Joining growing list of pundits, Goldberg endorsed Coulter's "content" while criticizing her "style"
Although former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg said he "disagree[d]" with Ann Coulter "in terms of style," he endorsed the "content" of her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, "agree[ing] that [liberals] trot out all sorts of people on the left who are victims, people who have lost their sons in war and widows."
During an interview with host Bill O'Reilly on the June 13 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, author and former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, now a reporter for HBO's Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel, endorsed the "content" of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006) -- including that liberals "trot out all sorts of people on the left who are victims, people who have lost their sons in war and widows" -- while "disagree[ing] ... in terms of style." But as Media Matters for America noted, Coulter's assertion -- echoed by others in the media -- is wrong in at least two respects. First, spokespeople with personal stories are hardly the sole province of liberals; the GOP and conservatives have demonstrated a great willingness to use victims and their families to advocate in support of their candidates and causes. But, more importantly, liberal advocates with personal stories have not been insulated in the least from either real political debate or from personal attacks.
Goldberg asserted that the "difference" between Coulter and him is that "Ann goes 22 miles over the line," adding that "Coulter hurts her team" by "giv[ing] liberals the opening to say 'You see, that's how they [conservatives] all are.' " Still, Goldberg went on to say, "Ann is very smart. Ann is very good. And I hope that Ann's book is very, very successful."
Goldberg is just the latest in a long line of media figures who have expressed support for the "point" Coulter made in her book about relatives of tragedy victims, as Media Matters for America has documented here, here, here, and here.
From the June 13 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Bernard Goldberg's book, 110 People Who are Screwing Up America, is out in paperback, competing with the Ann Coulter hardcover. Mr. Goldberg joins us now from Miami.
You know, you mock liberals in your book primarily -- some conservatives, mostly liberals. Ann Coulter mocks liberals almost exclusively. What's the difference between your presentation and her presentation?
GOLDBERG: Well, in a lot of ways -- and this is very important -- I agree with a lot of what Ann Coulter says.
I agree -- in her new book -- I agree that liberalism, they make it a religion because by making it a religion they could be morally superior; they could be virtuous; they could look down their nose at conservatives. I agree that they trot out all sorts of people on the left who are victims, people who have lost their sons in war and widows. So, I agree with Ann on a lot of things.
But maybe the difference is -- and I don't know that liberals would agree with this -- Ann goes 22 miles over the line. And she says things -- she says things that not only offend liberals. I don't have a problem with that because liberals aren't going to like Ann Coulter if she behaved like Mary Tyler more. So, that's not the issue.
I think Ann Coulter hurts her team. That's the difference. I don't think I hurt conservatives when I write about liberals screwing up the culture, but I think Ann hurts her team, because it gives liberals the opening to say, "You see, that's how they all are."
Now, Ann is very smart. Ann is very good. And I hope Ann's book is very, very successful. We don't disagree in content most of the time. We do diverge dramatically in terms of style.
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
In a truly hot political climate, this nonsense is nauseating.
Let it go.
Even Letterman's monologue-concluding joke (about Coulter), was both disgusting and one too many on the matter.
As for Colbert's show last night (The Report), it was as good as that stuff can get; it was perfect satire from beginning to end, and worthy of a time-capsule (or some other permanent record)...
His interview of Rep. Westmoreland (R-GA-08) was riotous!
...it was hilarious when he baited the guy into saying he would eliminate Social Security (which he didn't actually say), and then responded to the guys protest with his trademark "It's obviously an uncomfortable issue for you; let's move on..."
...and pinned the guy to where he refused (for manly reasons) to call himself a "Georgia Peach", despite Colbert having had another Georgia Rep. who applied that term to himself...
...and when he point-blank asked the Rep. to name the ten commandments (because the Rep. once cosponsored a bill requiring those ten commandments to appear in court houses and schools), and the Rep. fumbled and mumbled through only three commandments (w/ Colbert looking right at him, counting the response on his fingers) before he gave up and said he didn't even know them all!
It was a laugh riot, and satire that has no equal...
And only a billion times more funny and more informative (and more true) than whatever Letterman's Coulter joke meant...
Or any other reference to her, however funny, disgusting, or nauseating.
Not meaning to clutter up the thread of commentary on the seriously important issue of Coulter, but on the less serious (even frivolous) matter of Iraq:
The Hose is presently engaged in ten scheduled hours of general debate on H.Res. 861, which declares that...
...the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary
...which invokes "freedom" and the "terrorist adversary", under the umbrella of the "Global War on Terror".
Fine rhetoric; an indesputable declaration, which every Good American would (and should) give a hearty "Amen" to.
But a more complete reading of H.Res. 861 reveals it to be a rather crafty affirmation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and a commitment to keeping U.S. Troops in Iraq (a thing not so agreeable to the majority of the American People); specifically, the resolution reads as stating (necessarily abbreviated, but not mischaracterized in so doing)...
Whereas ...Saddam Hussein ...in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security...
Whereas the mission of the United States ...having removed Saddam Hussein ...is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people ...have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces ...have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States ...and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States ...will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;
(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;
...which are only two of the seven points of the resolution that I include, as being important enough to determine your vote (your "Aye" or "Amen") to the entire thing.
Anyway, a matter in progress right now, that I hope the mention of, doesn't too much clutter up the Coulter thread.
That, instead of figuring out what to actually DO about Puddinhead George's trainwreck, the House Republicans are indulging in this political masturbation. This bill represents two things; a wedge issue with which to beat up Democrats in November, (for the more intelligent and courageous ones will not vote for this piece of partisan propaganda)...and secondly; since it will probably pass, it gives Puddinhead George and his fellow liars some legal cover, just in case the Democrats do take back the house and investigate the raft of lies used to take us into this idiotic war.
Here's a thought...since these idiots think that passing a resolution will make something happen (i.e. winning the war) why not pass a resolution declaring a cure for cancer? Or that every American will be a millionaire? Or free universal health care.
God, I hate these bastards.
Who are these conservatives that have been biting their tongues and not responding to the victims that the left supposedly puts out there in order to garner sympathy and prevent any response?
Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, 9/11 families, John Kerry, John Murtha, etc. They have all been responded to, attacked rather, from day one. Their patriotism, character, motives have all been suspect from the moment they opened their mouths. I guess conservatives are just sick of having to deal with the victims of their own policies, or failures thereof.
astounded that Ann Coulter didn't show up in Bernie’s the 100 people screwing up America book. The book highlight' s Bernie's bias - his list of people coarsening American society includes Jimmy Carter, Harry Belafonte, Oliver Stone, Al Gore, Barbara Walters, etc. 97 of the 100 people are liberals he doesn't agree with. Of the 3 conservatives included on the list one is a domestic terrorist that blows up abortion clinics and murders doctors that perform abortions. Yes the standard for liberals and conservatives according to Bernie is miles apart. Hypocrite
The reason Satann Colder isn't in his "100 people" screed is explained by Goldberg himself at the end of this very interview. She's not in there because he agrees with her...
Yesiree folks, Mr Goldberg didn't put this wicked witch of 9/11 in his book because of... ...Bias.
Michael Savage was on his list, Savage is an evil man.
diasgree. The only person that I would characterize as being EVIL as you say on Bernie's list is the terrorist guy, you know the MURDERER.
Savage seems to be suffering from some kind of mental pathology; his extreme hatred of Gay people is pretty pathologic. He needs help.
You're right, it's hypocritical. But are you surprised? Maybe I'm cynical, but my first political memories as a child are of Watergate, and I remember how people rushed to defend Nixon, claiming all sorts of ludicrous things. The administration today has how many Watergate vets? And the media is owned by who, exactly?
They needed something to talk about on cable "news" to distract the viewers. While we're watching them talk about this new pile of horse crap dribbling out of Coulter's vile mouth, we're not watching them talk about how corrupt the Bush administration is, or, despite Bush's blathering about "progress", what a mess he's created in Iraq.
orchestrated by whom? where have you been pal? nobody or no website has given coulter more attention than this one. so start your indignation engines and aim them here first.
This is happening independent of MMFA. It would be happening even if MMFA didn't exist. Nice attempt at diversion, though.
By whom, you ask? I'm not sure. I could guess. I'll bet it's the same people who see to it that Republicans and their lapdog pundits are using the same dishonest talking points, all over cable "news" and talk radio.
It's probably the same place that gives you YOUR talking points. Maybe you could tell us....
And IF "they" weren't TALKING about Coulter YOU'D be COMPLAINING about that too.
Another words *damned if they do damned if they don't*
Personally I'm getting sick of this Coulterfest myself, BUT not because I think there's a Grand Conspiracy (that's what you think --don't you? LOL) going on to AVOID other issues.
It's just damn REDUNDANT. We've ALL had our say...Let's move on
If they were'nt talking about Coulter? She doesn't make any policy decisions, as far as I know. I wish she would fall in a manhole and disappear. She contributes nothing worthwhile to the public discourse.
Conspiracy? Hell, yes. Isn't it odd that all the same little gremlins just keep popping up? Ann Coulter was involved in the Clinton perjury trap up to her eyeballs. Now she's being rewarded with undeserved, manufactured fame. What a coincidence!
"Why would I complain...If they were'nt talking about Coulter?"...by nerzog
=====
Because THAT's your M.O. nerzog!! If they weren't talking about Coulter You'd be here CLAIMING that the "Conservative biased" MSM and Cable Networks were TRYING to sweep it UNDER THE RUG.
---------------------------------------------------------
"Conspiracy? Hell, yes. Isn't it odd that all the same little gremlins just keep popping up? Ann Coulter was involved in the Clinton perjury trap up to her eyeballs. Now she's being rewarded with undeserved, manufactured fame. What a coincidence!"...by nerzog
=====
So how'd it go down nerzog? Did Rove gather the troops about a year ago and DECIDE that they needed a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC for around June of 2006?
Did he say ' Hey Coulter write a book, and make it really NASTY...oh and put some really VILE stuff in about the 9/11 widows while you're at it. That will DIVERT everyone's ATTENTION for weeks!!...oh and just to get the "buzz" going--Release it on 6/6/06.'
You know I was JOKING about you believing in a conspiracy...BUT apparently YOU do. Scary :-O
And it doesn't have to be done months in advance. No, sweetheart, here's how it may have gone down. Rove, or whoever, sends out a memo which reads, roughly, Ann is coming out with another bomb-throwing screed.....book her on as many talk shows as possible, let her say some really horrible things, then come out and defend her. That'll stir up those pointy-heads real good!
Since they always need distraction from their incompetence and criminal behavior, this is just one of many.
Sure, it's possible. As I'm sure you remember, troglodytes like you laughed at Hillary's "right wing conspiracy" remark. Of course, she turned out to be right.
Of course, THIS Coulterfest is just EXACTLY what Republicans WANTED.
What could be better than having people THINK Coulter speaks for All Republican/Conservatives. This VILE NASTY WOMAN...
What a BRILLIANT Master Plan!
PUT her ALL over TV/Radio/newspapers/magazines. Have VOTERS think she's the POSTER GIRL for REPUBLICANS.
Are you even serious?
I'm SURE Republicans just RELISH being identified with Coulter. What they're doing NOW is *DAMAGE CONTROL*--not some ridiculous CONSPIRACY to DIVERT people from the issues.
Try again nerzog...
Why several conservative pundits are defending her?
It's simple, really. This is being played out for the Troglodyte base, those less-than-brilliant knuckle-dragging Republicans who actually agree with Ann, who buy her books, and think the Anti-Gay Amendment really will save America. The smart Republicans know it's all a ruse, so they just sit back and laugh quietly to themselves.
The people who really hate Ann aren't going to vote Republican anyway, so screw them!
After all the outrageous, stupid, incompetent, insensitive, illegal crap the Republicans have gotten away with the past six years, do you really think they care what liberal voters think? All they have to do is keep the Christofascists coming to the polls, and they will enjoy one party rule into the foreseeable future.
WHY are the MAJORITY of Republicans TRYING to AVOID even commenting on her?
Answer: They are wishing this Coulterfest would just GO AWAY!!!
So much for YOUR conspiracy theory...
As for the "SEVERAL" that are "DEFENDING" her...they are doing *Damage Control*. Note they are TRYING to defend her IDEAS but CHASTISING her for HOW she expressed them.
Sorry nerzog, your "conspiracy theory" doesn't quite add up...does it?
But it's not only her style that is despicable, but her content, which they ARE defending. The idea that these widows are enjoying their husbands' deaths is actually not that far off from some of the repulsive sh*t that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity puke up on a regular basis.
You're batting zero on this one.
Well at least you gave up on INSISTING there was a Conspiracy in the works...
Guess that dopey idea went...poof!
Nice attempt at trying to SHIFT the argument away from what we were discussing and not addressing my points. But that's ok. It's pretty much what I've gotten to EXPECT from some of the MORE radical fringe of your party.
Back to your basement nerzog. There are new Conspiracies to conjure up ;-)
Coulter absolutely serves a purpose for the "regular" Republicans. The more she's out there, the more the perception can be shifted to the right. The "regular" Republicans can seem moderate compared to Coulter, and they're extreme views on abortion, tax policy, and war mongering can be justified as not being as radical as Coulter. Agreeing with her would hurt this cause, and thus they are avoiding her like the plague. That doesn't mean that they don't benefit from what she is doing.
jeter2 hit the nail right on the head.
Look it's a faux-moderate circle jerk. Kewl!
hillary clinton blamed the sex allegations on a "a vast right-wing conspiracy" against her husband. if you remember your history, those allegations turned out to be true - hence NO "vast right wing conspiracy". so before you start name calling in your patented way, check your facts.
The remark was in response to the Lewinsky affair so she was wrong about that, but she referred to a conspiracy against her husband which dated back to before his election, which also pre-dated his affair with Lewinsky, I do believe. Maybe you could check those dates for me.
And, as we all now know, there really was a conspiracy. You can argue that it was justified, but to deny it's existence is flat out dishonest.
hence NO "vast right wing conspiracy"...
Oh, there was one. It started in 2001 when Tom Delay stood up and proudly stated "That man will never be MY president!". That wasn't stand up comedy, it was a glaring declaration of outright hostility and treason against Clinton YEARS before the Lewinsky thing.
i am not debating this, it's off topic and old news. look it up, she was asked specifically about sex allegations and said it was a result of a right wing conspiracy against her husband. that's the answer she gave. talk to her if you are confused.
and totally agree in context with you. Perhaps I did take your one line too literally, my point was only that overall, there was a "conspiracy" if you will against the Clintons from day 1. that's all.
Which is that the conspiracy did exist. End of story.
"...this vast right wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for President."
These are Hillary Clinton's words. Not just talking about the sex allegations is she? They went after Clinton from day one and all they got were sexual indiscretions. Just because their last ditch attempt turned out to be true doesn't mean everything that came before it is not a conspiracy.
you failed to include the question to her which was SPECIFICALLY about the sex allegations which she responded was due to a vast right wing conspiracy. HELLO people, there was no right wing conspiracy reagrding the sex allegations against her husband. she may have been clueless to what bill was doing, but to blame the right wing for his infidelity is wholly inaccurate. as for their hatred of clinton, of course there was that. as for his indiscretions, don't blame it on a right wing conspiracy.
"...since the day he announced for President."
While she was appearing on the Today Show and was being asked about the sex allegations (yes, that was the context), she was in fact using the term to refer to the actions against her husband "since the day he announced for President."
What exactly is unclear about this?
there WAS an undeniable right wing conspiracy to nail Clinton on sexual charges. Kenneth Star's Special Persecuter's Office began meeting with Paula Jones lawyers (lawyers that were provided to her through a right wing legal network) once Star was alerted to rumors that Clinton had had a sexual daliance with Monica Lewinsky. It was Star's office that SUGGESTED THE LINE OF QUESTIONING that Jones' lawyers took, for the sole purpose of cajoling Clinton into falsely answering them. This was a classic case of entrapment, in which law enforcement serves to convince its intended prey to commit a crime that they would be unlikely to do if left to their own devices. In this case, a VAST RIGHT WING network CONSPIRED to manipulate a private (& meritless) lawsuit into a perjury accusation against the President of the United States.
Add to that the infamous Arkansas Project, in which Richard Mellon Scaife, working closely with various other right wing organizations & players, poured millions of dollars into the attempt to dig up (or manufacture) dirt against Clinton.
The term 'vast right wing conspiracy' is an accurate expression of the very real attempt of a neocon underworld to bring down a president that they hated with frightening passion.
Hillary wasn't blaming only sex allegations on a vast right-wing conspiracy; she was referencing the investigation itself. It was supposed to be into real estate fraud, remember? But Starr's scope was virtually unlimited; and, if you'll remember, they decided long before Starr that they wanted to get Clinton's sex life into the public eye.
Tell me again how there wasn't any conspiracy?
Sometimes i just want to call up on one of these interview shows and ask Ann where I can sign up and start destroying liberals. I would say, "since liberals are godless, evil, sick, traitors, Ann, where can I sign up to start cleaning up the country and rounding them up".
I wonder what her reaction would be. Would she squirm or backpeddle her hateful words and deny the logic of doing something about the haters and the traitors that have the country by the throat - according to her.
All these shows have her on continually spewing the idea that many millions of people in our country hate our country and want it destroyed. Also note that she has rehabbed Sen. Mccarthy. The next rational step if one agrees with her message (if not her method) is to round up liberals for reeducation or elimination. Since the "far left" is "on the side of terrorism", This must be what she is aiming for eventually. People should contact her on these shows and call her bluff. "Yea Ann, I am an NRA member and I am ready for action, the time for words is over..."
This is happening independent of MMFA. It would be happening even if MMFA didn't exist. Nice attempt at diversion, though.
By whom, you ask? I'm not sure. I could guess. I'll bet it's the same people who see to it that Republicans and their lapdog pundits are using the same dishonest talking points, all over cable "news" and talk radio.
It's probably the same place that gives you YOUR talking points. Maybe you could tell us....
This is getting a little over played at this point by everyone. I do not have a problem with Ann raising what some are referring to as “her underlying point”. I think the debate would be rather short on that point though. All one would have to do to debunk the point would be to play a montage of all the coverage of people both disagreeing with these people’s positions and people personally smearing them. It is a false theory and the facts (on tape I might add) do not bear it out. I do have a problem with Ann trying to stifle debate on her “underlying point” by being so over the top offensive to deflect any real analysis of her “underlying point.” Instead she says something so personally out of line about these people so naturally people would condemn her and then she can say “see, see you can’t comment on these people”. Nice little trick on her part. Unfortunately it looks like most everyone fell right into her trap.
Weren't these same people who back Ann Coulter were the same ones cheering when yahoos were breaking, burning and boycotting Dixie Chicks Cd because of a tame comment by the lead singer? I personally believe Ann Coulter is taking one for the team due to the clear fact a growing amount of people are turning against the GOP and they need something or someone to take the heat off of them. I bet Ann don't believe in 99.9% of the thing she says, she's all about the money and team GOP.
I know that at least two of the Jersey Girls were Bush supporters before the 2004 GOP Convention, at which time they decided they had had enough.
I'll admit, the liberals will hop on a victim's bandwagon once they make themselves known to the world, but what is the basis for this accusation that liberals somehow conspire to 'manufacture' people who are angered by the actions of our government and happen to be victims of tragedy?
Maybe liberal minded people gravitate towards these people because we recognize there are real people behind these issues. They are not simply abstract black and white issues. Some do not like the messiness of acknowledging the gray areas. Real people with real experiences show too much gray.
i can appreciate to a point the logic of your argument, but i prefer to see it differently. sometimes emotion gets in the way of common sense and what is right and what is wrong. that can be dangerous when dealing with evil and destructive behavior. gray areas, although at times necessary, also blurs the distinctions and quick and decisive action, along with opportunity, is missed.
Why we see it different is probably why I lean left and you lean right for the most part. Contrary to popular belief it is not because one of us is the anti-christ. It is about different philosophies and frame of references. Although I will say that as to the issue of common sense I usually find that to belong to those who see gray issues not the black and whiters. You see things as right or wrong I tend to think common sense will tell you it is not that simple. I also think it is not necessarily a bad thing to proceed with caution before rushing in. Sometimes it helps to put some thought in to the consequences of your actions. What is that quote?--"only fools rush in". By the way in case I haven't mentioned it before I enjoy your input on this site and I think the site needs more voices like yours to make the debate interesting and informative.
That most people who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, also voted for George Bush? Black and White thinking. That's why these same people are willing to soil the Constitution with an Anti-Gay marriage Amendment and a Flag Burning Amendment. Black and White thinking. That's why they were so quick to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11. He's an A-rab, ain't he? Black and White thinking. Lack of insight, narrowmindedness, unwillingness to compromise. It all goes hand in hand.
"Archbishop James Ussher of Ireland announced that God created heaven and earth on Saturday evening, October 22, 4004 BC"
The above is from "The Age of The Earth"
[link to ourworld.compuserve.com]
The Flag Burning Amendment is on it's way to the Senate now. I'm sure that there are only a handful of flag burning cases each year. But hell, let's drop everything and get right on it.
These are very strange times we live in.
Archbishop James Ussher said that in the 19th Century. I'm sure by now they narrowed it down to the exact minute.
now they will be dealing with flag burning amendment amidst all our problems. wasted politicians. i wonder if the amendment will cover burning the gay flag too? hmmm?
will probably require burning the gay flag.
you make much sense and i can't disagree. since you have started posting i have noticed how well thought out and sensible your posts are. you are a welcome and reasonable voice. stick around.
"you are a welcome and reasonable voice. stick around."
Funny. You think she needs your permission to post? She's been posting here long before you came along.
that black and white can be equally as dangerous. Two cases in point - Willie Horton, and the arab released from GITMO. I am seeing the right use these types of black and white arguments exactly the same way the left is accused by coulter. You can't really argue the person is a bad man, but what should be argued is lost in the black and white application. One wastes their breath saying "what does what he did have to do with the others" when the retort is always "BUT HE'S EVIL, and we CAN'T TAKE THAT CHANCE AGAIN!"
last night's Colbert show ripped it up with Stephen's "Formidable Opponent", oh man it was so right-on.
"I agree -- in her new book -- I agree that liberalism, they make it a religion because by making it a religion they could be morally superior; they could be virtuous; they could look down their nose at conservatives."
umm...isn't that the whole neo-con strategy? It seems to me that conservatives constantly use religion as a supposed demonstration of their moral superiority. Hence the name of Coulter's new book. In fact, all the conservative has to do is invoke god (or conversely declare liberals to be godless) in order to make any rediculous statement they wish and get away with it. All you have to do is watch Sean "I don't care about facts, everything I need to know is in the bible" Hannity to see that conservatives constantly condescend and patronize anyone (including other conservatives) they don't agree with. Furthermore, the very basis for religious moral structure is that the religion (and representatives of the religion) is the sole arbiter of right and wrong and by nature takes a morally superior stance on everything. As I see it, a fundamental problem with religion infecting politics is that it has as a core idea that the believers are right and everyone else is wrong, causing anyone to speak from a religious standpoint to necessarily discount any opposing viewpoint, regardless of factual basis or source.
As for Coulter, she is totally irrelevant to the national debate. She makes no valid points to which any educated person would or should respond. The notion that her statements have an underlying level of validity is upheld only by conservative shills, as there is no underlying point that can be held up for legitimate debate. Last time I checked, this is a free country, and people whose family members have been killed as a result of this administration's imperialistic policies have every right to speak out against actions that have directly caused them and their families harm.
"But maybe the difference is -- and I don't know that liberals would agree with this -- Ann goes 22 miles over the line. And she says things -- she says things that not only offend liberals. I don't have a problem with that because liberals aren't going to like Ann Coulter if she behaved like Mary Tyler more."
So he doesn't have a problem with people making inflamatory, offensive statements, as long as they offend liberals? Also, if Coulter behaved like Mary Tyler [sic]more, then she wouldn't be the vile, venemous fountain of hatred she is, so his point is nonexistent.
to slam the wives (who lost so much and yet gave us the investigation Bush DIDN'T want) saying they are politizing 9/11 but if Bush politicizes 9/11, then THAT's Okeydokey. Just because he is the commander in thief doesn't make all his decisions legitimate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, if a liberal trots out a victim, somehow that's bad because it can't be properly "discussed". But if a republican trots out a perp, even though they are doing the same exact thing by bringing up something you can't discuss, that's ok. Anybody care to explain that one?
Coulter is ridiculous, almost a parody of herself. I think that she's deliberately ridiculous so that the rest of the Neocons will look more centrist. I am certainly not the first person to think so, and I don't remember where I first heard this idea, so I can't give credit there.
But when her "content" is called accurate and only her style is questioned I feel like I'm in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's watching Nazism emerge. How can this not scare people?