Coulter suggested 9-11 widows might not give up "celebrity and notoriety" to "have their husbands back"
On Hannity & Colmes, when Alan Colmes asked Ann Coulter whether, if given the opportunity, the 9-11 widows "would not give up every piece of celebrity and notoriety they have to have their husbands back," she replied, "Oh, I don't know. At this point, to give up $2 million ... to have to go back to cooking meals and not ... appearing in Vanity Fair. They're clearly enjoying their celebrity status."
On the June 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter defended her attack on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by stating, when pressed by co-host Alan Colmes, that it is not "as obvious to me as it apparently is to you," that, if given the opportunity, the 9-11 widows "would not give up every piece of celebrity and notoriety they have to have their husbands back," as Colmes put it.
Coulter and Colmes were discussing Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), in which she wrote 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." During the segment, Colmes asked Coulter: "Do you think, for one second, these women would not give up every piece of celebrity and notoriety they have to have their husbands back?" Coulter responded, "Oh, I don't know. At this point, to give up $2 million ... to have to go back to cooking meals and not ... appearing in Vanity Fair. They're clearly enjoying their celebrity status."
Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz, who was also a guest on the show, interjected: "Oh, my God, what are you saying, Ann?" Colmes then again asked: "I want to be clear on this. They would not give this up to get their husbands back?" Coulter replied, "I don't know. I can't read into their hearts. But it isn't as obvious to me as it apparently is to you."
From the June 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
SCHWARTZ: Because the Republicans just seem to fight their political rhetoric versus everyday reality, and the everyday reality is that these women did not seek their celebrity status. They're not trying to hang on to 15 minutes of fame.
COULTER: They absolutely did.
COLMES: They didn't seek to be celebrities.
SCHWARTZ: Absolutely not.
COLMES: Do you think for one second, Ann --
SCHWARTZ: What? They willed their husbands to be attacked?
COULTER: Did they just trip into that Vanity Fair photo?
COLMES: Let me ask you this. Ann, do you think they -- for one second -- these women wouldn't give up whatever notoriety --
COULTER: They just woke up one day and suddenly they're on the Today show.
COLMES: Please answer my -- please answer my question.
COULTER: They didn't ask for that.
COLMES: Hold on one second. Decaf, next time. Do you think these women, for one second --
COULTER: You're saying crazy things.
COLMES: Decaf, please. Calm down. Do you think for one second, these women would not give up every piece of celebrity and notoriety they have to have their husbands back?
COULTER: Oh, I don't know. At this point, to give up $2 million --
COLMES: To have their husbands back.
COULTER: -- and to go back to cooking meals and not be --
SCHWARTZ: Oh, my God, what are you saying, Ann?
COLMES: They wouldn't do that to have their husbands back?
SCHWARTZ: These are woman, that had husbands --
COULTER: -- appearing in Vanity Fair. They're clearly enjoying their celebrity status.
COLMES: They would not give up -- I want to be clear on this. They would not give this up to get their husbands back?
COULTER: I don't know. I can't read into their hearts. But it isn't as obvious to me as it apparently is to you.
COLMES: Really?
COULTER: They're taking limos around --
SCHWARTZ: Oh, Ann, you were never in their marriages --
COLMES: You've got to be kidding me.
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
let her continue!
You got it. Let her keep on rolling. The more she says, the more absurd it becomes. You go girl! What a lovely woman.
Everytime Ann Coulter opens her mouth, she exposes the Con for what it is. Let their "national treasure" speak out on MSM as often as possible so as to speed the timely death of right wing fascism.
The terrible blonde beast rears its head.
It may have been unfair for Colmes to pursue this line of questioning, because Ann Coulter has never known the depth of love that one enjoys in a good marriage.
Nor wil he ever.
Colmes, you cheeky bastard!!! Way to stick it to Ann...finally...
in the rhetorical way...not the biblical way...
How deep does Ann have to go before the Jersey Girls have a libel case against her?
wonder about that, too. How is it that so few people are challenging slander and smears in court? This way it seems that Coulter and the like are correct and will continue what they do. I do not believe in stopping freedom of speech (how dumb it might be), but I do believe in challanging the legality of their statements.
that this whole episode has no emotional consequences for Ann, whereas it likely griefs the widows to be reminded of 9/11 and the apparent hate of some in such a way. They lost a loved one in a sudden and tragic way and probably lost more than that, too: perhaps their life, their will to live and continue, their existence.
Ann does not like when people pose as victims, but she doesn't shun to bash victims either, at least when they get any attention for causes she opposes. If they do, they are smeared, slandered, bashed, and aggressed against (like O'Reilly with that guy who lost his father). You are only valuable when these people can use you for their cause, otherwise you are thrown in a corner and burned as trash.
She gets to be all "edgy" for bashing them. Attention whore.
although attention addict also fits her.
Ted Rall is sueing Coulter.
Is it me or is this woman using that well known defense mechanism projection. Just replace widows with coulter in everything she says and you will understand what I mean.
Considering that Coulter's own focus seems to be fame and money, is it surprising that she would assume the same of the 9/11 widows?
Keep it up, Ann! Keep talking. Keep showing us your compassionate conservatism! You're a liberal's best friend!
Ann Coulter for GOP Nominee in 2008!
Can someone explain to me why it is only the Right that accuses those on the left for exploiting their loss? I have seen many who suffered the same loss as Sheehan and the Jersey girls who have come out and spoken in favor of the administration and its policies and yet I have never heard someone on the left say they are exploiting their victimhood to push their political agenda. You see Bush bringing them to the SOTU and to his speeches you see them talking as pundits on the network programs but they are not savaged like the Right savages victims who don’t agree with their political viewpoint.
I don't know. Perhaps because the 'left' is not into those strategies? The 'right' have invented many of the strategies (smearing, lying, misinformation) that are used today.
I don't know. And please do not start that the 'left' is ideologically and ethically better!
I don't know. And please do not start that the 'left' is ideologically and ethically better!
In all honesty the left cannot take the highground, of course not. However, last night when I saw Coulter on Lou Dobbs, she inserted at least ten times that everything she is accused of the left is far worse, and the left has no limitations, etc. etc. Dobbs allowed it too. She asserted it as it was fact. She harped on how the left can speak at colleges but the right cannot, how the left does not need bodyguards, but the right does, etc etc.......
that made her one of the spokepersons of the 'right-wing' cause. Many pundits (e.g., Horowitz, O'Reilly and the like) mouth the same misinformation. Although Ann and her like do not like other victims, but she enjoys to portrait the right and christians as victims of the psychiatrically ill and aggressive left.
Demonizing and marginalizing!!!
...it's called "civility." I am anti-Iraq war and live in Mississippi, a state that sends a disproportionate number of young people over there. Consequently, there are many, many families here who have lost a family member to the war. I suspect that many, if not most, of them remain pro-war. And they rightfully receive a lot of sympathy here.
Now how big of a freaking jerk would I have to be to suggest to them that they are enjoying their special status as "victim" families, and that they wouldn't trade their military death benefits to have their sons/daughters/husbands/wives/mothers/fathers back?
Ann Coulter and her fellow wingnuts? (-;
Is that right wingers are actually WHINING about not being able to savage people like the Jersey Girls, Sheehan, etc. Yet I've heard nothing BUT vile, evil, over-the-top insults aimed at them from right wingers. Remeber Cindy Sheehan being accused of urinating on her son's grave.
Nobody has stopped any right winger from engaging in their usual character assassinations yet they moan about how they are not being allowed to. It's laughable and pathetic.
well [insert Democrat] is a commie, pinko, bed-wetting, pot-smoking, hippie liberal!
No...they say "I supposrt George W. Bush and his policies" and that is it. It does not become a smear campaign typically against someone from the left. Admittedly, some of that comes with the territory of being president.
As you made passing reference to if you approve of the way things are going then there aint all that much to say other then ditto. You do not need to speak out and try and change things because you don’t want it changed. It would be the same if the situation was reversed. Try and remember back to when Clinton held office those that spokeout against his policy they had extremely vitriolic comments to make about the man personally. However I don’t recall the widows making statements anything like what you wrote here…do you have info to the contrary? I also don’t remember anyone on the left trying to belittle those that were speaking after they lost a love one due to Clinton’s military decisions (such as Mogodishu , sorry if my spelling is off) they might have attempted to explain Clinton’s decisions but they never belittled their real loss or their grief and anger. Do you remember the comments made after he bombed an Al Qaida site...wag the dog ring a bell for you.. And some of those family’s who have spoken up in support of Bush have had some nasty things to say about people who didn’t agree with them. They have called the opposition unpatriotic, they have said they don’t support our troops, they have called them terrorist sympathizers. Just look at what the swift boaters said about Kerry and the right trotted them out and said how can we fault these American heroes who served their country. The right’s whole campaign strategy of recent fame is to use “human shields” as Coulter calls them. Remember the whole you can’t criticize the president or the war or you are criticizing our troops and you are a terrorist sympathizer. At the end of the day the critiques must be put in context…are the people happy with the status quo or do they want change…obviously those that want change will have to push harder. By the way I am not excusing Sheehan’s word…at least I think that is who you are quoting here I do not agree with what she said, I think her comments were inappropriate and I understand where her anger comes form too.
try something coherent next time.
Not that Ann isn't a vile, putrid Troglodyte, but this is obviously being done to bolster sales of her book. There are enough knuckle-draggers out there who agree with this whore that they'll rush out and plop down the $30 for another one of her mindless skreeds. It also serves to distract the public from the myriad crimes of the Bush administration. The Lapdog press is carrying out its assigned duty.
Such nasty words for the "gorgeous," sophisticated speaker for the krypto-Nazis.
Hmm...I thought when I used similar words, MMFA censored them out.
Ditto. Do you believe this ghastly wench? And that some lunatics take her seriously??
"would not give up every piece of celebrity and notoriety they have to have their husbands back," she replied, "Oh, I don't know. At this point, to give up $2 million ... and not have to go back to cooking meals and not be ... appearing in Vanity Fair.
So what is Coulter saying here? She is saying and in a sense agreeing that $2 million dollars is superior to cooking meals, (i.e. being a wife in the traditional sense). Isn’t it her very party, the very value system that she supposedly pretends to embrace and promote that wants to keep women in the kitchen cooking meals? Ann frames the widows options has something negative, despicable and vile. How can Coulter imply that cooking meals is a bad thing, yet she promotes that way of life?
What are you saying Annie? Women should want to go in the kitchen, yet you are admitting that the kitchen is bad?
she is actually making a false dichotomy (and being sexist in that way): either you are enjoying as a celebrity or you are in the kitchen! Perhaps these widows were successful business women!
Perhaps these widows were successful business women! However, you called them "women" YelloBird. Coulter calls them "broads." Where did she get that language from?
Sorry. I was falling into my dialect. LOL!
broads has a negative connotation for being vulgar: so a vulgar woman making vulgar remarks.
That is a difficult question. Perhaps she saw too many R-rated movies and is she easely influenced.
Its all part of the package: demonize your victim works good in slandering them. Broad is defined as " a woman who can throw a mean punch", which calls into question the validity of all remarks.
I often find this type of thinking from many on the right. They have very linear thinking. It always has to be either or. It never enters their thought process that perhaps they are devastated by their losses and in their grief they found a cause to make them get up in the morning. If they take satisfaction in the progress they have made or enjoy the successes they have had in their cause it still does not negate the underlying devastation that started the whole ball rolling. As a side note as far as these wild things Ann is saying about these women…have you ever heard the premise that if your significant other continually accuses you of cheating with no basis for the accusation it is probably indicative of their own actions…they assume their actions and thoughts are normal so they think others feel and act this way too. Perhaps this is the shallowness of Ann herself who has so little value and respect for human life that she thinks money is more important.
" It never enters their thought process that perhaps they are devastated by their losses and in their grief they found a cause to make them get up in the morning."...by lostlogic
=====
Not unlike the formation of MADD
**Candy Lightner founded MADD in 1980 following the death of her 13-year-old daughter Cari in Fair Oaks, Calif., on May 3. Cari was walking to a school carnival when a drunk driver struck her from behind. The driver had three prior drunk driving convictions and was out on bail from a hit-and-run arrest two days earlier.**
OR
The TV Program "America's Most Wanted"
**A career in fighting crime is one John Walsh never expected. In 1981, Walsh was a partner in a successful hotel management company. He and his wife Revé were living the American dream in southern Florida with their six-year-old son Adam. But then violent crime touched their lives. On July 27, 1981, Adam Walsh was abducted from a suburban shopping mall. For 16 days, a frantic search followed until Adam's remains were discovered more than 100 miles from his home.
The Walsh's turned their grief into action and without a badge or a gun, John Walsh quickly became a nationally recognized leader in the push for victims' rights. In 1987, FOX contacted John about hosting a groundbreaking new reality show designed to track down the country's most notorious and dangerous fugitives by profiling their cases to a national audience. Using AMW as his vehicle for justice, John could now bring to other victims of violent crime the closure he never found.**
The 9/11 widows have also turned THEIR grief into action. Coulter's SMEARING of them is without doubt the LOWEST she has EVER sunk [thus far]
John Walsh - great example! *golf clap*
John Walsh is a great example. He has received much fame and fortune due to his campaign that was started as a result of his loss. He has spoken before congress and he has worked tirelessly for reforms. He wants to prevent what happened to his son and his family from happening to others. Sounds just like what the women are doing…unfortunately the politics of the issue brings out such ugliness from some. In Ann Coulter’s world she probably thinks John Walsh is enjoying his son’s death. Does anyone imagine for one minute he wouldn’t give it up in a heart beat if he could have Adam back?
Is SACRED to the rightwing. I am not sure if it is because the argument is easy, or if it is a consequence of the black/white thinking you mentioned
I think for the strategist and politicians it is easy to smear their opponents with this type of linear logic. Many of them probably do "get it" but it helps them more to push this thinking. For the people who vote their way...This may be over-generalizing but in my opinion republicans and conservative VOTERS tend to think very black and white.
Lets say God gave her a button to push that would erase it all. If she pushes it then the terrorists get caught while they're in flight school. The hijackings didn't happen... the towers are still standing... nobody got killed.
No PNAC Pearl Harbor.
No Bush at Ground Zero giving a speech with his arm draped over a firefighter's shoulders.
No 90+% approval ratings.
No Afghanistan.
I wonder if Coulter would give that all up just for 3,000 lives.
I wonder if any of the right wing apologists will have the gall to come on and whine that this doesn't belong because "It's just her opinion. It's not misinformation."
"Can someone explain to me why it is only the Right that accuses those on the left for exploiting their loss?"
It must be because the right is so pure, and so value oriented, that they wouldn't dream of such a vile act as taking a stand against this administration.
Sarcasm aside, Ann *Can't *Understand *Normal *Thinking. Who would ever think of such a vile remark. These people paid dearly, and therfore have the right to voice their opinions--be those opinions left or right. And we should show them the courtesy (since we are not the ones who lost a loved one) to listen. Regardless if we agree or disagree.
These people spoke up with the intention that this sort of thing needs to be prevented in the future. And, the people who are supposed to protecting us do. After all, that is one of the primary reasons they were elected.
Hard Times for Widows in New York Town by 'Ann Coulter'
This song is parody and reflects the views and statements of Ann Coulter, not my own.
Come ladies and gentlemen, listen to my cussing, Jesus hates widows, and the liberals are fussing, Widows wept like babies when the towers fell, Jesus will send these Godless tramps to hell, And it's hard times in this country, For the widows living down in New York town
Old New York City's terror alert is on red, Let the terrorists win with their husbands all dead, There are a lot of folks who call this a controversy, But when they insult Jesus and I, I'll show them no mercy, And it's hard times in this country, For the widows living down in New York town
It's a mighty lot of things that the liberals hate, To Rockefeller Plaza and the Empire State, All Chertoff did was say a few words, And New Yorker widows scream that his cuts are absurd, And it's hard times in this country, For the widows living down in New York town
Well, I'm on the Today Show trying to do my work, I just said a few words causing cowards to feel hurt, They get a truck load of money and they sure are merry, But if I killed my own mother, I'd get more flack than Kerry, And it's hard times in this country, For the widows living down in New York town
So all the liberal media, spreads the news around, The New York Times will just put us all down, They will slander my name and hope I'll retreat, While the widows sip wine and live on easy street, And it's hard times in this country, For the widows living down in New York town
Based on Bob Dylan's 1962 song Hard Times in New York Town
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Let Ann continue talking and just remind everyone you can the she is the SPOKESWOMAN for the REPUBLICAN Party.........Ann is dressing down not only these women but also the Democrats for not stating their own points but using these women and Mrs. Sheehan...but the Repubulicans are using her to counteract them...why don't the STANDUP Republican politicians quit hiding behind Ann's skirt..LET her just go on and on and on...besides, nobody knows anything else about what is in her book...they will push that next week
Coulter is one,of many wingnuts,whose sanity must be questioned.But these kind of insensitive remarks ALWAYS seem to sell her book.So instead of being"crazy",maybe she is just a well-marketed capitalist.
the people you've lost, parents, a spouse, a child, a sibling. anything that you supposedly "gained", insurance, inheritance, whatever, wouldn't you give it back gladly if it was possible to have that person back? but ann knows different. keep it up, dear. you're the poster child for the right wing.
... would give up her fame and money to stop terrorism. Maybe she's enjoying her celebrity too much.
I've said for some time that this Untermensch doesn't believe what she says. But some people still believe her. As others have pointed out, every time she "writes" something, it's more absurd, insulting, and profane that what preceded it.
I'd like to think this could be her end. But, no, there's still the Neo-con Fascists that love her, because she's cute, has a nice derrier, and has a couple of letters after her name. You know, the same ones who decry the "educated Establishment" and who declare that liberals are sexually preoccupied.
I think any show that Ann Coulter appears on should require her to take a drug test - whatever (s)he is on makes Rush's oxycontin look like aspirin. Not to mention that (s)he is clinically insane.
Coulter loves to feed off the misery of others, and if none exists, (s)he will creates some. I have despised his/her tactics from the first time I ever had the misfortune of watching him/her on Fox, where (s)he fits fight in - but (s)he even makes those apologists look like moderates.
I used to be amused by his/her schtick as I thought it was merely a "hook" to get on TV and sell his/her books. I am not a psychiatrist, but (s)he is clearly a sociopath who hates him/herself and transfers those feeling of self-loathing to anyone who (s)he deems worthy of his/her hatespeak.
At first, it was like watching a train wreck or car crash from a distance out of curiousity - now it is like looking at the gory carnage resulting from such accidents - I now have to look away, because it makes me sick.
I hope she gets the crap sued out of her. Funny how one of her books is called 'Slander". What an amazing hypocrite.