or less until that e-mail circulated.
Is there something wrong with confronting Coulter and trying to fund raise? You guys are the ones who are against limits on political fund-raising. It takes over $100 million to run for President. Where does a person get it? Well, if you want to raise a lot of money, you can’t hurt yourself by going after Ann.
When little Fred Thompson attacked Michael Moore on his website, did he do it “’cause aw-shucks I’m a truth hound.” He did it for attention. Rudy almost physically jumped Ron Paul at a debate and then sent out a fund-raising e-mail. Was he wrong to do so? Or, is he a stalwart defender of truth?
The funny part is that you moral do-gooders are defending such a messed up person as Ann. Hell, she needs this attention more than the Edwards campaign does. She suckles at your outrage, BJ, while saying that “any guy with Hussein as a middle name shouldn’t say ‘hijack’ and ‘religion’ in the same sentence.” She does exactly the same thing Elizabeth did for even more prurient motives (personal enrichment). Yet, you are here defending her vileness.
Nice work.
Jeff, is it always about Amanda? This is bordering on obsession. You and Darleen should set up an “Amanda Watch” blog so we can always receive notices of her whereabouts.
Yes, Jeff. It is all about the narrative and so on and so forth. Forget that this is campaign season. Also, since when do news organizations do stories on the accuracy of campaign ads?
But your commenters don’t care about all those big words, they want to talk about hair. And ask the tough questions like “why does a REAL MAN need his wife to fight battles for him?!?!” He should be doing the work of REAL MEN like staying at home with his kid and blogging all day, no?
Ann Coulter did in a book where she used Collins-esque humor to claim he was insincere about his child’s death.
Yeah, 3 years ago, by Lizzie’s count. Who brought it up yesterday?
Jeff, is it always about Amanda?
Uh, we’re talking about the people who hired the acid tongued harridan and who are now complaining about civility in political discourse. Do the math, Timmah!
And if you don’t like the topics of discussion, perhaps you should find another blog to troll.
Is there something wrong with confronting Coulter and trying to fund raise?
How does contributing to Silky have anything to do with Coulter? Is he going to lock her up if he gets elected?
When little Fred Thompson attacked Michael Moore on his website, did he do it “’cause aw-shucks I’m a truth hound.†He did it for attention.
Thompson didn’t attack Moore, he responded to Moore’s challenge. Directly, like a man. And don’t talk bad about him. He’s got cancer, you know.
Odd. I remember that happening quite a few times.
“Comment by shine on 6/27 @ 11:51 am #
And maybe he’s just a pussy hiding behind his wife’s skirt.â€Â
People don’t stand up for themselves, or each other (even the dead ones) in your family? Women don’t? Southern women?”
I wouldn’t know.
And Edwards is still a cowardly pussy.
“Comment by timb on 6/27 @ 12:29 pm #
Sure, I can say calculating. Not to correct you, by the way, but it was 12 hours or less until that e-mail circulated.
Is there something wrong with confronting Coulter and trying to fund raise? ”
Well, no, if you consider ambush technique to be legitimate, claiming absolute moral authority because of the death of a child, and hiding your cowardly husband behind your skirt to be ok.
It’s terribly ironic that Elizabeth Edwards called a show named “Hardball” to tell Ann Coulter to quit being such a meany. Hello? Politics is hardball, and if you can’t stand the name-calling and the nastiness, you shouldn’t be in the game.
It’s as if a linebacker were to complain about getting shoved by the opposing team. Call the Waaaaahmbulance! He pushed me!
And Edwards is still a cowardly pussy.\
Says the guy on the internet. Fucking spare me.
Oh, and I forgot that if you consider putting out propaganda ala Leni Riefenstahl to be ok.
I do have to wonder what the response would be if something similar was done by Laura Bush. Would the shrieking be deafening, or would it be pitched so high only dogs could hear it?
The truth is always “hate speech†to the reactionary left.
“the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.”
Hmm. I knew I’d heard something like that before.
“Comment by heet on 6/27 @ 12:48 pm #
And Edwards is still a cowardly pussy.\
Says the guy on the internet. Fucking spare me.”
At least I’m doing the typing, not my wife, you anonymous twatwaffle.
Well, they did a news story on this dustup, and simply asserted as truth that Coulter says she hoped Edwards was killed by jihadis.
That seems to me to be one of the “facts” that such a “news” story would be careful to check, no?
And Timmy. There is nothing wrong with fundraising. It’s the faux outrage that is meant to camouflage it that I find transparently amusing.
“And who brought up the child’s death?”
From the clip it appears that it was Ann that said something impolite. Does being first mean impoliteness is ok? or does it work the other way?
“Matthews notes that they told Ms Edwards she could call in  Coulter looks like she wasn’t given prior notice  which is what I find so phony and contrived about the whole thing.”
Phony. Contrived. Coulter. It’s a moneymaker allright. Clearly teh media is not conservative when they have coulter on for half an hour and during part of that time she gets asked questions about her statements on a presidential candidate WITHOUT NOTICE.
“IANAL, but I thought judges and appellate courts are not supposed to make decisions as to the truth of matters, but only deal with the procedures of the trial.”
Under the federal rules judges can set aside verdicts. This judge set aside part of the verdict. So I suppose he’s only half illiterate.
What are you trying to say here? Seriously, I can’t make sense out of this bit. I have a feeling you intended it to be profound, but, honestly, it reads like a bowl of rancid tapioca pudding.
Did he do so on the basis of procedure? Or because he disagreed with the jury’s conclusion as to the facts?
So because the AP didn’t parse Ann’s dissembling bullshit the way you wanted they were hiding something? Let me ask you this – if someone was busted saying Giuliani was a wife swapper and then replied “next time I’ll just say I wished Rudy was killed in a terrorist plot” would you be so concerned about context?
“And Timmy. There is nothing wrong with fundraising. It’s the faux outrage that is meant to camouflage it that I find transparently amusing.”
I don’t know if Elizabeth’s issue is properly described as “outrage” but she didn’t seem very faux in her wish that Ann not pick on her son’s death. Thats a hard one to argue anyone would be faux about.
And it also doesn’t seem like their fundraising is camouflaged at all. They quite explicitly tie it to their claims about right wing behavior. Quite explicitly tell people to vote with their dollars for them and against Ann.
Rather than asserting that Coulter said X, they could have quoted her statement, and let the reader judge for themselves.
But that’s reporting, not journalism.
“Comment by heet on 6/27 @ 1:09 pm #
So because the AP didn’t parse Ann’s dissembling bullshit the way you wanted they were hiding something?”
Well, no, they lied through their fucking teeth, you see. Like I said, Leni Riefenstahl would be proud.
Why do otherwise sane conservatives waste their time defending Ann Coulter? Regardless of the manifest phony nature of Mrs. Edwards “outrage” (they clearly use this stuff to raise funds), what’s to argue about? Ann’s a bitch who says really stupid outrageous crap that doesn’t advance any debate and is designed solely to cause conservatives to act like the audience at a taping of the Arsenio Hall show. I tired of being her trained seal years ago. Other conservatives should likewise grow the hell up. Ann is out for Ann, i.e. to sell books to retards that eat up her pointless vitriol. She’s the right wing analog to her good friend Bill Maher.
Who defended Coulter?
“Comment by Fred on 6/27 @ 1:24 pm #”
Another, “I’ve been a Republican all my life” moment, brought to you by the Kos Kidz and Democratic Underground.
Ann Coulter is outrageous.
The Coulter Ambush (Updated)…
Elizabeth Edwards Attempts To Ambush Ann Coulter With No Discernable Results
Chris Matthews tried unsuccessfully to catch Ann Coulter off guard with a call from Elizabeth Edwards during a live broadcast of Hardball on 6/26/07.
Ann Coulter De…
If a public figure says, “I don’t think we should invade Iran” and the headline reads “Public Figure: ‘We should invade Iran'”, that’s not ‘parsing,’ but lying.
Hey folks, let’s go to the transcript!
“I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
Now class, is there anything about her prior comments that puts a different spin on the last sentence? Is she perhaps pointing to a double standard whereby Maher can get away with saying anything he wants whereas she can’t?
Is there any truth to that? Or are people too dense to deal with deeply cutting, sarcastic humor? Which of course is not appropriate in a presidential campaign, right? Especially from someone who is (a) not running for any office of any kind (b) not on anyone’s campaign staff (c) not sitting on the board of the RNC (d) a well-known bomb-thrower who can be safely ignored.
It’s not a matter of defending Ann Coulter. It’s a matter of defending the truth about what she both said and meant. The meaning of an utterance residing with the speaker’s intention, which was made clear by the context and all.
Anything else is linguistic tyranny.
QED
So because the AP didn’t parse Ann’s dissembling bullshit the way you wanted they were hiding something?
Heet, honey, Ann wasn’t dissembling. What she said was crystal clear to anyone who can “parse” English and who understands dark, edgy humor. Linky to the transcript.
If the AP had left in those sentences prior to the statement they’ve been quoting, everyone would know exactly what she meant. Which is not what is implied by leaving in only one phrase.
Why do I need to even explain this? You must have gone to graduate school.
Mmmmm. Delicious twatwaffle kerfuffle.
So because the AP didn’t parse Ann’s dissembling bullshit the way you wanted they were hiding something?
No, heet, because they said she said something that she didn’t say, they’re full of shit. Like you.
Heet doesn’t need it explained. It’s just an attempt to put you on the defensive while simultaneously suggesting the Coulter’s meaning was beyond the pale, regardless of its actual content.
It’s of the same stripe as shine’s assertions that taking umbrage to a 3-year-old comment during the final stages of a fundraising campaign by essentially using Matthews’ show to ambush Coulter isn’t particularly opportunistic.
To borrow from my friends on the left, I QUESTION THE TIMING!
And the camouflage comes when, for instance, Edwards doesn’t end her “earnest” appearance on “Hardball” for contributions; instead, she orchestrates this media “happening” and then fires off yet another in a series of emails concerning the “attacks” being launched against her husband’s Vision intended as a last ditch push to reach a fundraising goal.
When what she could do, instead, is simply rent out one of her bathrooms to a family of Haitians, or lease it to an automechanic as a private garage.
This whole thing is, naturally, politics as usual; but that just means I’m not a big fan of politics as usual — particularly when we begin seeing these campaigns that seem to suggest that any election for the candidate will be a twofer. Because does anyone doubt that Lizzy isn’t running much of this behind the scenes?
Why do otherwise sane conservatives waste their time defending Ann Coulter?
It’s not defending Coulter, it’s pointing out the ridiculousness of the Edwards campaign for President of the United Staes.
Edwards does eem to be a bit of a pussy, though. I don’t know about Ann, but Michelle Malkin could rip him to shreds.
Once again we see that Ann Coulter’s statements are completely outrageous and beyond the pale … when sufficiently distorted by the dishonest outraged.
[…] Bryan Preston at Hot Air, who essentially echoes some of the arguments I’ve been making in the comments to my earlier post: Silky is set to be on Hardball tonight. What do you want to bet […]
“It’s of the same stripe as shine’s assertions that taking umbrage to a 3-year-old comment during the final stages of a fundraising campaign by essentially using Matthews’ show to ambush Coulter isn’t particularly opportunistic.”
Oh its quite an opportunity. But the umbrage is not faux, and neither is the fundraising camouflaged.
But then again, when Edwards is a faggot pussy, what else you expect them to do?
“This whole thing is, naturally, politics as usual; but that just means I’m not a big fan of politics as usual  particularly when we begin seeing these campaigns that seem to suggest that any election for the candidate will be a twofer. Because does anyone doubt that Lizzy isn’t running much of this behind the scenes?”
Whats the problem with “twofers” that makes you “not a big fan”? And are “twofers” really “politics as usual”? I certainly hope she’s part of the campaign. They seem to make a great pair. Is this a problem to have her working “behind the scenes?”
Billary.
And the fact that she will be an unelected policy maker, I suspect.
Depends on what’s she doing. Working honestly behind the scenes is one thing; orchestrating dishonest media events in which she plays the southern belle to Coulter’s vicious attack beast is fundamentally dishonest, particularly given who she wanted hired as the Edwards’ online campaign reps.
AP: “PW Commenter Calls Edwards ‘Faggot Pussy'”
Seriously, though, I have to ask: faggot pussy? That’s as distinguished from what other kind?
“But the umbrage is not faux, and neither is the fundraising camouflaged.”
Just because you can’t have your cake and eat it, too, doesn’t mean it won’t work with bullshit.
What are the Constitutionally defined duties and powers of the President’s spouse?
Where in the Constitution does it allow us to impeach the President’s spouse?
“Billary. And the fact that she will be an unelected policy maker, I suspect.”
But thats a problem with that particular twofer. Not the fact that they were twofers. Or it could be. You haven’t really elaborated.
And as for policymaking, you’re going to have chiefs of staff and strategists and advisors and lots of unelected people with a voice in policy in the executive branch. Is this only a problem when their counsel is their spouse? Seems to me people would think its a nice touch. Like a mom and pop operation, a family unit.
“Working honestly behind the scenes is one thing; orchestrating dishonest media events in which she plays the southern belle to Coulter’s vicious attack beast is fundamentally dishonest”
I don’t know whats so dishonest about planning to ask ann coulter to be polite about whats she’s said about a presidential candidates. Ann coulter often gets asked about her rhetoric. I guess she never got asked to be polite. Never got asked by a mother about a joke concerning a son’s death. Dishonest to plan a surprise during a media appearance? Are we that sad?
As to who she wants blogging for her, I’d be surprised if edwards wanted the same voice on the campaign blog as on Marcotte’s blog. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Edwards would take Coulter’s help. So long as she actually, you know, worked for the campaign. How forgiving are southern belles of yankee dumbasses?
“Seriously, though, I have to ask: faggot pussy? That’s as distinguished from what other kind?”
You’ve never met any faggot asses?
“What are the Constitutionally defined duties and powers of the President’s spouse?”
Nowhere. Is this a problem? It seems like they don’t have any.
The dishonesty, I believe, lies in the fact that she said during the phone call that she was calling “as a mother”, an attempt at portraying herself as an unassailable sympathy figure merely pleading for “politeness” when in fact it was an MSNBC/Edwards Campaign ’08 coordinated and calculated stunt. Maybe Ann can call Johnny E. tonight on Hardball and tell him his home indoor basketball court sucks, after which Johnny can gripe, as a concerned father, about the politics of hate
And as for policymaking, you’re going to have chiefs of staff and strategists and advisors and lots of unelected people with a voice in policy in the executive branch. Is this only a problem when their counsel is their spouse? Seems to me people would think its a nice touch. Like a mom and pop operation, a family unit
All of whom can be fired. So, yes, this is only a problem when their counsel is their spouse.
“All of whom can be fired. So, yes, this is only a problem when their counsel is their spouse.”
Fired by whom? congress? The president? The president can just as well listen to an unhired counsel. One would think it inherent to article II that the president be free to get advice.
Shine, the faked missing-the-point routine got old a week ago. Time for you to drop it.
Ann is no dummy, she knew precisely what she was saying. Just as she quite carefully called Edwards a faggot in the most roundabout way possible. Again I ask you space cadets, what if someone made a similar remark about a Republican Pres hopeful? Very doubtful. We all know tribalism rules here.
whoops, add a sentence above before “Very doubtful”. You get the gist.
>We all know tribalism rules here.
Well, it does take a village.
You can call McCain names and stuff, Heet. Knock yourself out. Save some of that for Ron Paul though. You can make fun of Romney’s hair and reading material, but not his religion. In fact, all these candidates are yours, save Fred. Attempt no landing there.
“Did he do so on the basis of procedure? Or because he disagreed with the jury’s conclusion as to the facts?”
Wikipedia described it as because of the facts. You can look up more sources if you want.
“Which, of course, would just solve everything for you, wouldn’t it pedro? Darn those pesky free speech laws…”
If you have difficulty understanding the difference between “X should shut up” and “the State should not allow X to express X’s views”, then it is no wonder that you should conclude that “everything” would be solved for me, should Ann Coulter just shut up. It’s pathetic, really. Incidentally, I think you should learn to reason. Now, that doesn’t mean that I advocate that the State compel you to learn to reason, by the way.
Jeff: I am not familiar with the particulars of the two cases you bring up, but if Elizabeth Edwards has condoned shameful behavior by people associated to her, then she is guilty of doing precisely that, and one can hardly hold her responsible for the actions of said people. Now, condoning shameful behavior by people associated to you can be a serious lapse in judgment and it is entirely fair to criticize someone for engaging in serious lapses of judgment, of course. But:
(1) the fact that individual X has on occasion made serious mistakes does not by itself disqualify X from pointing out someone else’s failings; and
(2) there is no moral equivalence between Elizabeth Edwards’ actions or lack thereof and Ann Coulter’s behavior.
Finally, forget Elizabeth Edwards, if you so despise her, personally. I, a complete stranger to you, argue that Ann Coulter is engaging in despicable, immoral behavior. To defend Ann Coulter by condemning Edwards is quite ridiculous.
Pedro,
“Comment by dicentra on 6/27 @ 1:50 pm #
Hey folks, let’s go to the transcript!
“I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson. If I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.â€Â
Now class, is there anything about her prior comments that puts a different spin on the last sentence? Is she perhaps pointing to a double standard whereby Maher can get away with saying anything he wants whereas she can’t?
Is there any truth to that? Or are people too dense to deal with deeply cutting, sarcastic humor? Which of course is not appropriate in a presidential campaign, right? Especially from someone who is (a) not running for any office of any kind (b) not on anyone’s campaign staff (c) not sitting on the board of the RNC (d) a well-known bomb-thrower who can be safely ignored.
It’s not a matter of defending Ann Coulter. It’s a matter of defending the truth about what she both said and meant. The meaning of an utterance residing with the speaker’s intention, which was made clear by the context and all.
Anything else is linguistic tyranny.”
Thank you, Dicentra.
And how do some of your commenters, Jeff, have such insight into the soul of the Edwardses. They pronounce on their faux sentiment about the death of their son as if they knew for a fact what it is that the Edwardses feel? It is pathetic, really. It is psychologizing of the worst kind. Anybody with an ounce of moral intuition can imagine what it must be like to be publicly mocked by bringing up the death of one’s son.
The call that Elizabeth Edwards made–to debate the issues without personal attacks–is quite unobjectionable. If you regard it as an issue, for example, that the Edwardses campaign did not fire Amanda Marcotte on the spot after it was revealed that she held distasteful views, then that is an issue I find relevant and worthy of discussion, and kudos to you for discussing it. But to engage in personal insult by viper-like thinly veiled insinuations is frankly contemptible, and that is what Coulter does on a consistent basis.
GuinsPen:
I don’t think it that passage you quote is the height of linguistic sophistication. If for example, I said: “If I were to say that you are an simpleton, then that would be mean; but I’m not so mean, so I won’t say it”, you probably wouldn’t interpret that statement in a good light. Notwithstanding the multiplicity of meanings that your favorite disparaging Ann Coulter utterance may indeed have, she is not witty in a William Buckley sort-of-way; she chooses her phraseology in a manner only consistent with the intention to insult her opponents, whether they the widows of 9/11, John Edwards, etc. To object to her form of argument is not to dismiss every single point that a nuanced reading of her words reveals; it is to condemn her pusillanimous insults.
Elizabeth Edwards, circa 2004:
Their reactions prompted Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, to say that Lynne Cheney “overreacted to this and treated it as if it’s shameful to have this discussion. I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter’s sexual preferences.”
Can’t have it either way, can we?
In case explaining again may actually help matters: People are not defending Ann Coulter; they are rejecting the AP’s twisting of her words. People are not saying her being a bitch is completely defensible and that Ms Edwards has no right to defend her husband; they are saying that it looks like a sympathy plea, and that disgusts them.
Geez, people. If the wingnuts “must” learn how to look outside their echo chambers and realize “the truth,” you can at least do us the service of recognizing that your tribesmen aren’t perfect, either.
I don’t think it [sic] that passage you quote is the height of linguistic sophistication.
No, “pedro,” it isn’t, nor was it meant to be. That was the point. Heet accused us of getting our panties in a wad because the AP didn’t “parse” Ann’s statement the way we wanted. I pointed out that there’s no need to “parse” what she said because the meaning was plain.
she chooses her phraseology in a manner only consistent with the intention to insult her opponents,
YES, ANN COULTER MEANT TO INSULT JOHN EDWARDS!!!!
By any means possible. She thinks he’s a joke, as do many of us on the starboard side of the ‘sphere. We get to say that. And you get to be all indignant about it.
We’re not saying that Ann wasn’t insulting Edwards; we’re saying that the AP did not present her statements in such a way as to provide enough context to properly judge their merit. Her main target was the media double standard that attaches to conservative bomb-throwers (Coulter) as opposed to lefties (Maher). Edwards was, shall we say, collateral damage.
Big deal. Get over it.
Pellegrini: You ask for recognition that my tribesmen aren’t perfect? I am glad to oblige. In fact, people in my tribe can be as nasty and vicious as people on my opponents’ tribes.
Pelligri, sir. I’m a spear-carrier (chucker?), not sparkling water or a vacation spot.
Then why the complete refusal to engage in anything other than calling Ann Coulter names and wishing she’d shut up? dicentra is making useful points here.
Oh, the outrage, the unfairness of it all: the AP did not make the incident about Ann Coulter’s larger point that Bill Maher can get away with the distasteful b.s. she constantly sputters. The horror!
Pellegri: Sorry for butchering your name. I think it is quite unfair for you to suggest that I have not engaged in anything else besides condemning Ann Coulter. I have expressed, for example, that I think it is fair game for Jeff to consider the Edwardses failure to disassociate themselves from two of their campaign employees an issue worthy of discussion. I have even conceded that there are points that Ann Coulter makes and deserve to be discussed, that remain buried in her incendiary rhetoric, because people choose, rather unsurprisingly, to focus on what is incendiary. That is hardly failure to look for the middle ground.
And by the way, what the heck is wrong with my name? Why the quotation marks, I wonder…
I call that an admission.
In saner times no one was a big fan of nepotism, except for certain officeholders’ relatives.
Jeffersonian: Her larger point may or may not be valid, and I am frankly not in a position to judge. She claims that liberals can get away with vicious attacks and conservatives cannot, but from my perspective, she keeps getting invited to talk shows with assiduity. My point is not that she is wrong on that account. My points are that she is vicious, that her viciousness is deserving of scrutiny and condemnation, that it is perfectly legitimate for Elizabeth Edwards to publicly confront her, and that it defies basic human decency to suggest that the only outrage experienced by the Edwardses is feigned, when Ann Coulter has been as nasty as she has been.
My points are that she is vicious, that her viciousness is deserving of scrutiny and condemnation, that it is perfectly legitimate for Elizabeth Edwards to publicly confront her, and that it defies basic human decency to suggest that the only outrage experienced by the Edwardses is feigned, when Ann Coulter has been as nasty as she has been.
Do you think it’s a legitimate springboard for a fundraising plea? Do you think it was legitimate for them to set up a web portal to send Liz good wishes on her recurrance and then to spam those well wishers with campaign contribution pleas?
They’re cynical and excessively manipulative. That’s the point.
Which, btw, is also an apt description of Silky’s legal career.
“Why the quotation marks, I wonder…”
It’s the cut of your jib, “Pedro.”
“Her larger point may or may not be valid, and I am frankly not in a position to judge.”
Why not? You don’t seem to have a problem judging anything else she says.
I read that as “the Edwardess”. Hee hee.
Pedro, you’ve fallen for it and it’s the point several of us have been making. Yes, it is perfectly valid to say that Ms. Coulter is “deserving of scrutiny and condemnation”, however, it does not, in fact, “(defy) basic human decency” to scrutinize and even condemn Lizzy when it has been shown that the whole affair was a collaborative stunt by MSNBC and the Edwards campaign, which has repeated the dishonest AP misquotes in order to generate more campaign bucks. Hence, it is also perfectly legitimate to confront Lizzy, which of course, no one dare do because it…how did you say it again?…defies human decency because after all, she was only calling as a mother. Horseshit. Again, this phony unassailable victim act that they’re trotting out (and that you’re falling for) is just as tasteless as anything Evil Ann can say or write.
If I were a conservative, I would be wary on any occasion that Ann Coulter gets a platform that is watched by a general audience. There is ample evidence that the Progressive and liberal side of issues is making a strong comeback among voters.
There are 3 likely reasons:
1. the middle class, and especially people in their 30’s find themselves running on a treadmill. If 30 year old men are the first generation of males to earn less than their fathers (adjusted for inflation) as seems to be the case, conservatives and Republicans will lose a major advantage electorally.
2. President Bush has a proven record of failure, corruption, and an amazingly unpopular administration of cartoon-like bad guys (whether you guys love them or not, the overwhelming majority of average Americans thinks Cheney and Gonzales are rodeo clowns). The President’s incompetence in every area except appointing judges speaks for itself.
Those things are obvious, but reason 3 probably is invisible to you guys because you spend day after angry day listening to yourselves preach to a shrinking and angry choir.
3. People outside of your little bubble hate people like Ann Coulter. She strikes normal Americans as being so nasty, so hate-filled, and such exhibitionist, that she is like a very old Paris Hilton (Ann looks at least 50, which is way too old in America for a woman to show us her private parts), that she seems like a desperate porn star signing autographs at an “adult” entertainment convention.
It is the normal Americans who see her and think, My goodness, who would want to be on her side?
The fact that YOU guys love her, embrace her, laugh at her “jokes” has a spill-over effect. Honestly, if you were not True Conformist Believers, you would see that Scooby Doo reruns are funnier, even that laugh free Fox News Daily Show is funnier, and most television people expect the laugh track to strike that show.
You speak only to yourselves, listen only to yourselves, you have lost touch with America
I wish Coulter was on television every night. She is the best recruiter we Democrats have.
There is ample evidence that the Progressive and liberal side of issues is making a strong comeback among voters.
What evidence is that, tom?
“The fact that YOU guys love her, embrace her, laugh at her “jokes†has a spill-over effect. Honestly, if you were not True Conformist Believers, you would see that Scooby Doo reruns are funnier, even that laugh free Fox News Daily Show is funnier, and most television people expect the laugh track to strike that show.”
The fact that you are too lazy to read and comprehend a thread and just come on blowing cliched boiler plate out your ass gives us hope that the progressives will boldly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Nobody here is a Coulter fan, dumbass. That isn’t what this is about at all, keep up the good work, though.
Of course, the best recruiters conservatives have are jihadist terrorists. The ones who explicitly dig it when Democrats win elections.
Nice flailing about, tomj. Cut and paste that trite screed for the next post you have that pertains to absolutely nothing in the original discussion.
That was hysterical.
And now I’m going for a walk!
I love Ann Coulter. I have since the 90s. She’s an absolute fire-brand, mind you, and dangerous to get too close to lest you catch fire.
But I think my favorite thing about Ann is that she refuses to play into the hypocritical, passive-aggressive games that have become the norm on the left.
Elizabeth Edwards is a liar. She deliberately misreported what someone else said for her own gain, and no illness and no loss of a loved one changes that, and it is perfectly fair to point that out.
And do you know WHY it is fair to point it out? Because if you don’t, the liars win.
But then, that does explain the rather strident objections to it being pointed out, among the left’s base, as well as the “90%-ers” in the MSM. They just LOVE to use the moral authority trick, the false call for civility trick, and of course the lie about what someone else said trick.
Here’s a free tip to the left: Be the change you want to see in the world.
Megadittos Tomj. You said it much better than I would have. The best part is that none of these posters here believe a word of it. To most people in this country Ann C is the ugly face of what Conservativism has become. These guys are more delusional than Bush is. BTW, LionDude, the best recruiter the terrorists have is living in the White House.
The fact that you are too lazy to read and comprehend a thread…
I don’t think it’s laziness, B Moe. That boy is just stupid.
BTW, LionDude, the best recruiter the terrorists have is living in the White House.
And did you hear what Coulter said about him? No? I wonder why…
B Moe has the kind of thoughtful robot-like response that always happens. This thread, including Protein’s hilarious antics at the expense of John Edward’s hair, is full of praise for Coulter.
LionDude thinks attacks on the United States favor conservatives. There are consequences to such an assertion that I would not expect him to recognize, but let me say in defense of conservatives that conservatism is not dependent upon fear and conformist thinking for its survival. There are peace time arguments to be made in favor of you guys. You don’t need America to be destroyed in order for you to be popular. I refer you to Burke and Buckley and so many other joyous champions of individualism. Come out of your cave for God’s sake.
Pablo, I am not a professionally angry person, so I don’t know what you read. There have been surveys taken of voters that find them increasingly open to liberal ideas and values. And I think if things keep up, who knows, maybe the Democratic party (oops, sorry conformists, thats demo crat party) might even win either the Senate or House. I know you don’t get much news in the bubble, but it COULD happen.
I really think you have all forgotten to think, because you have two conversations:
You announce who you worship and then say God Bless him
or you announce who you hate and mock him or her.
Conservatism was once peopled with wonderful defenders of difference and individualism. I hate so-called “multi-culturism” more than any of you, because to me everyone should not be so predictable that reading any post is like reading the one before and after.
[…] came the orchestrated “call for civility.” Then came tonight’s follow-up performance, in which a fawning Chris Matthews gave John […]
I hate so-called “multi-culturism†more than any of you, because to me everyone should not be so predictable that reading any post is like reading the one before and after.
so is Coulter a hornet or a bee? just wondering.
You nailed it Pablo, epic stupidity.
Personally, I find Coulter’s mention of the Edwards’ dead son repugnant. But I also find it rather unseemly that Edwards has tended to use it as a trope throughout his political career. It is not mine to say he is using his son as a prop. In fact, I rather doubt it. But I can see what Coulter might think so, and while I find it distasteful the way she goes about highlighting it, I don’t think it rises to the level of “hate speech,” as Edwards notes tonight.
And yes, I believe that Ms Edwards, along with Matthews, orchestrated this media event as part of their fundraising push. For reasons I believe I (and others) have expressed — from the timing, to the ambush style, to tonight’s convenient follow-up charade, to the very campaign strategy they’ve been using for fundraising.
Maybee, above, notes some of Ms Edwards’ own impolitic remarks. And then there’s the hatchet job she did on her neighbor. Couple this with her affinity for Kos and Huffington Post, and her push to hire Marcotte, and one is quite within one’s rights to express skepticism about Ms Edwards’ feint toward “civility.”
Now, it could be that she is so blinded by her own ideology that she sees the bile scratched out by Marcotte, Kos, Tbogg, Hamsher and their like as normative — the “plain truth” told plainly, and therefore not “incendiary” in the same way she sees Coulter’s remarks.
But if that’s the case, then she is even less suited to be anywhere near power than should would be if this were nothing but the kind of manipulated campaign I believe it to be.
So the psychologizing, as you call it, that I engage in here to conclude that Liz is a shameless opportunist, is based on a number of clues and precedents from both the Edwards clan and Mr Matthews.
tomjfrombfflo:
Dextrose Hambly jackspoon semblance workable fun has elegant you indigo tremble fan.
Jackanapes rather quick ample Charles, love jumble Naples. :)
Ick frog dangerous Orlando spoiler Kimble baby.
Draleck ecky womble! :)
Pablo, I am not a professionally angry person, so I don’t know what you read.
I didn’t say you were, tom. I asked you what that evidence was you were talking about. So, I don’t know what you read.
There have been surveys taken of voters that find them increasingly open to liberal ideas and values.
I saw something along those line in a survey of young people, which is usually par for that demographic. But it also said they think we’re going to prevail in Iraq.
You announce who you worship and then say God Bless him
or you announce who you hate and mock him or her.
Who, other than you, said anything about hate? Or worship? I think you’re projecting, tom.
Pablo, he’s not talking to us; he’s talking to his very accurate conservatological model compiled from data points collected on Ann Coulter, televangelists, and maybe a teeny smattering from Jeff’s actual posts.
This sort of “forecasting” is guaranteed accurate by the IPCC! So really, we have no business arguing with him. Fallacy of proof.
My question “…what other kind?” Implies I’m asking about the adjective, not the noun.
Maybe I am falling for it, as LionDude suggests, but I personally find it very hard to take the cynical position that Pablo and others take. It is very easy for me to believe that when Fred Thompson or John McCain score points by berating Michael Moore, they are not doing so just by calculation, but that they actually believe what they are saying about the guy. Much in the same way, when Elizabeth Edwards–whatever her failings as a human being may be (and my intuition does tell me quite clearly that she is a much better person than Ann Coulter, but that, admittedly, is not a high bar)–confronts Ann Coulter for her vicious attacks, I find it very easy to believe that she is doing so in a heartfelt manner, even as though she consciously expects to score political points from it. Ann Coulter herself, obviously, has very heartfelt opinions about the generality of liberals that she expresses without second-thought nor shame, notwithstanding that her engaging in incendiary rhetoric raises her public profile and benefits the sales of her books.
If I am supposed to be cynical about Elizabeth Edwards’s real feelings about her son’s death being brought up by vicious people like Ann Coulter, and I am to interpret her outrage as mere political calculation, then why should I not feel exactly the same way about just about people like Ann Coulter? Me, I prefer not to question the authenticity of people’s expressed feelings as a matter of principle, even when the public expression of those feelings brings them political benefit.
I didn’t get the “cut of your jib” reference, guinsPen. Can you please be more direct?
Btw, Jeff: thanks for engaging your readership on the comments threads. It is refreshing to see that.
BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY ! And, I QUESTION THE TIMING !
“My question “…what other kind?†Implies I’m asking about the adjective, not the noun.”
The problem is that “faggot” and “pussy” are both nouns. There are also straight pussies. Ever met one of those?
pedro, I think we’ve done you a disservice by confusing the behavior of the Edwards and the Edwardsess in response to your comments.
I imagine that Ms Edwards comments could very well be heartfelt (to give her the benefit of the doubt), but if so, they’re being manipulated by far more cynical beings than she. What seems most likely in my mind based on the evidence that we have is that she’s honestly defending her husband and her family, but she’s been shepherded into a position where she can do so by the same people who know (for all the reasons that you’ve listed) that Ann Coulter makes a great foil for her, and how sympathetic she’ll look when pitted against Coulter’s misbehavior.
Essentially, her plight is being used as grist for the political mill that is her husband. That’s empty, craven, etc., etc.. Not the fact she may still be grieving, has cancer, and the like–but if she’s completely uninvolved in this scheme (beyond writing saccharine letters for him, on occasion, and saying embarrassing things to news reporters about her neighbors), she’s also sort of clueless about her place in it, which strikes some people as fishy.
I hope that made sense.
Ann Coulter is a commentator with an agenda. Her realm is that of political entertainment, as is that of Rush, Savage, Franken, Maher. Every one of them employs hyperbole to criticize what they find absurd about the “other side”. Coulter is simply more focused, more direct, and less discreet about it than others. Well, Maher and Franken are indiscreet, but they can’t help that. She only bothers the left so much because so many of the points she makes are true.
Here’s the deal. I’m not defending Coulter, but in her current profession she is only viable as long as she has an audience. She seems to know what to do to get and keep an audience, in spite of all the whiners who moan and groan about her distasteful attacks.
She fired a shot at Bill Maher by pointing out the relative absurdity of the massive negative reaction to her indirect “faggot” reference compared to Maher’s direct wish that Cheney had been assassinated. That the shot she fired included an added sideswipe at Edwards was just gravy. But for the AP to mischaracterize her comments was wrong. It’s nothing new, they do it all the time, but it’s still wrong.
Yes. Precisely.
“…when Fred Thompson or John McCain score points by berating Michael Moore, they are not doing so just by calculation, but that they actually believe what they are saying about the guy.”
What would you think if they took a Moore quote completely out of context, framed it to mean something it didn’t at all, and the MSM picked up on it, broadcast it it completely uncritically, then helped Rudy and Fred raise campaign funds with it? Would you still believe that they were sincere?
It is very easy for me to believe that when Fred Thompson or John McCain score points by berating Michael Moore, they are not doing so just by calculation, but that they actually believe what they are saying about the guy.
Thing is, Pedro, none of those guys then roll out anything like this.
Nor have either of those guys taken the “that big meanie is picking on me” tack. Nor have either of those guys hired the likes of Amanda Marcotte for a campaign communications position and then complained about the quality of the discourse. And clearly “right-wing wing-nut” is not what you would call highbrow political discourse.
And I’m cynical? Heh.
I wonder what the left would do if some conservative were to cut together lines from multiple speeches from, say, Edwards or Hillary, and made it sound like they were saying something morally repugnant?
[…] bomb thrower Ann Coulter in an uncomfortable position: on the defensive. Even though your wife called into the show simply to get free media to lift up your fundraising totals before the next FEC reporting deadline […]
Confuse it for a Maureen Dowd column?
Most of the pussies I’ve met have been either spayed or neutered.
Unbelievable. I actually watched the whole Coulter interview with Good Morning America. In it she was talking about her comment about Edwards being a called a fag….she said that she made a mistake and should have followed the lead of Bill Mahre, who wished that the Taliban had killed Cheney in Afghanistan. She said that since that offended no one she would have been better off wishing that Edwards were killed by terrorists rather than the Fag reference. This is even more benign on Brietbart TV than my explanation…anyone who comments on this entire incident has to watch that clip to have any validity at all in this matter.
dear Steve Campbell
Coulter’s assertion that Maher said he wished Cheney had been killed by the Taliban in Afghanistan is a lie. She is a liar.
Here from the transcript is what Maher did say, with Republican Joe Scarborough free to take issue with his opinion. I pulled the transcript from
NewsBusters, so this is right wing approved transcription
Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
Frank: I think he did.
Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
Frank: You don’t believe that?
Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
Maher: But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow. (applause)
Scarborough: If someone on this panel said that they wished that Dick Cheney had been blown up, and you didn’t say…
Frank: I think he did.
Scarborough: Okay. Did you say…
Maher: No, no. I quoted that.
Frank: You don’t believe that?
Maher: I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.
Note Steve that “If he did die” is not the same as Coulter “wishing” that Edwards would die in a “terrorist attack”.
As a Catholic, I never listen to Bill Maher, because he thinks I am a superstitious jerk and I find he is not as smart as he thinks he is. But Coulter’s whole vision of life is different than Maher’s There is no equivalence, NONE, between what he said and the lie Coulter invented to make some of her vicious trademark “humor” that sends really sick powerless people into stitches.
Note also that Maher makes the mistake of saying that it is a fact that if one event happened another would follow. That is never a fact, except in limited cases. For example a man on third, home team down one run, two outs and batter strikes out ending the game with a loss. If that batter had hit a homerun, it is then a FACT that the home tim wins. Most “If A had not happened, then B would have†formulations we use, however, are similar to this and examples of faulty logic.
Yes, Coulter was informed of the Edwards phone call just before taking her seat before cameras. I can hardly stand to watch her, but honestly–the Democrats are such hypocrites, so eager to label any irony or dissent from their view as Hate Speech. It is just creepy.
Where’s all their outrage about “hateful personal attacks” in response to the increasingly hate filled,indecent speech from the Democrat side. Oh, whatever could I mean? Well, like how callous and malign to wish Tony Snow would die of cancer, to blog and blather that he deserves long and painful death for serving the Bush White House? Lots of evil directed against Bush, at Cheney, at Rice, nobody on the left cares at all. Why does Bill Maher get a hatepass for wishing Cheney would die of a blood clot? The media gets a pass doesn’t even express concern, a get well soon, when the First Lady had skin cancer. Oh, and leftist “comics” talk about her being a doormat, fantasize sexually assaulting her. Why isn’t there a Little Eddie cartoon, relentlessly insulting and obscene towards Edwards and all his kin, like the “Lil Bush” series? Oh, yeah well, the left gets a hatepass. It’s okay to hate Republicans and Christians–especially Catholics.
Who else gets a hatepass–well, a film maker gets a special award for a film that has “President Bush” assassinated on camera. Then Chapelle who is often re-broadcast on Comedy Network gets a hatepass for whatever he says, like, referring to Secretary Rice as “Cunnilingus Rice.” Oh, and of course, Jon Stewart gets a hatepass for accusing Cheney of “[sex act]@#@!ing off a horse” and features a special report that implies “[sex act] on Pope Benedict XVI” so, anti-Catholic bigots and left-liberals all get issued a special hatepass with their Party registration.
I can’t watch Ann Coulter, like I said–but actually I am glad we’ve got her in the arsenal of freedom.
“As I noted yesterday, Joe Trippi wrote me personally to let me know that the “right wing wingnuts†so fear John Edwards’ vision that they simply must attack him.”
That’s a very funny line. That a shallow almost unbearably dumb silky pony breck girl.
“I feel pretty, oh so pretty…”
-Note Steve that “If he did die†is not the same as Coulter “wishing†that Edwards would die in a “terrorist attackâ€Â.-
Coulter did not say she wished Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. She used a ludicrous hypothetical to make a point. That point being that Maher was not criticized for saying more people would live if Cheney were dead, a nasty comment the left would jump upon if said by Coulter or any other conservative.
Tom from Buffalo is either slow or willfully obtuse.
hi visit my site about incest! incest porn and other porn! [url=http://www.guamcc.edu/online/enrol/internal/index1.html]incest porn[/url]
incest porn [url=http://www.guamcc.edu/online/enrol/internal/site_map.html]all aboutincest porn[/url]
nice incest porn Thanks who visit!
btprkixvd pwjlt qxygt rschjkl gfur irhyok dfszgoq