Denouncing Sen. Clinton, Coulter ignored her own "plantation" remarks
SUMMARY: Ann Coulter attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for her remarks in which she said that Republicans had run the House of Representatives "like a plantation," even though Coulter had previously used the same metaphor to attack liberals.
On the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter assailed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) for her January 16 remarks to a predominantly black audience, in which she said that Republicans had run the House of Representatives "like a plantation." But Coulter herself has previously used a "plantation" metaphor to attack liberals.
When host Neil Cavuto asked Coulter to comment on Clinton's January 16 remarks, she replied: "What a surprise that Hillary would be mentioning plantations on Martin Luther King Day in a black church. It's a crazy coincidence." Coulter called Clinton's comments "moronic," asking rhetorically, "[I]s that the one thing plantations were missing? A cloture vote?" She later asserted that Clinton's statements were "just the same old cliché. It's just Democrats once again running to the blacks whenever they're in trouble. You know, race-baiting on Martin Luther King Day. I think people are getting sick of it."
But as Media Matters for America previously noted, Coulter has a history of making racially charged remarks, including an attack on liberals that featured a "plantation" metaphor. On the December 8, 2004, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Coulter said that because liberals "feel like they have blacks on the plantation, they can say whatever they like" about black conservatives:
COULTER: They [liberals] feel like they have blacks on the plantation, they can say whatever they like. And, interestingly, you don't even hear Hispanic conservatives attacked in the same way that people like [Secretary of State] Condoleezza Rice and [Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas are, and -- and, I mean, just look at it. Look at what the Democrats' minority leader in the Senate said this weekend. He praises [Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia as "Oh, he's one smart guy, and his opinions, can't dispute the logic, though I disagree with them," and then he says of Clarence Thomas "He's an embarrassment. His opinions -- they're just poorly written."
[...]
O'REILLY: Isn't it loathsome, though, to use bias attacks to try to demean people with whom you disagree with politically? That's just loathsome, isn't it?
COULTER: Yes, although I will note -- I mean, I haven't particularly gone after the political cartoons. I think political cartoons are different. What I'm saying is that the serious thinkers, the political consultants, the people -- the pundits on TV, their attacks -- and the Democratic senators and representatives -- their attacks on black conservatives are instantly to revert to the most old-fashioned racist attacks. "Oh, yes, dummy." "Black chick. She's a dummy."
From the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Ann, to you first. What do you make of these remarks?
COULTER: What a surprise that Hillary would be mentioning plantations on Martin Luther King Day in a black church. It's a crazy coincidence.
CAVUTO: Was it insensitive?
COULTER: I think it's moronic more than insensitive. I mean, is that the one thing plantations were missing? A cloture vote? This is how, you know, seventh-graders argue because they have a limited repertoire at that age. You know, you don't go around comparing everything to a plantation.
[...]
CAVUTO: You know, Ann, am I crazy to think that maybe Hillary Clinton was crazy like a fox? That, you know, there were some in her base -- liberal base who were getting ticked off by this moderate move or whatever you want to call it, and maybe by making the statement she did, that was a calculated move to sort of reassure the base.
COULTER: I don't think that's really a sign of Democratic or liberal muscularity. It's just the same old cliché. It's just Democrats once again running to the blacks whenever they're in trouble. You know, race-baiting on Martin Luther King Day. I think people are getting sick of it. And I would think most of all -- well not most of all, I think everyone is getting sick of this watering down of what slavery and what plantations were. They didn't have enough representatives on congressional committees in slavery days? Was that the problem with slavery?
I dunno, I think we the people should hold a United States Senator such as Hillary Rodham Rodham (Democrat - New York) to a higher standard than little 'ol Ann Coulter.
I agree.
And I'm not quite sure what MMFA's point is with this thread...should we condemn Coulter for using the "Plantation" analogy but condone Hillary? Is MMFA saying it's OK for Hillary BECAUSE Coulter said it first? Or is MMFA suggesting Coulter has no business remarking on Hillary's usage of "plantation" because she's ALSO used it?
Also interesting is THIS thread has been here for hours(5) and remains (as of 11:25pm ish) quite empty. Could it be that even the Liberals here CAN NOT defend Hillary??
I believe MMFA is posting this for the 3rd of your suggested reasons: that Coulter has no business calling Hillary on her comment because she herself has used the same analogy in the past. Just more faux outrage from the Right.
As far as you guys' wishful thinking about the defensibility (or lack thereof) of Hillary's comment, I tried several times to post to this thread, but was unable to for unknown reasons.
I was going to post this link from Daily Kos, in which they list SEVERAL instances of conservatives using the same analogy. Links are provided. Once again, faux outrage and mouth-breathing from the Right.
[link to www.dailykos.com]
Deeznuts, FIRST off I'm NOT condoning or condemning either lady, though I happen to think BOTH were wrong in using the "plantation" analogy. HOWEVER, I'm interested to see IF any Liberals will ATTACK Coulter and EXCUSE Clinton. That to me would be the height of hypocrisy. Hope you&I could at least AGREE about that.
As far as MMFA suggesting that Coulter has no buisness calling Hillary on her comment because she too as used the analogy, I'd agree. It's sort of like Teddy Kennedy attacking Alito for his CAP. membership when it's been revealed that Kennedy STILL is a member of Owl which doesn't allow woman among their ranks....yet Kennedy did go after Alito. I'd say we need to hold BOTH sides to the same STANDARDS.
BTW IF this thread has had "technical problems" I wasn't aware of them as this is the first time I tried posting here since this afternoon.
What may I ask are you drinking so late in the evening?...or should I say early morning (where I am)...perhaps you're in the Pacific time zone? ;-)
The poster is correct there was a malfunction. I tried several times unsucessfully to post a comment here.
Thanks Lynn, I did think it was odd when I checked THIS thread out late last night and found ONLY one post. Now I know why :-)
"Or is MMFA suggesting Coulter has no business remarking on Hillary's usage of "plantation" because she's ALSO used it?"
Yes, Coulter can say anything because she is a not a public official, but let Michael Moore speak out and many here and in the media are quick to attach his comments to ALL democrats. It is very clear to see the double standard here, and which side it comes from. The RNC sends out it's talking points to Coulter, Hannity, Rush, etc, and then when they use these them, you claim they don't come from the party because a RNC official didn't say it? IF the RNC did not target these people as mouthpieces, you would have a point, but as we all know very well, they do. And Jeter, your new tactic of "I dare you to defend X." is getting tiresome. Nowhere in the article does it say what Clinton said was a good thing. I want to hear you defend Coulter. I want you to defend Rush calling women eye candy. I want you to defend Lott. Won't do it? I don't blame you, and I should not be asking you to do it. Get the point?
military_husband, IF you read my post to deeznuts carefully you'd know that I wrote:
"FIRST off I'm NOT condoning or condemning either lady, though I happen to think BOTH were wrong in using the "plantation" analogy."
Also:
"As far as MMFA suggesting that Coulter has no business calling Hillary on her comment because she too as used the analogy, I'd agree."...(note: I AGREE)
Ok that out of the way, IF you are familiar with my posts here then you'd KNOW that I rarely IF ever defend Coulter, Hannity, Rush or many other Far-Right pundits/journalists rhetoric. (THIS would also include the looniest of them all, Pat Robertson.) HOWEVER, if I felt I could defend a statement one of them made...I'd do it...but ONLY if I believed they were correct.
I realize that MMFA is a Progressive website that focuses ONLY on Conservative mis-information or rhetoric, BUT there are times when I, or any Conservative here will&should POINT OUT that SIMILAR mis-information&rhetoric is ALSO coming from the Liberal side.
My point on this thread was NOT necessarily to CHALLENGE you or any Liberal to defend Hillary Clinton, BUT rather I was CURIOUS if anyone here (Liberal) would ATTEMPT to *attack* Coulter while *defending* Clinton. In my opinion BOTH ladies were WRONG in using the "plantation" analogy and both deserved criticism.
Nobody here is trying to play "gottcha"...
I don't think you are trying to play "gotcha" or even know what that really means. I am just pointing out that you use this same type of post anytime there is an article like this. My point in asking you to defend Coulter or Rush or any of them was that I knew you wouldn't, nor should you have to. You may not realize it, but you are deflecting from the actual issue, which is the amazing double standard used by the right. People like Coulter, O'reilly, Hannity, etc. tell us all the time about the "hate speach" from the left, but never talk about the numerous "Hitler" and "plantation" comments made by their side, or even by themselves. Hypocrasy is the point, not "gatcha" or my side was right your side is wrong. Follow me now?
"I am just pointing out that you use this same type of post anytime there is an article like this."...by military_husband
=====
Ok help me here MH because I haven't a clue WHAT you mean...please clarify, and be SPECIFIC if you can. IF I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's that I tend to POINT out when BOTH sides are GUILTY of similar behavior, and for whatever reason this rubs you the wrong way.
---------------------------
"You may not realize it, but you are deflecting from the actual issue, which is the amazing double standard used by the right"...by military_husband
=====
Um no. Maybe it's the "amazing" DOUBLE STANDARDS used by BOTH sides. BOTH sides pander&race bait. Then have the audacity to ACCUSE each other of doing what they BOTH are guilty of doing. Yeah THAT is the hypocrisy here.... I can't speak for the Black community, BUT I for one would get tired of being used as a PAWN by BOTH sides.
Coulter&Clinton are both wrong here. I'm not going to say I'm shocked that YOU can't see that, as you are clearly a partisan who believes : Republicans can do no right, Democrats can do no wrong. I wear no such blinders, you should take yours off...you'd be surprised at what you might see.
Hillary was pandering with a touch of race baiting when she used the "plantation" analogy...THAT should be pointed out and criticized. HOWEVER, Coulter is the LAST person who should be doing the criticizing, as she's guilty of SIMILAR behavior. As I wrote in an earlier post it's as WRONG as Teddy Kennedy ATTACKING Alito for belonging to a club that discriminates against woman- BECAUSE so does Teddy-boy.
And THAT MH is the POINT. Simply put: POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. It works BOTH ways.
"Coulter&Clinton are both wrong here. I'm not going to say I'm shocked that YOU can't see that, as you are clearly a partisan who believes : Republicans can do no right, Democrats can do no wrong." Gee, I know I have had a discussion with you in the past stating that I respect certain Republicans and wish to see a true Republicannominated for the office of President. I guess you forgot about that one. It was a while ago so I understand. I do not, nor have I ever believed that everything Republican is wrong. I do believe that the current group that has hijacked the republican party has done it's base no favors. They are NOT for small governemnt, they are NOT for personal freedoms, etc. They are not what I think are the true ideals of the Republican party. Now that we are past that nonsense, let's move on. I am not attacking you. I am simply pointing out that you have done this in the past and it does not deal with the actual issue. Your anger aside, what Hillary said will be defended by some. The issue isn't who did it first, it is the issue of pretending the right doesn't do it. I am not saying you are pretending it, I am saying people like Coulter are. I have never pretended that Democrats have not been involved in name callling, and the like, but it is the Republican noise machine that claims to be the "party of morals" as if Democrats haev none. THAT is the issue I feel MMFA is getting to the heart of. The INCREDIBLE hypocrasy of the current Republican party claiming the moral high ground.
military_husband, I apologize for going off on you, I obviously had forgotten our past conversation and your views on the issues, however you did refresh my memory. IF I can recall I said I wouldn't mind a Democrat in the White House and you did counter that you wouldn't be adverse to a (true)Republican. After so many posts here I guess I forgot...ah must be my age ;-)
Being one of only a handful of Conservatives here I'm often on the defensive from the get go and sometimes go into "attack mode" IF I think I spot hypocrisy on the Left. Apparently I read your post incorrectly so I stand corrected when I referred to you as a partisan. I TRY extremely hard to be open-minded before addressing ANY topic presented here, and am often frustrated by certain posters who IMO attack the Right for behavior that the Left is ALSO guilty of.
I'm not a big fan of the CURRENT Republican administration and often find myself at odds with their policies. While I do STILL consider myself a Conservative, I would add that I'm a fairly MODERATE one. And to be quite honest, BOTH sides leave me cold&frustrated more often than not these days. All I see is a lot of partisan political bickering while Rome burns.
I don't happen to believe that either side can CLAIM the moral high ground on THIS subject. It's a tossup on OTHER issues, IMO.
I wouldn't attempt to defend either Coulter or Clinton here, BUT you're correct there will be those that do.
And what about Newt Gingrich whose also made the plantation analogy?
I think you'll find that several posts before this one have ZERO comments. I find it much more likely that there are problems with MMFA's comments code than the notion that us poor liberals can't come up with anything to say.
But you guys go ahead and believe what you wanna believe. I believe I'll have another drink.
Rather than getting into the merits or lack thereof of Hillary's comments, the real issue here is Faux's practice of bringing in their mercenaries to do a hatchet job on whatever liberal person they are attacking that day. Who really cares what Coulter or Dick Morris has to say about it? Are they really going to analyze what was said, or are they going to attack the liberal while the host weakly plays devil's advocate and eggs them on. It is a farce.
As I see it, for a statement to be racist it has to do one of two things. It must either state or suggest that some negative trait is inherent in an ethnic group or it must assert some ethnic group has some inherent traits that make it superior.
Hillary Clinton’s remarks completely fail to meet either of those standards. Taking her comments fully in context there is absolutely no racial or ethnic link at all. That’s why she included the followup “… and you know what I'm talking about. It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
There was nothing in there that meets the standards of racism. She very clearly explained what she meant with her comparison, and it wasn’t racially based. Coulter’s earlier comments, on the other hand, baselessly accuse the Democratic Party of inherent racism. Her comments on H. Clinton’s remarks associated them with “race-baiting,” when nothing in them supports that contention. In that way, Coulter’s remarks are true race-baiting, attempting to drive a wedge between African-Americans and the Democratic party based on race.
I completely agree with you about Ann's motives and Hilliary's intent. That said they all need to knock off the plantation analogies, I for one am sick of it. In addition, regardless of what Ann or other neoconservatives would like the public to believe, Blacks are allowed to read more than Democratic sanctioned news so believe me the conservative message has been available in the AA community for some time now; however, the majority of the community has rejected it. The dog eat dog world of the neo-con movement doesn't quite jibe with the traditional philosophy of the AA community. Moreover , constantly telling us that Democrats are racist when all of the racist remarks generally emerge from the right side of the political spectrum shows what little regard the right has for our intellectual capacity, so hate us if you will but please stop the they’re too stupid to understand what’s good for them becuase the Democrats have brainwashed them bull. Furthermore Ann Coulter would be the last person on earth Blacks would choose to be a public spokesperson for issues unique to the AA community.
The talking point that blacks don't realize what the "evil democratic party" is really doing to them is not just applied here. The RNC and it's mouthpieces say the same about any average american supporting the party. It is the silly notion that if you support the Republican party, you are smarter than if you support the Democrats. It is used to feed on the egos of the weak. I am in no way saying that all Republican supporters are weak willed, but this rhetoric is aimed at those that are. It has been effective in general, so I am sure we will hear much more of it aimed towards minorities.
Barack Obama defended Clinton's remarks, which I saw on Countdown last night. Ann is a total hypocrite to criticize using the plantation metaphor. Where is the outcry from the black community if Clinton's comments were so outrageous?
I would not normally defend Clinton either but her comment was telling about the way Congress has been operating the last several years.
This excerpt from: Republicans Gone Wild By Sidney Blumenthal Salon.com
Thursday 19 January 2005
explains how Clinton came by her sentiments:
"Once Bush was elected, the Republican Congress, especially the House, became his essential prop of power. In the House, there is no actual legislative process. The workweek is typically only two days, like that of a small, minor state legislature. The Rules Committee forbids members from altering bills on the floor. Votes are blocked on bills that have bipartisan support, such as an extension of unemployment benefits that is opposed by a majority of the Republicans. Bills are crafted in the dead of night, behind closed doors, by a select group of Republican leaders, often without floor debate. The Boston Globe, in a 2004 series on the influence of lobbyists, reported that "on the Medicare and energy bills, businesses and other groups who reported lobbying on the two measures spent a staggering $799,091,391 in efforts to influence lawmakers, frequently employing former members of Congress, former staff members, and relatives of lawmakers to lobby on the bills." In addition, the Globe reported, the Republican Congress added "3,407 'pork barrel' projects to appropriations bills for this year's federal budget, items that were never debated or voted on beforehand by the House and Senate and whose congressional patrons are kept secret." "
[link to www.truthout.org]
Furthermore, the White House brings in angelic Laura Bush to comment that Senator Clinton's remarks were ridiculous. Well Laura Bush has made some "ridiculous" comments too. Remember her crude joke about George milking a horse?
From everything I have read about how business is now conducted in congress shows that the Republicans are on an arrogant power trip and are completely out of control. Have you ever watched a committee session on C-span? They are completely disrespectful to their colleagues on the other side of the isle, and they engage in this behavior knowing that the cameras are on.
Exactly. Congress is out of control and they aren't operating like a democracy. It's funny, or sad, that the media harps on and on about the "plantation" remark but fails to dissect the meaning of the message.
Laura Bush's "crude joke" about Dubya milking a horse was pretty damn funny. It actually made me think that perhaps the woman does have some personality and spine. I think that Hillary's comment was pandering in the sense that she was speaking to a black church on MLK day and brought up plantations. Nevertheless, the only people up in arms about it are right-wingers who are all about soiling Hillary's name before the 2008 elections. I don't really see how Laura Bush's joke at a formal dinner at the white house is relevant to this particular quote.
You're right. That joke was funny though it could be argued that it was also ridiculous. But what on earth are the propaganda puppeteers doing by trotting out Laura Bush, a rare commentator, to claim that Senator Clinton's (the one who actually serves in Congress) remark was "ridiculous"? It's just mudslinging (please forgive me, as a member of "We the People", for wanting to sling it back).
I agree with the pandering, that everybody does it.
Point is, why isn't the meaning behind the plantation remark being examined?
Ain’t she outrageous? You know, a 40-something, never married, dresses like a dominatrix, snarky shrew can tell me absolutely nothing about family values. I’ve been with the same lovely woman for 10 years and consider myself happily married. Annie spouting off about why I hold antifamily values is as a stupid, stupid man once (ok maybe more than once) said, the most ridiculous item of the day. And to address her point - I think Newt said the exact same thing about ten years ago. But Annie's memory is probably not what it once was before she started endulging in extreme watersports. She makes me sick. All you have to do is look in those crazed eyes and anyone with an IQ over 90 can tell you she is crazy.
I think the mock outrage is coming more from the fact that her comments are right on target.
So what if she using an analogy that has racial implications.... she was speaking to a black audience that could identify with the term plantation. I think its more insulting that all of the right wing talking heads are assuming that the audience cannot understand what she was attempting to imply with her comments.
They run the Congress like a Plantation. Anyone that disagrees has no voice, anyone that offers descent is punished... A large segment of the population is barley holding on or is poor and the good old boys on Capitol hill live the life of luxury .... The vast majority of Congress is over privileged white men that cannot identify with the average American, black or white.
Hillary used the "plantation" metaphor in the past, but NOT in front of a predominantly black audience. It's NOT a racist remark because it's not to be taken literally, but symbolically to illustrate the mentality of the Republican leaders in the House and how they wield their Power over those who don't fall in line when they crack the whip. They've essentially shut out Democrats and moderate Republicans from the process who don't "know their place".
Hillary is race-baiting. She gave three speeches on MLK day and she only chose to use this "metaphor" when she was with Al Sharpton in a black church. Why would she use such an inflammatory remark during of all things MLK day? Is she trying to sway a black audience maybe?
Hillary's "and you know what I mean" tag, left no doubt. She was accusing the right of racism. That is the difference between the example given and Hillary's remark. That is why it is outrageous and despicable.
Why isn't the media asking her to quantify the remark? Instead they are focusing only on the backlash and shock factor of the statement.
Exactly how was Hillary race-baiting?
Republicans/Conservatives seem to have a hard time distancing themselves from their bigoted/racist past.
Actually it's not even the past. Not all conservatives are bigots, but their pundits seem to have no problem continually propagating stereotypes with regards to those of us that are not like them.
Initially I shook my head in amazement when I caught Hillary's speech. After catching my breath and remembering the time that we are in, observing the actions of the party in control, I dare say I agree with her assessment of the House of Reps.
I've watched some of those C-SPAN House sessions too. I wish she hadn't gone there (with the "plantation" remark) but there must be some truth to it considering the reaction from the right-wing.......
Is there a place lower than the normal pit for conservative mis-informers? If there is, can we hiogtie Coulter and throw her in? Perhaps MMFA should pledge to ignore all future things she says...the ultimate sanction!
Posted by Spinstronic:
"Republicans/Conservatives seem to have a hard time distancing themselves from their bigoted/racist past." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm...which party was the party of slavery?
Which party had Jim Crow laws?
Which party opposed the civil rights movement?
Correct answer: The Democrats
Need to brush up on your history there Spin.
You can't compare the Republican party of the past to todays Republican party. If Lincoln were alive today I'm pretty certain he'd be a Democrat and as for support of civil rights that broke down along regional lines. Northerners supported it and Southerners didn't. Those Southern Democrats that fought tooth and nail against these laws are now Southern Republicans. They left the Democratic Party when we (Blacks) joined it; and they were welcomed with wide open arms by the RNC who told them there's nothing wrong with you being a bigot and how dare they persucute you for it, come on in our tent is large enough for everyone. They called it the "southern strategy".
Anyone who believes the Republican Party of 1864 has any resemblance to the Republican Party of 2006, or even that of 1964, is the one who needs to open a few books and start studying.
The coultergeist shows itself-has the sun dropped?