Sunday, June 11, 2006

Who Does Coulter Speak For?


"These broads (Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza) are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

-- Ann Coulter, in her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism

"I must ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Does Ann Coulter speak for you when she suggests poisoning not Supreme Court Justices or slanders the 9/11 … widows? If not, speak now. Your silence allows her to be your spokesman."

-- Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL), on the House floor, June 8

"I agree with her point. But I think it's repugnant and repulsive and gutless to -- and cheap and cheesy to call these women all these names. I mean, it's just -- whether it's right or not, I mean, you just -- that's just something -- you know, you just don't go there."

-- Conservative-friendly radio host Don Imus, June 9

"Far worse than insensitive. ... I have spoken with many, many grieving family members, and the hurt is real. The pain is real."

-- Gov. George Pataki (R-NY), June 7

***

The debate, of course, is not about free speech. Coulter has a right to her opinion. Crown Forum has a right to publish it. Let me clear that I would never support a boycott of Coulter's book, as suggested by two Democratic state assemblywomen last week in New Jersey -- home state to the four 9/11 widows in question.

Some conservatives also say the reaction to Ann Coulter's diatribes is proof that liberals lack a collective sense of humor. I guess it all depends on what you consider "humor." (Not helping: when mainstream publications advance this conservative myth.) Joking about 9/11 widows or killing a Supreme Court justice just doesn't make most Americans laugh -- liberal or otherwise.

Amazingly, I found myself agreeing with something conservative pundit Bill O'Reilly wrote June 8 for Foxnews.com: "The question then becomes, why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books, but she is already well off and famous."

***
Where is the disgust among mainstream Republicans? Certainly there has to be a fear of a backlash -- not from the media, or even from Democrats, but from voters who are tired of "bomb-throwing" in partisan politics. As O'Reilly wrote: "Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive." With an election just five months away, it's not far-fetched to think that Coulter's mean-spirited words could be used against Republicans in states affected directly by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland and Virginia.

The same conservative pundits and politicians who were quick to denounce Michael Moore and his docu-ganda, "Farenheit 9/11," are generally keeping quiet now.

It reminds me of July, 2004, when some conservatives were up in arms over dirty jokes that comedian Whoopi Goldberg told at a John Kerry fund-raiser, but generally remained silent a week later when comedian Dennis Miller, introducing President Bush at a Wisconsin rally, implied John Kerry and John Edwards had a gay relationship.

Then, as now, the debate was not about freedom of speech. It's about the double-standard among conservative pundits and politicians.

39 Comments:

Blogger thewaronterrible said...

The Republicans were successful in stereotyping most Democrats in the 2004 as radical left-wing extremists Michael Moore types.
By successful, I mean the Republicans received the FULL COOPERATION of the campaign from the main stream media. You found the comparison often made in MSM, even though coyly attributed to Republicans.
The big question, in the 2006 mid-term campaigns, would the MSM react in a similar way as willing scribes for the Democrats, should the Dems attempt to lump Republicans in the Coulter right-wing extremist camp?
I would bet not.
Second, Michael Moore for the most part has used facts to present an honest, substainable criticism of the Bush Administration. That is why the Right acted to ridicule and discredit him. He spoke truths.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, uses fact-starved opinions to make hurtful, venomous condemnations of people.
Moore may poke fun of his political enemies, such as presenting a film of Wolfowitz combing his hair prior to an interview. But he has never wished death upon them or make insensitive, personal attacks.
Would the MSM allow the Democrats a justifiable sidelining of Coulter, like they permitted the Republicans an unjustifiable shunting of Moore?

10:00 AM  
Anonymous NYCGirl said...

Ann Coulter is a comedian? I just don't buy that.

2:38 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

according to Time, she is ...


Check out the bottom half of this JABBS post on the subject, from last May.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous NYCGirl said...

Then how come she isn't playing clubs or doing HBO specials?
Dennis Miller is. Or headlining Hollywood Squares (if it's still on)? Or making comedy albums? Maybe she should be doing a tour to help out GOP candidates if she's a comedian.

2:41 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

don't you understand
(donning my sarcasm hat)

Part of the conservative mythology is that liberals don't have a sense of humor, and thus don't appreciate Coulter for what she is.

And since Time magazine did a huge article on her last year, and repeated this conservative myth, it must be true, right?

Essentially, when Coulter suggested poisoning a Supreme Court justice, then ended the sentence with "just kidding," we were supposed to laugh. Just like that other comedian, G.W. Bush, when he joked about not being able to find WMD (at the 2004 WH correspondents dinner). We should have laughed along with all those "liberal" media types in the audience that day.

Al Franken is a hatemonger. Stephen Colbert went over the line. But Coulter? She's hilarious. Time magazine said so -- so it must be true, right?

2:41 PM  
Anonymous NYCGirl said...

My point is that she cannot be compared with Whoopi Goldberg —
even though the response to Whoopi's routine was overblown and frankly wrong. My biggest problem with Whoopi's routine was that it was obvious.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous Jade Fox said...

Last time I checked.....
if you are actually funny, you don't have to tell your audience that you are ("just kidding").

(yes, I know you were being sarcastic)

Conservatives don't understand that when we say "mean" things about their leaders, it is because those leaders have done atrocious or simply stupid things. What have the 9/11 widows done that was atrocious or stupid? Coulter speculates that their husbands might have been planning on divorcing them. Wha???? Never mind remarks I could make about Coulter never having been in the position to be left by a husband, how in the world is her speculation about the Jersey Girls' marriages remotely relevant, forget funny?

Liberals take actual situations and behavior, and make humor. It's based in reality. That's why it's funny. Coulter's vicious fantasies are funny only to those who share them.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous baldguy said...

Of course there's a double standard.
Normally when someone calls for the deaths of Americans, necrocons call them a terrorist and drop bombs on them. But if when a Conservative pundit that does it, they give them million dollar book deals and put them on the teevee.

2:42 PM  
Anonymous gratuitous said...

A couple of other minor differences
When Michael Moore says something about someone, like say that Charlton Heston and the NRA were inappropriately celebratory in the wake of a couple of gun-related massacres, he provided footage and quotes from the parties involved. The viewer might disagree with Moore's conclusion, but the video footage was there for people to see for themselves. Moore also follows up as often as possible with trying to talk to the persons involved. But Heston just walked away from him, and Dick Clark couldn't jump in his limo fast enough. I don't see any footage of Coulter talking face to face with Cindy Sheehan or the women widowed by 9/11.

The other minor difference is that when Moore says something that the major media object to (depending on how it's trimmed and caricatured to fit their straw man argument), every Democrat on every show is buttonholed, presented with the Michael Moore straw man, and pressed to deny or disparage whatever words the talking chucklehead puts into Moore's mouth.

Nobody on the GOP side, as far as I can tell, is presented with Ann Coulter's actual verbiage and asked to comment on it. The tactic used for Coulter is to soften her odious opinions, change it around a bit, and presented as "doesn't she make a good point if you stand on your head, put it in a mirror, change it around to this more palatable interpretation, and ignore what she actually said?" For example, her opinion that it would have been better had Tim McVeigh parked that rental truck outside the New York Times building in New York instead of the federal building in Oklahoma City -- a hateful, bileful thing to say. But once the talking chuckleheads get done with it, the opinion turns into "Isn't it true that sometimes the Times makes conservatives mad? And aren't they within the bounds of humanity and decency to object when that happens?" Well yes, Neil. But Coulter isn't just objecting; she wants to blow up the Times building on a weekday morning without warning. It's not quite the same thing now, is it?

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Jade Fox said...

Mary Matlin was asked to comment on....
Coulter's anti-9/11 widow diatribe, and said something to the effect that she agreed with Coulter's "larger point". What the hell was the larger point in Coulter's hateful comments?

Matlin then went on to compare Coulter's words with when Liberals call conservative Fascists, etc. The difference is the GOP is acting in a Fascist manner! It's a response to reality, not just inner hatefulness.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous gratuitous said...

And you can bet . . .
That a Democratic commentator on Michael Moore who tried to address "the larger point" or to address what Michael Moore actually said instead of what the talking chucklehead said Moore said would be stopped in mid-sentence, interrupted, cut off, or otherwise brought back to whatever unrelated caricature of looniness the interviewer was trying to put across.

But I agree: What "larger point" is there to a hateful attack on grieving widows and mothers? Perhaps Ms. Matalin would be kind enough to let us know just exactly when that's appropriate. I have a few invectives I'd like to toss at Ted Olson.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

matalin
was talking to Imus, and she said she hadn't read the book so she couldn't comment.

the larger point, I'm guessing, is that the widows have become celebrities and supporters of Democrats, which Coulter thinks is wrong. In Coulter's world, the widows should have shut the hell up.

of course, if the widows had become proud supporters of bush's war on terror, I doubt coulter would have targeted them. coulter has said that's not true, but I don't believe her.

2:43 PM  
Anonymous Jade Fox said...

But,......
when did Coulter say anything about the Widows being supportive of Democrats? If she did, I missed that part. And I suspect everyone else did too, only hearing the comments about those women becoming millionaires (another outrageous assumption on Coulter's part that has gone unquestioned) etc.

I think Matlin was trying to give Coulter's comments a serious content they didn't actually possess.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

speaking with Matt Lauer
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die--

From Crooks & Liars.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous gratuitous said...

And Ann Coulter's self-refuting point
"How about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to." Didn't Coulter just write a book, for which she was paid a lot of money, responding to the 9/11 widows? Called them a lot of names, as I recall. How is that not being "allowed" to respond to them? And does she have any "response" of a similar nature to the widow of the "Let's Roll" guy, a widow who is also being paid a lot of money to promote her book?

But aside from Mary Matalin, why don't the talking chuckleheads ask Sen. Frist what he thinks of Coulter and her bilious words? Why isn't Denny Hastert being asked about Coulter's book? Why isn't Mitt Romney being buttonholed to either deny or defend Coulter's mean-spirited tripe?

2:44 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

that was Rahm Emanuel's point
... on the House floor.

Of course, the mainstream media isn't asking that question. Their "story" is "look how controversial Ann Coulter is."

To be fair, I think that was the crux of their coverage of the "Michael Moore" story, although it seemed other stories made big news, pushed along by conservative talk radio and cable chatfests.

I'm waiting for Chris Matthews to weigh in on this.

2:44 PM  
Anonymous Jade Fox said...

Thanks. What's interesting here....
is that the 9/11 widows, being actual victims of 9/11 have a legitimacy found no where else. Same with Cindy Sheehan. That's what Coulter is pissed about.

I guess the Right's doctrine of infallibility is Patriotism. If you question us, you're Un-Patriotic. Nice that their doctrine of infallibility requires no sacrifice or messy loss of blood, only name calling.

2:45 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

name calling is a centerpiece of conservative debating tactics. anyone who listens to conservative pundits knows that it's much easier to smear someone than to actually debate an issue, point by point.

I don't know how many times I've heard conservative pundits (or callers) say, "We all know that liberals side with the enemy" or "Liberals want the troops to die so that they can score points against Bush."

How do they come up with this notion that "liberal" = "un-American"? From conservative pundits.

2:48 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Jade Fox said...
"Mary Matlin was asked to comment on....
Coulter's anti-9/11 widow diatribe, and said something to the effect that she agreed with Coulter's "larger point". What the hell was the larger point in Coulter's hateful comments?"


The "larger point" that Coulter was making, and the one that Mary Matalin was agreeing with, (as do I) is as follows: When someone loses a loved one, no matter what the circumstances, that person should be left alone, and given the space they need to grieve their loss, preferably in private.

If, however, that person then makes the conscious decision to waive their privacy privilege and use the very celebrity that they attained from their loved one's death, to become a partisan, political activist, it's simply not reasonable to expect that those who might disagree with their political positions and statements must, out of respect for their loss, grant them permanent immunity from criticism.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

5:36 PM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

Look I’m not going to get into a defense of the woman, but I will say I met her last year at a dinner before her appearance at a lecture at KU (Univ of Kansas). Just as I have learned with all of the individuals I have met in my employment capacity, its all smoke and mirrors. ANYONE who takes what Ann Coulter says 100% to heart is not being reasonable. I say this as I had the opportunity to meet Susan Estrich. Being right leaning I thought Susan was a nut and a liberal Kool Aide drinker BUT, after having the opportunity to sit, talk and get to know her again most of the persona on TV is just that, a TV persona. Does that mean she does not believe in what she says, of course not. Does that mean the Coulter does not mean what she says of course not. But if she did not conduct that interview on Today nobody would be talking about her.
Did she mean 100% that “those women enjoyed being widows” of course not, BUT if you can get past the partisan conservative ranting she does have a point. Its was no different when Cindy Sheehan wore shirts with her dead son on them. She made a celebrity out of herself USING her sons death as a political rallying cry and people brought into it. And those of you who wrote blog entries chastised those who would dare speak out against her said “how dare you, her sone was killed in Iraq!” That’s bullshit. She allowed the media to chronicle her ‘perceived” anguish and suffering while basking in the glow of the media circus.
The women Coulter referred to did the same thing with 9/11, bitch and moan all you want but she was right. But how would this “opinion” get mainstream attention? Well go on the Today show, wear a tight black dress, blonde hair flowing and make (write) an over the top statement, now everybody is outraged, give me a break.
This is no different that Kwame West saying George Bush doesn’t like black people. What happened as a result of West making that ridiculous statement, dude got on the cover of Time Magazine, he was on the talk circuit, he was on Oprah and I’m sure he sold a few more CD’s.
If he had said “the Bush administration should be more understanding of the plight of black people” nobody would have given a shit and liberal blogs would not have been ranting YES, YES THAT’S TRUE! When anybody with any common damm sense knew that twas not true and how would you know?
Apply the same common sense to Coulter and get a grip.

Another thing my man Rob: “name calling is a centerpiece of conservative debating tactics” Rob, dude I just came from the yearly KOS, (great conference BTW) it would be impossible to tell you how many time I heard folks “name calling against Republicans and Conservative types” George Lakoff actually likened Republican and Conservative ideas to an “illness”
Here is a link talking about the presentation: http://hotair.com/archives/top-picks/2006/06/11/infiltrating-yearly-kos-a-response-to-george-lakoff/
Dude I name call and poke fun at liberals, post funny pic and other stuff, but I don’t equate your views no matter how much I disagree with them as an “illness” imagine that. That is much more than simple name calling, that does highlight most of the problems those of us on the right have with those on the left, basic respect for our point of view and the patronizing that liberal engage in. You are a republican because you are stupid and don’t know any better. Dude I was at the conference and that is what they think.
One lady in one of the presentations actual stood up and asked one presenter “how can we communicate with people whose thoughts and ideas are formulated for them?”
And you can see all of the heads in the room nodding in agreement.
And finally one lady said “that is why what we do is important, we must regain control so we can show them the truth.”
Unless you get rid of this moral and intellectual superiority complex you ideas and views will be rejected and you will continue to lose elections and the war of words will continue.

6:54 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sniffer said...
"Dude I name call and poke fun at liberals, post funny pic and other stuff, but I don’t equate your views no matter how much I disagree with them as an “illness” imagine that."


LOL But to be fair, Sniffer, some conservatives do actually come right out and say they believe that extreme liberalism is a mental disorder/disease.

I don't think I've ever gone that far, myself, but I do believe that the far left does have many problems, and being incredibly naive and drastically misguided, imo, are but a couple. ;)

7:23 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Jade Fox said...
"Thanks. What's interesting here....
is that the 9/11 widows, being actual victims of 9/11 have a legitimacy found no where else. Same with Cindy Sheehan. That's what Coulter is pissed about."


You think Ann Coulter is pissed, Jade Fox? I think she's delighted, myself. And why wouldn't she be? Her book is doing very well. In fact, all of her books do very well, and she is in great demand as a public speaker. She is a very smart, witty lady, and a great satirist.

Ann definitely pushes the envelope with her hyperbolic writing style, but as she said, "The truth is the truth whether we like it or not.", and there is much truth in what Ann has written about the Jersey Girls.

And the same applies to Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg. All of these people have lost loved ones, and anyone with a heart has felt much sympathy for them. And of course they are entitled to their opinions, and they can even become political activists if they so choose.

In fact, it appears that they have indeed all chosen to go this route, using the death of their loved ones as springboards to catapult them into the world of politics. In so doing, however, they leave behind the protected zone of private citizen, and are subject to the same criticism as any other public figure.

8:26 PM  
Anonymous Shalana said...

Not only are Ann Coulter's remarks morally reprehensible, but they are factually incorrect.

She keeps making her point that the Jersey Girls are an example of "the left's doctrine of infallability" (meaning Democrats want to innoculate themselves from criticism by putting up people who supposedly can't be responded to, like grieving widows).

However, what she does not tell you is that the most vocal and visible of the Jersey Girls, Kristen Breitweiser, is actually a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.

And she doesn't tell you that NOT ONE of the Jersey Girls (or anyone speaking on their behalf) has tried to prevent Ann Coulter from responding to them.

She also criticized them for "cutting ads for John Kerry." But she doesn't tell you about Deena Burnett, a 9/11 widown who spoke at the 2004 Republican Convention, and who attended a "You Don't Speak for Me Cindy Sheehan" rally in Crawford, Texas and invoked her dead husband's name by saying he would have supported the Iraq war.

11:24 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Shalana said...
"However, what she does not tell you is that the most vocal and visible of the Jersey Girls, Kristen Breitweiser, is actually a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000."


Shalana, you accuse Ann Coulter of making remarks that are factually incorrect, but then you fail to state what it was she said that was supposedly factually incorrect, which means "false", as I'm sure you are aware.

Whether or not Ms. Breitweiser may have voted for Bush in 2000 is hardly relevant to the fact that she is at present an activist for the left. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Just like Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg who was beheaded on video by Zarqawi, (may he rest in peace....NOT!) the Jersey girls blamed President Bush for the death of their husbands, rather than the Islamist extremists who actually flew the planes into the WTC. It's really quite insane.

She and the others viciously attacked the president, Condoleeza Rice, the Air Force, the Port Authority, etc. while defending Clinton and people like Jamie Gorelick. They could not be more partisan. And they did make campaign commercials for Sen. Kerry, so again, I ask what is it that Ann Coulter has said that is "factually incorrect?"

As far as the Jersey Girls trying to prevent Ann Coulter from responding to them, I haven't read anywhere that Ann has even made that claim. She said that there were those on the left who objected when someone like herself would criticise one of their sacred cows, and this is very true.

Can't criticise the Jersey Girls because they lost their husbands on 9-11. Can't attack Cindy Sheehan because she lost her son in the war. Can't speak against Michael Berg because his son was brutally decapitated by terrorists. Can't find fault with Congressman Murtha because he's a former Marine who served in Vietnam. And so on, and so forth.

What the left so hates about Ann Coulter, is that she has them pegged, and she doesn't back down. They hated Delay for the same reasons. They are both very effective. They can't stand Rush Limbaugh either, again, because he, too, is effective. Ditto for the Fox News Channel.

The left has lost it's choke hold on the way that America gets its news, and they cannot deal with the new reality. So what do they do? A liberal columnist asks Coulter to commit suicide, while New Jersey Democrats look to get Coulter's book banned in their state. Liberals, thy name is "tolerance". rofl

12:29 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Shalana said...
"But she doesn't tell you about Deena Burnett, a 9/11 widown who spoke at the 2004 Republican Convention, and who attended a "You Don't Speak for Me Cindy Sheehan" rally in Crawford, Texas and invoked her dead husband's name by saying he would have supported the Iraq war.


I think you may have that backwards, Shalana. Deena Burnett would most likely never have gotten involved in this issue, had not Cindy Sheehan first presumed to use the names of other fallen heroes to make her anti-war, anti-Bush statement at Crawford. Ms. Burnett had every right to publicly denounce Cindy Sheehan's use of her (Burnett) dead husband's name for political purpose. Or do you disagree with that?

12:36 AM  
Anonymous Sniffer said...

Trinity Said: “LOL But to be fair, Sniffer, some conservatives do actually come right out and say they believe that extreme liberalism is a mental disorder/disease.”

Look T, just as a lot of the funny stuff, jokes, photos I put on my blog that is all in jest.
Google George Lakoff and read more about what he is talking about.
Like I said I spend 3 days with these folks, their contempt for the right is heartfelt and soulful. I mentioned that basically (to avoid confrontation) I’m a little right leaning and this lady looked at me as if to pity me. She asked, HOW can you “FEEL” that way.
Most of the left sees conservative values as society’s failure to properly educate US.
This country and our government has bullied US into thinking the way we do.
I get far more grief by being black. I have NEVER been able to adequately explain to any liberal why I detest liberalism. Go back to the lady’s comment above liberal govern out of pity. Liberal don’t want to improve the public education system in areas where black are failing miserable, they don’t want them to have choices. They have no problem expanding a welfare system and creating generation after generation of dependency.
I have asked this question on countless blogs, websites and my own blog why is the plight of black people WORSE in areas where liberal democrat and in particular BLACK LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are in charge.
Just like I said in an earlier post about New Orleans, not one liberal pointed out the miserable failure of New Orleans and the condition that idiot Mayor put that city in and yet those crazy people voted him back in.
But Noooooo it is Republican values and evil conservatives who are sick, evil, heartless, racist. And now Lakoff will come out with this book to explain from a linguist point of view how ‘LANGUAGE” and the hidden message of the conservative “movement” is destroying this nation. Dude flat out said that conservatism is a CULT! And the people who surrounded him eyes lit up like a string of Christmas lights, they saw an epiphany in his words and individual after individual said over and over HOW CAN WE HELP THEM SEE THE LIGHT? And you folks want to focus on Coulter taking a swipe at four victims out of 3,500 plus who did what she said they did turn into walking campaign slogans? Give me a break.

11:01 AM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Oh, I understand perfectly what it is you are saying, Sniffer. I'm absolutely and completely aware of the condescension that oozes from the pores of liberals when they discuss those of us who believe in a conservative ideology.

They really do feel quite intellectually superior to people like us, and believe that we simply need to be educated and enlightened so that we can then understand why it is that they are right, and we are wrong. rofl

Trust me. I have a sister-in-law who actually pities me because she believes I must be incredibly ignorant to hold the views that I do.

It's been my experience that liberals, for the most part, are not very open-minded. I also think they tend not to be very logical in their thinking, as they clearly demonstrate by their inability to comprehend the fact that liberal ideas, such as the extensive and ever expanding welfare system you mention, will always end up hurting society, not helping it.

And yes, you are so right, Sniffer. Democrats running New Orleans into the ground for decades and decades is an excellent example of the failure of liberalism. Yet liberals seem to remain in denial and refuse to accept any responsibility for what went wrong during Katrina. It's so much less painful to just blame Bush for everything that goes wrong.

12:30 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

gratuitous said...
"A couple of other minor differences
When Michael Moore says something about someone, like say that Charlton Heston and the NRA were inappropriately celebratory in the wake of a couple of gun-related massacres, he provided footage and quotes from the parties involved."


Uh, you might want to go back and check out the accuracy of what you just said there, gratuitous. Michael Moore is notorious for his self-serving and dishonest editing practices. The sequence he presented in "Fahrenhteit 911" regarding that Charlton Heston clip, was absolutely misleading. That Heston quote did not occur when Moore says it did, as you could have discovered for yourself, if you were interested in the truth.

In other words, Moore is a liar and a fraud, and you believe him at your own risk. If you care about fairness and truth, you should always make an effort to learn the other side of the story. Check out "Fahrenhype 911" if you are interested in hearing a response to Moore's Schlockumentary and then, armed with more information, decide for yourself where the truth lies.

12:47 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...

"I'm waiting for Chris Matthews to weigh in on this."


Why? Is Matthews your guru or something? When Chris Matthews speaks, liberals listen? ;)

12:52 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Sniffer said...
"Look I’m not going to get into a defense of the woman, but I will say I met her last year at a dinner before her appearance at a lecture at KU (Univ of Kansas). Just as I have learned with all of the individuals I have met in my employment capacity, its all smoke and mirrors."


I agree. Not to ruin her image or anything, but I met Ann at the Freedom Concert last summer, and I found her to be delightful. She is witty and charming, and always ready with a smile. Same with Mark Levin. He's an extremely nice man and a very gracious and modest person. They are both just very passionate about the things they believe in, as are most of us.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

"I'm waiting for Chris Matthews to weigh in on this."

Why? Is Matthews your guru or something? When Chris Matthews speaks, liberals listen? ;)

>>

Oh God, no!!!!

No, I agree with JABBS that Matthews has gone from left-leaning to right-leaning, with the exception of his protesting the war. He gave credibility to the Swifties in 2004, and he aired out all the conservative myths about Gore in 2000. He is on record saying he hates Hillary. And so on.

I meant that I expect Matthews to either ignore the Coulter controversy, and/or give her a forum to do more liberal-bashing.

3:20 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

"They are both just very passionate about the things they believe in" ...

... and don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good ARGUMENT.

3:21 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Angelina's Evil Twin said...
"... and don't let the FACTS get in the way of a good ARGUMENT."


Again, as I mentioned to Shalana, when making a claim like that about a person, it would be helpful to others if you would follow it up with an example of what it is you are talking about.

4:03 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

rob of wilmington, del. said...
"No, I agree with JABBS that Matthews has gone from left-leaning to right-leaning, with the exception of his protesting the war.


Every so often, I find that Matthews really surprises me by
his frankness and open-mindedness. Of course, then there are other times where he is so knee-jerk liberal that I'm brought back to reality.

Make no mistake about it though, Matthews is a partisan Democrat, through and through.

4:15 PM  
Anonymous rob of wilmington, del. said...

Matthews admits to voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004. His brother was just elected as a Republican on the state level in Pennsylvania.

As you probably know, JABBS has provided numerous examples of Matthews' distorting liberal positions, mocking liberal positions, etc.

He is not a "partisan Democrat, through and through." That's just b.s.

5:09 PM  
Anonymous Angelina's Evil Twin said...

Trinity: when making a claim like that about a person, it would be helpful to others if you would follow it up with an example of what it is you are talking about.

Here's a few FACTS, Trinity -- although I'm sure you have EXCUSES for both:

From JABBS, 2/26/05:

In her Feb. 24 column, Coulter attacked congressional Democrats for "demanding" that an independent prosecutor investigate how Guckert, using a pseudonym, received White House access.

Coulter had other ideas.

"How did Gary Hartpence, Billy Blythe and John Kohn run for president under invented names?" she asked.

The question is typical Coulter lunacy.

-- Former Senator Gary Hart (D-CO) changed his name from Hartpence after his parents changed the family last name, in the late 1950s.

-- Former President Clinton was born William Jefferson Blythe IV after his deceased father, but in high school assumed the last name of his stepfather, Roger Clinton.

-- Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) was born John Forbes Kerry and has never held the surname "Kohn." His grandfather changed his name from Fritz Kohn to Frederick Kerry in 1901.

>>>

From JABBS, 5/6/05:

was Coulter being funny when, in her book Slander, she wrote: "After Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion contrary to the clearly expressed position of the New York Times editorial page, the Times responded with an editorial on Thomas titled 'The Youngest, Cruelest Justice.' That was actually the headline on a lead editorial in the Newspaper of Record. Thomas is not engaged on the substance of his judicial philosophy. He is called 'a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests,' 'race traitor,' 'black snake,' 'chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom,' 'house Negro' and 'handkerchief head,' 'Benedict Arnold' and 'Judas Iscariot.'"

The paragraph makes it sound as though the New York Times was guilty of some horrible name-calling. But the Times never said any of those things. Was Coulter being funny? Or was she just being a bad "conservative journalist"?

Who actually called Thomas a “house Negro?” Royce Esters, little-known head of the Compton, California, NAACP, in 1991 (quoted in Emerge).

Who actually called Thomas “a colored lawn jockey for conservative white interests?” The Manchester Union-Leader attributed that insult to the (unnamed) head of the Maryland NAACP in early 1997. So did Perry Morgan, in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot.

Who actually called Thomas a "chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom," and a “handkerchief head?” Spike Lee, 1991, quoted in U.S. News & World Report. “I think Malcolm X, if he were alive today, would call Thomas a handkerchief head, a chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom."

Who actually called Thomas a “black snake?” The claim has often been attributed to Thurgood Marshall, derived from the 1991 press conference at which the aging Marshall announced his retirement. He doesn't mention Thomas by name, but the conventional wisdom was that he was referring to Thomas, who was expected to be nominated.

MARSHALL: I mean for picking the wrong Negro and saying, "I'm picking him because he is a Negro." I am opposed to that. My dad told me way back that you can't use race. For example, there's no difference between a white snake and black snake; they'll both bite.

Who actually called Thomas a “race traitor?” In 1998, Thomas was called a “race traitor” by James Albrook in the New Pittsburgh Courier.

>>>

That's two EXAMPLES from this blog, Trinity. God KNOWS there are MANY MORE.

5:15 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

It's almost comical to read Trinity and Sniffer contrive to defend this blot on the human race named Ann Coulter, who is about as relevant and significant to intelligent reasoned discourse as a drowned rat in the toilet bowl.

10:10 PM  
Blogger thewaronterrible said...

Conservatives like to knitpick at Moore's documented findings to obfuscate his overriding major points.
These include: only one member of congress sent his kids off to fight in Iraq; U.S. armed force recruiters target the poor in slums; the bombing of Iraq resulted in significant collateral damage that was hidden by the media; Bush has a long trail of past business failures; the abundance of chicken hawks in the White House who marched the country off to war in Iraq; and perhaps the most famous relevation of Fahrenheit 9-11 of Bush sitting in a classroom reading "My Pet Goat" while the U.S. was under attack, etc. etc. are all 150% undeniably, irrefutable accurate information.
Moore deserved credibility in order to open up eyes to the kind of hypocrisy from the White House that could have gotten us out of this bloody mess in Iraq early.
Coulter has nothing to offer, and doesn't deserve time on a Wayne's World-style public access station.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous David G. said...

If, however, that person then makes the conscious decision to waive their privacy privilege and use the very celebrity that they attained from their loved one's death, to become a partisan, political activist, it's simply not reasonable to expect that those who might disagree with their political positions and statements must, out of respect for their loss, grant them permanent immunity from criticism.

Baloney. That's not the issue at all. If you wanna disagree with someone's position, go for it. Wanna say they're dumb? Fine.

But to suggest that they're ENJOYING THEIR HUSBAND'S DEATHS is beyond the pale. Period. It's not provocative, and it's not "honest" in any sort of way that makes people think. It's mean, tactless and unnecessary.

Can't criticise the Jersey Girls because they lost their husbands on 9-11. Can't attack Cindy Sheehan because she lost her son in the war. Can't speak against Michael Berg because his son was brutally decapitated by terrorists. Can't find fault with Congressman Murtha because he's a former Marine who served in Vietnam. And so on, and so forth.

More baloney, for several reasons.

1. The right has never lacked the compunction to criticize these people. And their views are not by any definition infalliable because of their experiences, but they should carry a bit of weight. So yes, debate them all you want. But there are some who have said Murtha's medals were received dishonorably; it's one thing to disagree, it's another to smear someone by writing untruths about them and suggest they're somehow sub-human. That's the difference. And that's what Coulter is doing because A) she knows she has no intellectual argument to use, and B) if she didn't nobody would notice.

2 -- As if the right doesn't do this? George Bush has been hiding behind "the troops" for years. "You can't criticize him during war" and so forth. Experience in a matter used to count for something. Now, it's only what side you're on. If you're a Republican, it's all good, and a Democrat, you're some kind of devil.

Bunch of nonsense.

11:44 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares