Matalin, defending Coulter's attacks on 9-11 widows: "I take her larger point"
On MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Republican strategist Mary Matalin joined other Republican strategists and media figures in defending Ann Coulter's attacks on the widows of the 9-11 victims, expressing agreement with Coulter's "larger point." When Imus challenged Matalin to condemn Coulter for her "repugnant attacks," including "calling these women harpies," Matalin refused, saying: "That's completely not her point," and that such remarks are Coulter's "stock in trade." She added that she would not condemn Coulter because "I don't know her" and "I haven't read the book."
On the June 9 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, Republican strategist Mary Matalin joined other Republican strategists and media figures in defending Ann Coulter's attacks on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- articulated in her book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), and in media appearances promoting the book. Asked by host Don Imus to comment on Coulter's remarks that the 9-11 widows who criticized President Bush were "reveling in their status as celebrities" and "enjoying their husbands' deaths," Matalin expressed agreement with Coulter's "larger point." When Imus challenged Matalin to condemn Coulter for her "repugnant attacks," including "calling these women harpies," Matalin refused, saying: "That's completely not her point," and that such remarks are Coulter's "stock in trade." She added that she would not condemn Coulter because "I don't know her" and "I haven't read the book."
Echoing Coulter, Matalin stated that "in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments," liberals "roll out messengers" that it is "politically incorrect to argue with." Additionally, Matalin asserted: "You lefty crazy people run around, calling us 'extra chromosome' and 'Hitlers' and 'Nazis' and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a 'harpy' and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire."
From the June 9 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
IMUS: What did you make of the Ann Coulter deal?
MATALIN: I take her larger point that in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments, you roll out messengers that can't be -- you know, it's politically incorrect to argue with. But I -- I, you know, the verbiage is a little -- little stressful.
IMUS: So you thought her comments about these women was -- were inappropriate?
MATALIN: I take her larger point, which is --
IMUS: Well, why can't you comment on what she -- calling these women harpies?
MATALIN: Because that's not her point.
IMUS: Harpies and --
MATALIN: That's completely not her point.
IMUS: Well, no, but I mean, saying that they were happy their husbands got killed?
BERNARD McGUIRK [producer]: Their husbands were going to divorce them.
IMUS: And -- yes, that they're getting long in the tooth, and maybe ought to think about appearing in Playboy, which is an option --
MATALIN: What do you think about her point? Her point that you can't -- you know, Cindy Sheehan -- you can't -- if you throw yourself in the political arena, that you should be able to, you know, to address political issues, and people should be able to speak back to you?
IMUS: I agree with her point.
MATALIN: Well then that's what I agree with.
IMUS: 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.
MATALIN: Well that's her stock in trade.
IMUS: But I'm surprised that you won't condemn her for these repugnant remarks.
MATALIN: I don't know her. I haven't read the book.
IMUS: Well you don't have to know her. You know what Hitler did. Did you know him? And you can condemn what he did.
MATALIN Are you comparing her to Hitler? See, this is the point.
IMUS: No. No, I'm not. I'm just -- of course not. I'm just saying --
MATALIN: This is completely the point she's making.
IMUS: All right. You know me. You condemn me all the time.
MATALIN: You lefty crazy people run around, calling us "extra chromosome" and "Hitlers" and "Nazis" and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a "harpy" and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire.
Palin, the press, and her "no más" moment
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Mary Matalin is just a GOP hack,who can't or would\n"t critize any other rightists;and she is allowed to get away with it!!!
These skanks have to defend each other.
If Ann goes down (well, you know what I mean) the whole house of cards for these factless, baseless screeds against us will also go down.
Does anyone actually Read Coulter's books?
Just what exactly is "factless" or "baseless" about her accusations? Nothing! When you put yourself in the arena of an election you are subject to inquiry. These women campained for kerry and by doing so left themselves open to a response. They politicized themselves. Coulter was not speaking to their work on homeland security so much as their desire to affect an election.
Matalin gives Coulter the benefit of the doubt and speaks to her larger point -- that when the left has no message, they drag out victims who are unassailable because of their pathetic circumstances. Republicans can't engage Cindy Sheehan or the 9-11 widows in meaningful debate because their victimhood overshadows everything. They are bulletproof.
Nonsense. If the Republicans want a debate on the issues, bring it on. Cindy Sheehan would, I'm sure, welcome such a debate. So would the widows. I'm only a victim of this war insofar as I'm paying for it and I'd welcome such a debate. Let's commit to that. You won't hear any squawking on the left.
No, what Matalin really means is Sheehan and the 9-11 widows are so hard to smear with lies, the Republican tactic of choice lately. It is harder to paint them as selfish, unpatriotic, cowardly, and anti-American. It's harder to bring them down by attacking them personally. That's what Matalin misses.
Of course, Coulter is not so restrained. She's even less interested in a debate on the issues than is Matalin. She has no issues. No facts. No grounds. No real position, that I can discern. She makes her money throwing around invective and ad hominems. She feeds into the hatred of her audience towards those who disagree with them, without actually adressing any issues. A debate on the issues? What a breath of fresh air that would be. Go ahead. Take off the gloves, Mary. Do your damndest. As long as you stick with the issues, you won't get any complaints from this quarter.
This is nothing more then a sad attempt on the part of the more…how shall I put this…devout right wing ideologs to deflect attention away from the indefensible words of one of their own. So far of all the public right leaning figures that I have heard comment on this the only one who did so without deflection was Joe Scarborough. I have to give credit to the man he didn’t deflect in his criticism of her words and even went so far as to say if it was his family member that was slaughtered you better believe he would be speaking out. Maybe there have been others but none I have heard or read about. Matlin should be ashamed of her conduct in this interview. Do you see how she even tries to twist the point Imus made about we can and do criticize people we don’t “know” because he used Hitler as an example of someone we don’t know but condemn…she tries to turn it into the usual are you comparing so and so to Hitler crap they always do instead of acknowledging the actual point.
Heh, Matalin knew full well that her "are you comparing Coulter to Hitler" was a hyperextension of Imus' limited analogy. That's what the losing side of a debate does when the angry but winning side unfortunately mentions Nazis. "Are you comparing us to Nazis?"
Yeah, Mary, in every single way. Right down to that little mustache you sport. I mean, come on...if the shoe fits.... "GASP! Are you comparing us to shoes? What are you saying? We're only fit for being walked upon?"
How can one ever maintain a conversation with these people? Or perhaps the better question is, why do we keep trying to?
Isn't there a Blogger's Murphy's Law or something about how the longer a political conversation lasts the greater the chances Nazis will be references, at which point the conversation is over?
And the only people ever to invoke it are the people being compared to Nazis...which, in all fairness, they are. Cult-like worship of the Party and it's Leader, blatant ultranationalism, racist ideology with goals of genocide, the belief their nation should by right rule the world, the militarism, the pillaging of conquered lands.
They don't use Fuhrer...they use "commander-in-chief". It's not the Master Race...it's the "Super Power". It's not "lebensraum", it's "national interests". It's not a "war on bolshevism", it's a "war on terror". The moslems are not "vermin", they are "terrorists". Same rhetoric, different terms, same usage. They're back.
PS. The nazis constantly railed against "liberalism". Just look up Goebbel's speeches online.
You keep losing the arguments yet you still insist on enjoining the battle. I don't understand why you keep arguing either! hehehe
I've called Coulter worse than 'harpy' (just for the record).
Imus is a "crazy lefty"?
she is Goebbels..................in drag.
Actually, I'd say that Coulter aspires to be Hitler. Or Goebbels. Though Matalin's stupid comment was an eggregious hyperextension of Imus' limited analogy, hell, why not compare her to Nazis? Everything she says is about hating people who aren't like her, and killing a vast lot of them. She may pretend, at times, that her tongue is placed firmly in her cheek, but the placement really ain't so firm. She only wishes she had the power of a Goebbels or a Hitler.
Excepte this his adams apple wasn't as large.
Therefore, an attack upon the widows is an attack on the surviving victims of 9/11.
Also, isn't it heartwarming to see the right wing rush to defend the most powerful man in the world from the awful harm of being criticized for his incompetence by widows and orphans?
---"MATALIN: I take her larger point that in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments, you roll out messengers that can't be -- you know, it's politically incorrect to argue with."---
Matalin doesn't mean "argue with". Nobody's stopping her or Coulter or anybody else from "arguing". What Matalin means is that it's politically incorrect to *SMEAR* them--which is Matalin's and her right-wing cohorts' "stock in trade", to use Matalin's own term.
You're tight, it's all about the "smear." These vermin go places that smarter rats fear to tread, places like Mrs. Schiavo's death bed, our bedrooms, our private conversations. They assault those who truly embody good, human qualities, people like Mrs. Sheehan, General Eric Shinseki, Joe Wilson, John Kerry, Al Gore, Rep. Murtha, Senator and President Clinton. They sully us all with their filth and they degrade the human spirit with their evil mendacity.
What I just cannot fathom is WHY? Why do they lower themselves to the lower possible form of life? Why are they such unrelenting scum?
Brock summed it up in his book-- If the Clinton agenda had been allowd to pass it would have made it impossible to get a Democrat out of the White House For several years. The Fear was a repeat of FDR. The Sad part is if you actually dig up the real Clinton agenda you would weep for what might have been for this country. While it would not have made the country all roses and candy it would have given us a good footing on reversing the economic nightmare of trickle down economics which has all but erased the middle class.
The cold hard truth is that they need to protect this system. If you study it closely as I have you will see why. The theory's design is to place the wealth of an economic system at the top therefor in the control of those at the top. It would be great if those at the top had a mind to be generous. however they don't so they get to control what gets to "trickle down" the system. Hense, the reason why most of the wealth of this country is controled by a small percentage. The only way to control this and to force the money down ward is through Income taxation which they don't pay alot of. The biggest shift in economic parrells those early 80's tax cuts. The only way to force the wealthy to allow it to trickle down is tax the he!! out of it if they don't--Simple logic.
They're psychos. Certifiable. Criminally insane. And the present political climate has empowered them.
Matalin keeps trying to deflect attention from Ann's outrageous, indefensible behavior by suggesting she has a larger point. What could it possibly be? Maybe she's psychotic harboring an irrational hatred of liberals? Maybe she'll say anything for a buck? Perhaps she's having a drug relapse?
Let's turn the tables. Now if some lib (goodness forbid) were to say on national TV, "George Bush talks like he's chewing on a pack of condoms," the outrage of the right would produce enough hot air to threaten the nation with a category 5 hurricane. Oh, he's the "war-time president"! How dare Bush-hating liberals bash the distinguished office of the President! But who can argue against the "larger point" he's inarticulate as a baboon?
So exactly how does the right justify apologizing for the stupid comments of a gold-digger like Coulter shamefully trashing the 9/11 widows? Oh yeah, they're massive hypocrites. Sorry I asked.
If Ann thinks that the 9/11 widows are using their husbands death to make a political statement, then I think Ann is also using their husbands deaths to make her own statements. It's pretty disgusting if you ask me. In this country, many of our laws are a direct result of someone's death. I think Ann tries to come up with crap that will stir controversy, which makes her rich. I just have to tune Coulter out and not support any media or advertisement that offers her financial gain.
Just a small example, but telling IMO: if you suddenly see a blinking caution light over what used to be a simple 4 way stop intersection...it means enough people died at that intersection to warrant the DMV to put up a "stronger" signal that this is a dangerous intersection. The next step, of course, is the "green light" traffic signal.
Yeah, well Matalin, you don't know a lot of people, but that's never stopped you from personally attacking them before.
I thought the last bit was particularly amusing. Is she seriously addressing the "you" to Imus? In what bizarre fantasy world is Don Imus considered part of the "left"?
You're asking how can Imus be considered a "lefty"?
I thought it was fairly well established by now that anyone who doesn't automatically agree with and defend every single comment by anyone who supports the president, no matter how outrageous it is, is a "lefty".
Which pretty much means that anyone to the left of Genghis Khan and Mussolini will end up being called a lefty at one point or another.
Is that really a GOP spokesperson? She is also invloved in misinformation and smear. The "you lefty crazy people' is especially speaking for itself.
further
MATALIN: You lefty crazy people run around, calling us "extra chromosome" and "Hitlers" and "Nazis" and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a "harpy" and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire.
The hitler and nazi remarks are sadly from both sides and are then again attacked by both sides. And extra chromosome is a new one to me. Matalin is lost!!
Its funny how she is saying that she does not know Coulter (which I doubt) and that she did not read her book, but she (which she uses in a denegrating way to oponents) is smart enough to grasp the larger point. That seems like a defence to me of Coulter and her claims.
This was actually a term coined by Lee Atwater the Republican strategist responsible for the Willie Horton adds. I've read this attributed to him in many books. This is what he called the "religious right voters". Lee Atwater was the one who initially recognized that co-opting that constituency for the Republicans was a good strategic move, but obviously he didn't hold them in the highest esteem. Since then I have seen liberal posters write this on blogs, but I’ve never read or heard a public politico or commentator used this phrase. I think Republican strategists have their peeps monitor what’s being said on the liberal bogs.
So, Coulter graduated from law school (Michigan, I think it was), practiced law for a while, is a widely sought-after speaker and media pundit, yet she cannot address the political issues raised by a group of four (?) women who probably did not go to law school; instead, Coulter resorts to cheap, vulgar ad hominem attacks - not to mention hypocritical ad hominem attacks, as Coulter herself has certainly taken advantage of 9-11 to make a tidy profit on her books and speeches (as pointed out by Keith Olbermann). She is a very sad excuse for a human being.
Plato
That being, she supports Coulter in her every idea and phrase, and so Coulter can now be considered official spokeperson for the GOP.
Going into election 2006, Coulter's phrases can be used over and over to describe the sentiments of any GOP official ... unless they specifically DENOUNCE her.
Matalin isn't running for office, but if she did, then every utterance and written word from Ann Coulter could be fairly attributed to Matalin as HER OWN VIEWS.
Obviously, I have faith in the American people, and believe that Ann Coulter's ideology and mindset are a package that the vast majority of American will REJECT as cruel and hateful. Every GOP candidate and officeholder from Bush on down should be branded with the words of Coulter, until they specifically REJECT this woman as "speaking for them."
Fair is fair.
"Fair is fair."
The right has done a spendid job of crediting the statements of Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, Rob Reiner, Alec Baldwin and that bunch to Democrats, so why not the other way around. I believe that Michael Moore and that gang have done more net damage to the party than they have helped. Democrats need their money, but it would sure be helpful if they'd just shut up once they wrote the check. I don't think many Americans put much stock in what MM thinks, or Babs and it would really seem MM and Babs would know that and back off to help the party.
While the Republican Party doesn't expressly endorse Coulter, they also do not publicly repudiate or condemn her remarks DIRECTLY. Sure, they might say, "She's entitled to an opinion" or "The 9/11 widows are victims" and other things that skirt the issue, just as Bush did when confronted with the Swift Boat ads against Kerry (John Kerry served his country, Bush said, the master of nuance that he is), but NEVER will they stand up and say, "This kind of attack is disgusting!" because, fundamentally, they BELIEVE Ann Coulter's venom and cannot pat her on the back hard enough for slinging the mud they only wish they had the balls to sling.
BTW, the "lefty" remark is a classic example of how Republicans are quick to pigeonhole ANYONE who simply disagrees with them, the very tactic they accuse the Left of doing, which, like it or not, is more or less true. I, too, tend to label people who do not see my point as conservative, which I didn't used to do, but then not so long ago I was classifiable as a moderate, yet when Bush took the oath of office suddenly I found myself, by comparison, a bleeding heart liberal. My mother, who NEVER voted Democratic in her LIFE did so in 2004, because George Bush is so far to the Right it scared her to death to vote for him again. The Republicans have become so extreme they are scaring away the very strata of Middle America they are trying to enchant.
My father is another story...
me MMFA is an apologist for the 9/11 widows.
I mean there are only 4 of them Coulter is attacking.
Yet, no one in the media is printing their outlandish quotes.
Seems if there is a cat fight, everyone would like to know what it is all about.
And why on God's green earth do 9/11 widows need apologising FOR? What is wrong with you, Leatherhelmet? Haven't you any more humanity than the screeching bag of sh*t Anne Coulter? That is certaintly nothing to be proud of.
Get a clue, man.
If you just stepped back and thought for a SECOND, you'd see how absurd that comment is. What about the 9/11 widows who attended the 2004 Republican dog and pony show in New York? Weren't they politicizing themselves too? And if so, so what? What's wrong with having a political opinion one way or the other? And therein lays the BS of Coulter's arguments.
She attacks one group for supporting Kerry (political whores, she's basically saying) but as for those who support Bush, they're heroes and patriots. I don't recall Democrats of any ilk saying the 9/11 widows who paraded on stage to help reelect Bush were "marry" or "happy" or any other such drivel. And most hypocritical of all, it's OK for Coulter to politicize the 9/11 widows, so long as they don't do it themselves.
Leather, you really need to re-THINK your whole political worldview. It's full of more holes than a colander the size of the Titanic.
You MAY have a good point.
So, PRINT some of the "outlandish quotes" from these 4 widows.
Particularly, focus on the PERSONAL ATTACKS these women have made on Ann Coulter, or anyone else, of the same vitriol and heartless cruelty as that presented by Coulter against them.
What's holding you up, Leather?
I'd like to see some of those quotes also, Leather.
Once agian, Leatherhelmet has just hit and run. He offers nothing but what he's heard from the Draft Dodging Contingent of the right wing talk machine. He never backs anything up with something so trivial as a link to those reported "Facts" or the outlandish quotes" he refers to.
Godot has them
Generally speaking, I think that Coulter was using the 4 women as an example of an overall level of rhetoric coming from the left. In the specific case of these women, the issue becomes more what claim they have to this national forum they are afforded, other than their husbands' death? There are 1,000 or more 9/11 widows, why do these four get the floor? The obvious answer is that they were so moved by their husbands' deaths that its not uncommon for loved ones to discover political "fights" as a result of their loss. Polly Klass comes to mind, MADD comes to mind. The problem with these ladies is that they've gone farther and declared a "side" so to speak by making commercials for Democratic candidates. Once they've done that, it calls into question their motivations and as a consequence their right to that national forum. As opposed the their views being taken as those of an aggrieved widow, they are more properly viewed as those of a pundit, like Ann Coulter herself.
Tex- I like you're thinking. Let's not forget this when the time comes.
There was an exchange between Mary Matalin and Don Imus? Hmmmmmmm where and when did this occur? Don Imus is still on the air? WOW, if this is true then it must have taken place after Howard Stern had her on!
I wonder if Coulter is tired of listening to Jews talk about the Holocaust.
How does she feel about Holocaust deniers being jailed? Talk about not being able to criticize!
Maybe she should rip into Elie Weisel. His book has definitely made him rich and famous.
Does she think he wouldn't give up his detention by the Nazis if it meant Israel would disappear?
Coulter doesn't mean what she says because nothing she says has meaning.
In the past, there was always a far right and a far left contingent in US politics. The oposition could always say that we don't all march in lock step. The republicans can no longer make this claim. They are not only marching in step, but it's now a goosestep.
Before, the media hacks would hurl the feces and the middle of the road republicans could state that those opinionators don't respresent our party. With Matalin defending Coulter's remarks, the tide has changed. The official policy of the republican party is now to attack any and everyone who is in disagreement with their official line. If ever a time existed for them to turn on one of their own, this is such a time. They won't do it. they are now also devouring those in the party who have not moved to the far right. McCain has ssen the light and stepped into the darkness. Arlen Spector has been marginalized by his own party as Dick Cheney works behind the chairmna's back to manipulate the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate. They are circling the wagons and gearing up for what they perceive to be a Political Armaghedon. This November they will risk everything in an attempt to hold on to power.
If they are sucessful, we are headed for madness.
or Cindy Sheehan till Anne Coulter arrived with her book? I've seen and heard them criticized for their political actions all over the main stream media since the beginning. If you are a conservative its almost a certainty that you are daily getting your fill of much more frequent and stronger attacks with Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreilly, Savage... How much more dishonhest can you get?
Ann Coulter speaks for the President of the United States, and the Republican Party.
Se is defended, and trumpeted by Republicans, and apparently is considered an acceptable representitive of the party's position.
Her views should be accepted as the official word of the GOP, and also this President.
Micheal Moore is the officail spokesman of the DNC.
And when during that interview did he commit slander?
Moore spends an awful lot of time criticiing its own members. Seems to me you don't listen to Moore much if you think he is propaganda for the DNC. Last time I check he wanted to unite the DEM and Rep so we start a new party and could really have a two party system.
Michael More actually isn't crazy about the Democrats. He voted for Nader in 2000 (although he did it as a protest vote because he knew that Gore would win like he did) and had been an advocate for a creation of a third party . He was pragmatic in 2004 and pleaded with Nader not to run, because he thought the Dems were the much lesser of two evils and as it stands now right now it's a two party game. That might be why the Dems have been so fast to distance themselves from him.
MATALIN: You lefty crazy people run around, calling us "extra chromosome" and "Hitlers" and "Nazis" and everything,
and nobody says anything.
Maybe because it's the truth!
don't respond to troll remarks like Matlins. I wonder is has her husband ever called her a Nazi.
As a defender of the party in control, she can say anything about anybody anytime and not worry about any repercussions.
In my lifetime (71 years) I have never encountered anyone as freakish as Ann Coulter and her supporters.
It is like they are aliens and they have invaded my country.
Someone may have made this comment before, but I'm in a rush so I can't read through all of these comments.
What exactly prevents these people from commenting on what the 9/11 widows are talking about? In a democracy, such a manner of conversation is crucial; all members of a democracy are allowed to speak on any subject, and if a particular subject becomes of great interest to you practically overnight, as was the case with these widows, then you have every reason to be a loud voice about it. The decisions and lack of decisions that are made by this administration and this congress affect everyone's life, and it often takes something as awakening as the violent death of a loved one to realise that someone dropped the ball somewhere, and you want to make it so that this sort of thing does not happen again.
That being said, anyone has every single right to disagree with their statements, and suggest different approches to policy.
But what these right wingers are doing is the exact opposite of that. They are seeking to silence people who have been affected by the decisions of our democracy. Like all right wingers, they are looking to destroy the essensial tool of democracy, and that is our right to be heard as individuals as members of a society. The interaction that Ms. Coulter and the others should be having is a stern disagreement with the policies or the lack-thereof that led to the destruction of their lives, not the mallet over the head that she's engaging in. But that would be democracy, and Coulter cares nothing for that process. Coulter wants us to shut up and let the rich people do the thinking.
This intimidation of democratic voice is another sign of fascism, folks. You saw it with Sheehan. You see it with Murtha. You're seeing with Gore, and now you're seeing it with the 9/11 widows. People are agreeing with this woman in wide swaths, and you should be concerned about that.
She doesn't like the message from the 9-11 widows, so she attacks the messengers. And it works - she makes the talk show circuit and sells lots of books. That's what it's all about.
It's like the comment that Neil Cavuto made at the end of his interview with Annie. "Anne Coulter, number one book on Amazon, thank you for coming in." It's like looking at the film box office totals every week. If a film stinks but rakes in the most dough, ergo it "becomes" worthwhile and everyone pretends it "wasn't so bad."
Same with Annie. Since Repub organizations buy her book in bulk to make it "number one" it supposedly legitimizes her existence, despite her hateful vitrol. Propaganda can't be measured in monetary rankings, because those with the dough obviously wants "the message" to allow them to keep rolling in it. And as Howard Beale once said, "we'll lie like hell."
Ann Coulter is the closest thing I know to an intellectual who spouts lies, half truths and ad homonym attacks. For a lawyer she is incapable of accurate and truthful commentary. I would love to see her have to enter into a debate with members of the IVY colleges ' best students. They would blow her out of the water. Please media matters (David) set this challenge up!!!!!I'm sure the students in women's studies at Connecticut college would love to debate her incompetent derriere. And please give the students at least six weeks to prepare. I would love to see the slaughter!
MATALIN: You lefty crazy people run around, calling us "extra chromosome" and "Hitlers" and "Nazis" and everything, and nobody says anything. She calls somebody a "harpy" and you'd think that, you know, the whole world was on fire. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- And who has Gore been compared with over the past few weeks? Hitler.
And crazy right wing people have been calling us anti-American unpatriotic commies for decades.
Hell, Rush even tried the walks like a duck, talks like a duck argument to insinuate Democrats were no different than "terrorists" last week.
The difference is, they start referring to us as "enemy combatants" and we may just find ourselves indefinitely incarcerated without due process, without the right to an attorney, and without the right to a trial.
While defending the anorexic shrillness of the rhetorical grenade Coulter hurled into the arena of public opinion last week, uninjured columnist Mr. Tierney argues that among the many harmed by the blond pundo-bomber's latest malicious blast, perhaps legitimate targets might be identified: survivors of innocent victims.
Another example of group goal-post moving. Apparently not even the victims of crimes should take part in the discussion of legislation related to those crimes.
The thing that Ms. Coulter is so upset about when people like the 9/11 widows speak out is that it does make it a bit harder to respond with a direct personal attack, which is really Coulter's only tactic. For her to suggest that the right cannot respond to political statements made by widows is, of course, ridiculous--the right can respond at length. But that is not how the game is played anymore--you do not respond to the SUBSTANCE of what anyone says. Instead you immediately attack the speaker--call them traitors, appeasers, America-haters, but do not deal with the substance of what they are saying. This becomes harder to do against people like the 9/11 widows and Cindy Sheehan, which is why Ms. Coulter finds this so upsetting. After all, if she cannot engage in personal attack she has nothing else to say. Anyone who buys her screeds should be embarrassed.
Here is my theory on the composition of the American populace, and what it will take to win in 2006 and 2008.
Essential to this theory is my belief, based on personal observation, that 80% of the people are just dumb as a post. I don't know how this splits on the Rep/Dem/Ind viewpoints, but I have to believe there is sizeably more of these empty stares on the GOP side.
How did the GOP win in 2000 and 2004? Well, aside from cheating at the ballot box (watch for more of that this year and in 08), they dumbed down their message. They didn't get into complex explanations and strategies. The GOP designed their message to get through to Joe Beercan, and it worked.
The GOP will be doing the same thing this year, and until it stops working. The Democrats, if they really want to win, are going to have to beat the GOP at their game. The message needs to be simplified, and made more palletable and understandable to people who don't think too deeply about things.
I don't know if anyone from the DNC will see this, but I hope they do, or barring that, figure this concept out on their own.
Here's what I think of Ann Coulter and her Rethuglican agenda. She is nothing more that asinine bitch. She'll do anything to try to sell something and she is worse than O'Reilly and Lortab-Limbaugh!
Every bookstore around the country should BAN her book from being sold and maybe then she would change her simplistic attitude. I would love nothing more than to see her lose her ass and/or get sued over her comments.
It's been almost 5 years since the attacks of 9/11 and this smells extremely rotten to the core.
She only talks about Coulter calling the widows 'harpies.' What Matalin conveniently leaves out is Coulter's other comments about the widows, like saying that they were enjoying their husbands' deaths, and that they would have posed for Playboy and calling them 'broads.' She is doing this deliberately; the way many of her conservative colleauges do exactly the same. They selectively cite something in order to make it look less worse than it really is, then defend it.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
I cam across this over at Newshounds.us- the Connecticut Post online edition published a letter to Ann Coulter's mother:
[link to www.connpost.com]
Here is an excerpt:
"Dear Mrs. Coulter,
Congratulations on your daughter's success. I'm sure you are proud of Ann's latest work, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." It's already the top seller on Amazon.com and is obviously provocative, given the hundreds of reviews that are flowing in.
I haven't read it yet, so I wouldn't dream of commenting on the actual book. But, there is one thing that really disturbs me and that's her diatribe against four New Jersey women whom she dubs "The Witches of East Brunswick" whose husbands died in the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Here's the money quote that has even made Tucker Carlson and Bill O'Reilly squeamish:
"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."
The widows — Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza — came to Capitol Hill often in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. They came seeking answers to how al-Qaida was able to hijack four commercial jets and topple the World Trade Center towers where their husbands worked.
They acted out of grief, just as others have.
Candy Lightner of California founded Mothers Against Drunk Driving and lobbied for stiffer DWI penalties after a drunk driver killed her daughter in 1980.
Maureen and Richard Kanka of New Jersey, pushed for a sex offender registry after a child molester abducted and killed their daughter, Megan, in 1994. Now we have Megan's Law.
And John Walsh of Florida lobbied Congress for a missing children's bill after his son was abducted and murdered in 1981. Walsh now hosts "America's Most Wanted" on Fox Television, which profiles unsolved crimes...."
I guess Ann Coulter would take issue with all of these people, too?
Plato
That is the litmus test.
Because Coulter has no problem with conservatives exploiting 9/11 to whip their sheep into a war against a country that had nothing to do with it.
Using rude language and hyperbole, conservatives like Coulter and her supporters claim that they don't get enough credit for their victories and that Democrats and liberals are just spinning.
What victories? Really. That is the problem. There are few if any Republican victories these days other than in elections.
And add to this a whole laundry list of historical-scale screw ups in 9/11 and not catching bin Ladin, puffing the intel to rush us into Iraq on false pretenses, doing Iraq on the cheap without a plan to counter the present insurgency, Katrina - before, during and after, Harriet Miers, the Dubai Port affair, rampant corruption and cronyism, K-Street and Abramoff, leaking the identity of a CIA operative (one who was critical to now non-existant intel on Iran), immigration, denying global warming, dividing America, hocking us to the hilt to fund tax cuts which disproportionately favor the super-rich, cowtowing to big oil, big pharma and giant corporations in general, trying to dismantle Social Security, countenancing torture and other blatant, repeated human rights abuses by the US government, arrogantly blaming everyone in sight but themselves for their own screw ups, and a massive, desperate, illegal program of illegal warrantless spying on Americans. This list is just astounding. These Republicans are complete failures. Just plain awful.
How people can call all this just "spin" is beyond me.
I think it's time to give someone else a chance. Our last Democratic President didn't do so bad, great in fact compared to these losers. Time to give them another chance. Mark Warner, Gore, Obama and other good Dems deserve it.
It seems that everyone is so caught up with contempt for Ann Coulter that they’re missing the point. Ann Coulter is indeed a vile, vulgar nitwit. However, she is the best self-promoter since Mohammad Ali. Does anyone really believe that she buys into the crap she regurgitates? Anyone that whacky would be confined to a padded cell. Like Howard Stern, the “Shock-Jock”, she promotes herself by making outrageous, mind-boggling statements, and defends her position with even more outlandish claims. She’s a brilliant promoter, and if anyone would like proof, checkout the New York Times Bestseller list. Even left-wingers are buying her book just to see if she’s as fanatical as she appears. I can’t stand the sight of her, truly, but you have to admit, she knows how to get rich.
---"Does anyone really believe that she buys into the crap she regurgitates?"---
She hasn't ever said whether she believes in what she's saying or not. She acts and talks AS IF she does. But in any event, it doesn't matter whether she herself "buys into her own crap" or not. Because her fans, followers and apologists that she has a strong influence on obviously wholeheartedly DO buy into it and gobble it up (just look around on this and other threads).
Because her fans, followers and apologists that she has a strong influence on obviously wholeheartedly DO buy into it and gobble it up (just look around on this and other threads).
Ann Coulter's comments notwithstanding, the larger point which conservatives DO INDEED buy into is her pointing out that the left puts forth people like these widows and Sheehan more specifically that have no more claim to have their opinions validated than you, or I. Their supposed gravitas comes from their loss, which doesn't automatically convey a heightened level of understanding of these issues on which they are commenting. I mean Sheehan had NON STOP media coverage for several weeks while she camped outside Bush's ranch. On what basis, besides her victim status did she deserve this media attention? I have an opinion too, but the media isn't camped outside my door. Why is Sheehans opinion more valid than mine, or yours for that matter? And why does Sheehan get a pass on calling Bush a terrorist or a murderer, or a NAZI and on and on?? That's Coulter's point, and its a very good one.
She was villified in the conservative press, making the conservative press just as responsible for Sheehan's notoriety as the so-called main stream broadcast and print press. As several posters have already noted, conservatives seem to feel obligated to resort to ad hominem attacks on the people with whom they disagree. Why not just provide a rational argument against that person's offending statements? To argue as Coulter did that the so-called "9-11 widows" are not allowed to make public statements calling for a more rapid and effective response to the threat of terrorism implies that no one who has suffered should be allowed to lobby for their particular cause. This means a lot of the right wing's favorite causes would lose their spokespersons, as well.
Plato
She was villified in the conservative press, making the conservative press just as responsible for Sheehan's notoriety as the so-called main stream broadcast and print press.
I don't recall at all, the same level of collective outrage at Sheehan's statements about Bush in the mainstream press. There is a pretty much universal comdemnation, rightly so, on Coutlers statements. True or not. When Sheehan called the President the things that she said, there was not the outrage and the universal condemnations that we are seeing regarding Coulter. I'm NOT arguing that Coulter's comments were appropriate, they most certainly were not, I am merely saying that niether were Sheehan's, but nobody could or would point it out, which is the very heart of Coulter's core point and is valid.
First, I would argue that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh DID criticize Sheehan just as viciously as Coulter is now being criticized. But, even if you are correct, the explanation is quite simple: What Sheehan said about Bush ( who is open to public criticism by virtue of his position as an elected official) is not nearly so outrageous or offensive as Coulter's remarks.
Plato
You don't think calling the President a NAZI and a murderer is "out of bounds?"
If not, then the source of our disagreement is what can actually pass these days as rational political discourse. I would submit that your excusing those comments about Bush give the right license, at least in their minds, to make similar comments about their political opponents. In the end, all we have left is a lot of name calling with both sides pointing at the other as being the bigger offender.
The way you construct it, the left is "putting forth" Cindy Sheehan or the 9/11 widows. They put forth themselves when they got up and took action in a way that was visible to the public. Implying that some kind of organized cabal was responsible for the media attention these women received is conspiratorial and spurious. That claim would have to be legitimate for that leg of the argument to stand.
The reason the media isn't camped outside your door has very little to do with the validity of your opinions, and almost all to do with the fact (I'm assuming) that you haven't really done anything in the public arena like the activists we are discussing.
Since when has personal perspective gained from the exact kind of experience a person is railing against not been persausive and compelling to the rest of us? It is this exact kind of validity and humaness one brings to a cause that must be repressed, lest we see the human component of war (children dying) or government inaction (prolonged grief).
Whether we can recall more or less condemnation for this public figure or that, surely you wouldn't claim that Sheehan or the widows weren't exposed to condemnation. Claiming that these women were above media approach is wrong, and being upset that people find it unseemly when mothers of fallen soldiers and women who lost their husbands in a terrorist attack is really TS.
who lost their husbands in a terrorist attack ...
are attacked in the media
then, that, as I was trying to say would be, tough shiz.
My grip with coulter is not that she is a nut case who had made hereself rich with outlandish tactics. My grip is that the mainstream media DO NOT PROMOTE her as such. SHe is billed on TV news outlets as a legitimate political commentator. Then once she runs off her mouth they want us to buy that she is just some outlandish shock jock like Stearn. Give me a break. If ann coulter is a "shock jock" then she has no business being used as a legitmate commentator.
I just read reader reviews of Miss Coulter's book on Amazon.com and I don't know whether I shoul be chuckling at the airhead remarks or frigntened to death that people actually agree with someone who has used 9/11 for her own personal gain then complains when people who were actually affected (family member died) trying to get answers. Hypocrite Republicanism at it's worst. 'As long as I do it or say it it is fine, but if any of you liberals do it then you are godless, anti-American, out for the money, blah blah, blah'.
This reminds me of how Bill O' Rielly recently stated that he wished he could take a swing at this one guest on his show, who was the son of a 9-11 victim, but was against the war in Afghanistan. And liberal blogs are faulted for being unrestrained?
While leftwing media hacks are busy condemning Coulter's right-on comments about the vacuous Jersey Girls, in Las Vegas the Democrat political hacks were paying obeisance to the goon squad assembled by Daily Kos. My favorite quote from the founder of this latter day organization of brown shirts is this:
I feel nothing over the death of mercenaries. They aren’t in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them
Markos Moulitsas said this about the four American contractors who were brutally murdered in Fallujah, hacked apart, set afire then hanged on a bridge. Coulter is Cicero compared to the vile viciousness emanating from the left.
I must admit, I find it rather amusing to see how MMFA is "exploiting" and using the Jersey Girls, through this nonstop Coulter mania, for their own purposes.
Okay, I know it fires up the base, but who cares?
Getting back to the subject at hand, I wonder how many of your realize all this attentention and damnation directed projected here toward Coulter just proves her point?
In many of your minds, Couler has committed blasphemy.
Her point exactly.
at the admiration for "her point".
Her point seems to be, "watch people on the opposite side of the political spectrum that I represent react when I make public remarks that I know to be inflammatory, in fact, are designed with the exact purpose of being inflammatory."
Is this level of insight really worth getting excited about?
If someone told me that people with a political world view on the right side of the spectrum would get upset about the blogger wearing a t-shirt expressing a point of view about mercenaries in Iraq that is designed to be anti-thetical to the aforementioned world view, well let's just say I wouldn't find that news earth shattering.
So, yup. Got the point. Fascinating.
And perhaps someone else has made the point already...? Ms Coulter has accused these widows of, essentially, using thier husbands untimely deaths for their personal gain ( her quotes/comments are, I believe, wqell known to all). The truth is, Coulter is, in fact, using these deaths, AND those left behind, their grief, and 9/11 itself, for the sole purpose of selling her new book; i.e. FOR PERSONAL PROFIT. She is free to say whatever she wishes, but in fact, she is bloodsucking the emotional lives of these survivors and projecting the shameless, ugly reality of her behavior, via her access to the media, onto them. Her allegations are factually baseless (personal opinion/conjecture, nothing more), her psychological posture; juvenile and obvious, and her motives highly questionable (greed? fear?).
As a human being, I am highly offended by the her repeated visits to the lowest depths of human social behavior/interaction. Her marginal use of her education and polysyllabic syntax do not in any substantive obfuscate the bitter ugliness reveals to the world every day. Sad...
Bo
Has anyone thought of calling Ann Coulter or Mary Matalin a witch or harpy?
Mike Anders Lakewood, CA