Horowitz: "Ann Coulter is a national treasure"
On The O'Reilly Factor, David Horowitz called Ann Coulter "a national treasure" and stated that the "point" of Coulter's controversial remarks on the widows of the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks was "right on the mark."
During the June 8 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, right-wing activist and author David Horowitz called right-wing pundit Ann Coulter "a national treasure" and stated that the "point" of Coulter's controversial remarks on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks was "right on the mark." Horowitz added that "she's not going to get a fair shake," presumably from the media, for "her sentiments."
As Media Matters for America has previously noted, in her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), Coulter writes of the 9-11 widows:
- "These broads 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." [p.103]
- "These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." [p.103]
- "[T]hey believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process." [p.103]
From the June 8 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Joining us now from Los Angeles is a man who has been attacked personally many times, usually by far left people. David Horowitz is the founder of the -- of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.
Ann Coulter is defiant. I mean, she says, basically, "Look, this is my message. This is how I get it out. I don't care whether they're personal attacks or not." What say you?
HOROWITZ: Well, Ann Coulter is a national treasure, and her point is right on the mark. You know, she's a satirist, and satirists are going to push the envelope. And if you look at it out of context, it can look like it went over the top.
O'REILLY: OK. But, why -- what's the --
HOROWITZ: But, she's -- she's not going to get a fair shake for, you know, her sentiments, anyway. She's going to be attacked.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
they got rid of the 'she is only tongue-in-cheek' and 'she is only kidding'. The past days those comming to her defence are suggesting she means what she is saying. And look how they stick together!
It's just morphed into, "She's a satirist." Which, actually, is simply more proof that the Right doesn't know what satire is. No matter what her "message" is, Coulter doesn't even come close to the definition of a satirist. Somebody was saying the same thing on Hannity the other night, and the only explanation is that these people don't know what a satirist is. I guess they think that since Coulter tries to be witty that she must be a satirist.
Does this mean that Dubya is a satirist? He makes feeble and heartless jokes too.
It seems to me that this is the first time that Ann is defended by others in such a straightforward way. Most often its just a few and Ann herself who could talk her out of dumb remarks. Now they pulled out a whole list of right-wing pundits (talking about coordination!) to set her record straight.
Her remarks are clearly not something that was liked and perhaps there was fear that here remarks could result in a reduction of followers for the right-wing coase.
They're obviously just trying to help her sell books by keeping her in the news. This whole controversy has all been planned out.
Works every time.
: |
It may be viewed as alarmist by some, but when I analyze the bile spewed by the likes of Coulter and Horowitz, I can't help but focus on the caliber of the words used, and how such aggressivesness is the 1st step toward the next civil war.
These people view anyone in disagreeance with them, not as opponents, but as enemies to the death. Of course, not their death, but the death of the minions [foot soldiers] that choose to follow this ideology. Coulter, Hannity, et al., speak violently, and that will be adopted by a select number of nitwits that feel victimized.
and that is the difference with left-wing pundits. It might be interesting for MMFA to investigate how both sides enter a debate (aggressive/ defensive etc) and how and how much they smear individuals in a direct way (or lets say inolve individuals and present either misinformation or opinion)
I must admit I some times fantasize about just splitting the country down the middle, let the conservatives have half and the progressives have half and the moderates maybe they could have dual citizenship (smile). I know that' s wrong to think like that, I just don't know how the two diametrically oppossing viewpoints will ever be reconciled. It seems that know matter who's in charge half of the country is going to be pissed.
it is difficult, partly due to misinformation on where liberals and conservatives stand. Yesterday there was a discussion who did the best thing for Katrina evacuees, whereas they both did their best and gave time and effort in almost the exact same way.
Both sides are suspicious and have schema's what the 'other side' does and should do, but most of the time it is based on misinformation and the inferences that are based on that misinformation are incorrect. But the more misinformation, the more emotions (e.g., anger) and the least effective communication is.
Ceding territory to devils will not solve the problem, it will only embolden them to conquer or nuke your own. If Lincoln had ceded territory to Robert E. Lee, some of the posters on this board would still be wearing chains and picking cotton.
so broadcasters can't spew hate 23 hours and 59 minutes a day and then use that one minute to pretend they gave the 'other side' a fair shot. In elections it would again be abig help.
They won't do it and it doesn't bother their followers that they won't. You can't fight that. We could form a federation of two independent self ruling provinces, USA - Progressive and USA- Conservative. Citizens could choose between the two and settle in the province they feel more comfortable in. The USA - Conservative could develop their own internal constitution or use the current one we have and delete the amendments they don't like and add ones they do. They could legally ban gay marriages (the Gays will be welcomed in USA-Progressive), flag burning and set up a theocracy if they want, etc. etc. Divvying up the territory will present a challenge though, although we could use the red-state blue state map as a model.
Dividing up the territory would not prevent war. White supremists do not want a fair share, they want it all. The Will to Power at the root of white supremacy culture demands endless aggression, expansion and conquest. It views compromise as weakness. A ceding of territory, viewed as a sign of weakness, would not deter violence, it would actually encourage it.
The only way to defeat tyranny is to spread enlightenment to the masses who are kept in the dark to serve the ends of the tyrant.
We are as divided as this country was before the Civil War. From here, I can't really see anything that will reconcile our differences. Coulter and her kind preach division & violence. Her supporters back up her violent words, her colleagues in the media defend her violent diatribes. One thing they all have in common is their own lack of service to country. The only kind of service they know is lip service.
There's only a slight difference between these individuals that view themselves as Christian Cursaders, and the Islamic extremists. The only difference for now is that in the West, the attacks are mostly verbal, where in the East, they have evolved into a full-blown physical conflict between those viewed as infidels and those that follow the teachings.
Do you think we're many years away from that evolution taking place right here?..ref: Eric Rudolph, and the like. Talking heads like Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Beck, Boortz, Horowitz, are all feeding the fire of anger, division, and misunderstanding.
got laid...............and thought it was good.
I mean really, you need to warn us about ones like this, specifically something along the lines of "caution:spit take probable - internal hemorrhaging from laughter possible".
A national treasure? ROFLMAO!
Let's see...The Constitution, The Liberty Bell, The Smithsonian, Ann Coulter...? Hmmm... I don't think so. Maybe it is my powerful urge to vomit that is telling me something.
marvelous things. I spent a few days in DC not long ago doing the tourist thing and visiting all those national treasures, reading our archives, etc. Reading them made me feel as proud as if I had written the documents myself. Sounds corny I know. Ann is such the antithesis of those treasures - tangible and intangible. I wonder what would old Bennie Franklin have thought of Anne Culter, now he was a real satirists and he had a sharp wit. BTW, asking Horowitz what he thinks of Ann is like asking Fredie Kruger what he thinks of Michael Myers.
you bury it. deep.
Alright, now I'm confused...
Do the 9/11 widows want us to "marinate in their exquisite personal agony" or have we "never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Then again, perhaps I'm foolish for believing that Republican Spokesperson Ann Coulter would actually take consistent positions.
What is he on? Dope?
PJCarter...no...he is a DOPE
This one inspired me to check the Thesaurus, resulting in the following observation...
National treasure = State-owned booty
Bomb thrower invites a bomb thrower on his show to discuss a bomb throwers new book.
Great, it's all good....
It's a simple equation isn't it? I'm awaiting Fox's off-spring; the BombThrowerNetwor (BTN). All nutz; all the time!!!
The morning show will be called Whack A Liberal, where they bring Libs of the caliber of Alan Colmes and Bob Beckett to come on and each time they lose an argument (judged by a panel of guests, directly from the roster of Fox and Friends), the libs will be struck over the head with a bat that has the Bible taped at the end of it.
My dog's butt is a national treasure, too.
If anyone doubted this man's stupidity, here's proof.
Your dog's butt has more intellect than Coulter ever will.
...on his dog's butt? ;-)
Horowitz himself is still sticking to the notion that what Coulter writes is "satire", suggesting that what she says is not meant to be taken entirely at face value. Anyone who has seen her speak for 2 minutes in any of the seemingly thousands of appearances she has made in the last 48 hours should be able to figure out that Ann is not writing satire - that she is a true believer in every single venomous word she uses.
This is not meant as an ad hominem attack - I truly believe that Coulter has, over the last 5 or 6 years, become truly psychologically unstable. Her writings, her appearances, are becoming more and more unhinged. If I were a friend of hers (god forbid) I would seriously consider the possibility of staging an intervention before she moves past outrageous speech and does something that might harm herself or others.
Well, Ann Coulter is a national treasure,
Like my treasured collection of coprolite.
and her point is right on the mark.
Okay, so he's defending Coulter's statements as is.
You know, she's a satirist, and satirists are going to push the envelope.
Wait a minute. Now he's implying that her statements may have been unnecessarily antagonistic.
And if you look at it out of context, it can look like it went over the top.
Wait another minute. He's completely flip-flopped. A moment ago he defended her statements en toto, and now he's saying that there's a negative ("out of context") way to look at them. Just how, pray tell, have any of Coulter's statements been taken out of context? How could they be?
She's not going to get a fair shake for, you know, her sentiments, anyway. She's going to be attacked.
Oh, good grief. She's been on the Today Show, she's been on O'Reilly, and who-knows-where-else. She has not been attacked in these venues, but she has sometimes been called to account for her statements. That is totally fair. Furthermore, she's had like-minded (a scary thought by itself) sycophants defending her in numerous other media sources. So far she has had better than a "fair shake."
Is Horowitz really an idiot, or does he just play one on TV?
Is she paying more taxes than?
I’ve found the Republican rush to defend Ms. Coulter interesting. Does this mean the same Ann-apologists will now change their attitude toward Ward Churchill and Bill Maher? Or, are those voices still too offensive?
that is a very valid and good comparison.
As an academic and liberal I denounce Warts words, though. I believe in freedom of speech, but I also believe that I have the freedom to say that his remarks were based on and contained misinformation and were hateful and that he is part of a group that should not be given any public forum.
Ok, so either lock her in a vault or bury her.
There is no satire involved with Coulter.
She speaks her mind, and without editing or political correctness. And she has fans of LIKE MIND who approve what she says.
In fact, she says the things that other rightwingers are afraid to say, but things that they believe entirely.
And because she has the courage to present the views of the hateful, small, bigoted, mean-spirited, paranoid and vengeful, she gets criticism from those who just don't share her personal vile outlook.
But, like it or not, the angry and spite-filled losers need a voice, too. Ann gives them their voice, and it is the voice of the Rightwing, a "national treasure" to the likes of Horowitz.
Ann is self-loathing. Her self-esteem is so low that she feels her only means to make huge sums of money is to write and say things that are false, insulting, vulgar, misleading and hateful. Is this what a truly devout Christian does?
...how these widows are profiting off the deaths of their husbands? I know they got a settlement from the government for the tragedy, but so did everyone else that lost a loved one in the attack. So are they selling t-shirts or videos? All I'm looking for is one shred of proof to back up this claim.
I'm guessing there isn't an honest bit of evidence to support the claim. So why isn't anyone asking that simple question.
actually, she's sad. she really has no discernable core convictions, she is a pure partisan circus at best. and she now touts her devout christianity but can you imagine Jesus talking about the 9/11 widows the way she does? that's why she should not be taken seriously. she's not a social or political commentator. as i have said, i don't even believe she believes this stuff. no sincerity, detached from any value except performing, spewing rhetoric for its own sake. so her vileness cannot be taken seriously. she is empty.
Even Coulter's "devout Christianity" is a fraud:
[link to www.rawstory.com]
your first name Andrew?
Out of all of this Coulter drama comes a very disturbing issue: the right truly is scared of this women.
To watch these rightwing talking heads dance around condemning her is hilarious. They have more spin moves than Micheal Jordan.
A cool link:
[link to www.crooksandliars.com]
your silly partisanship is in full display. damned if they do, damned if they don't. if conservatives defend her, they are vilified. if they denounce her, they are vilified and scared. how ridiculous. even though you may not, some of us have convictions and have no problem with pointing out our disagreements with this kind of slime. because we value our soul and our integrity more than scoring political points. try it, it feels very cleansing.
//if they denounce her, they are vilified and scared//
They aren't vilified. Those who have condemned Coulter's book are couragous individuals. You won't find one lefty "vilifying" someone who is strongly denouncin Coulter. Don't start building strawmen.
However, calling Coulter a "satirist" and telling everyone "not to take her seriously" is HARDLY the same as condemning her.
but who claimed that they knew perfectly where Osama Bin Laden was?
according to an article at [link to www.click2houston.com] :
"Officials: Bin Laden Tougher Target Than Al-Zarqawi
Experts said even though the U.S. military killed Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, finding Osama bin Laden will be harder to do.
For one thing, they said, the 9/11 mastermind avoids satellite phones and the Internet. And he may be hiding in rugged, remote terrain, protected by loyal tribesmen along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
A retired Pakistan army general said bin Laden isn't involved in day-to-day operations and he "enjoys the support of much more loyal people" than al-Zarqawi did.
A senior Pakistani security official said Pakistani forces and American-led coalition forces in Afghanistan are trying to get closer to bin Laden. But he said so far they "don't have any clue on his whereabouts."
those were the words what I was looking for. THese people are trying to control damage that Ann is doing, but she is stuborn and deaf, as you can all read in the next thread.
let no one ever accuse the whistleblower on the NSA program to have informed terrorists ([link to www.cnn.com] they haven't.
....yea, like the world's biggest ball of twine, or world's largest Teflon fry pan.
In other words, a freak.
... of which nation? Nazi Germany, perhaps.
Certainly not MY country. MY country doesn't advocate killing people who disagree with each other. MY country doesn't spew hate and sow dissent between people of different viewpoints. MY country doesn't cloak itself in false religion while hypocritically calling others "godless". MY country doesn't attempt to stifle debate through intimidation.
Coulter is so far off the mark, that it's not even worth debating. Whatever her point may be, and I'm not sure she could even explain her "point" in less than 30 words without calling someone a name, it is all to sell books. All of this is a sham.
Coulter worships a god alright, Mammon.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Let's get something straight here. I don't want to see any more posts about Coulter being a spokesperson for the Repubican party.
As much as I dislike the current crew that runs the GOP, please don't blanketly assume that Coulter speaks for anything other than the lunatic fringe within Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans who are absolutely disgusted with her behavior, libelous writings, and slanderous speech.
otherwise hearing her words become the republican Talking Points the next day does not len credence to what you said...
After reading the book while sipping my latte at the local Border's I couldn't help but think that this was a more appropriate title.
He is just a male version of Coulter.Truth,reason,fair play,or logic plays NO part in their fascist Agenda.
National Disgrace is more like it! The fact that people like Coulter get air time at all is mind boggling.
Regarding the debate as to right wing vs. left wing attacks; there is one major difference: Right wing attacks by the likes of Coulter and Limbaugh are malicious, slanderous, and often obscene; left wing attacks on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the right wing media hacks aren't attacks at all; THEY'RE THE TRUTH! There's a big difference...........
"National Treasure" was a MUCH better movie . . .
is another's lying, demeaning, dishonest, babbling, demented, simple minded, cruel, egocentric sack of sh*t.
I'm Irish and Danish heritage, not the most oppressed people in our history, but how much of a self-loathing Jew do you have to be to go cheerleading for Ann Coulter ?
Like the old joke--
When she was born her mon said;"What a treasure." Her dad said; "Yea, lets bury it ! "