O'Reilly: Coulter has "valid point" about 9-11 widows
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly downplayed Ann Coulter's recent attacks on the widows of the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, baselessly alleging that "some far-left pundits have said far worse things." O'Reilly added that "it looks like there's a double standard" in the treatment of conservatives and liberals by the "mainstream media."
On the June 7 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly downplayed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's recent attacks on the widows of the victims of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, baselessly alleging that "some far-left pundits have said far worse things." Citing criticism of Coulter in recent media coverage, O'Reilly added that "it looks like there's a double standard" in the treatment of conservatives and liberals by the "mainstream media." He then highlighted his past criticism of anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son died serving in Iraq -- ignoring the personal attacks he leveled against her while doing so -- as an example of how Coulter could have made the "valid point" that the 9-11 widows have become "liberal activists" who are "being used" by the left. O'Reilly later reiterated these views during an interview with Coulter on the June 8 broadcast of The Radio Factor.
While questioning her methods, O'Reilly accepted Coulter's underlying point in attacking the 9-11 widows: "Miss Coulter has a good point about these women being used by one spectrum of the political debate in this country. That is a valid point." In her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006), Coulter pointed to certain 9-11 widows' disapproval of the Bush administration's foreign policy and their support for Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) presidential campaign to argue, as she did on the June 6 edition of NBC's Today, that "the left" exploits a "doctrine of infallibility" by promoting these widows to make "a political point while preventing anyone from responding." As a result, Coulter said, conservatives "always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die" and appear to be "questioning the authenticity of the grief."
As purported examples of "far-left pundits" who are treated better than Coulter by the mainstream media, O'Reilly asserted filmmaker Michael Moore, whose film, Fahrenheit 9/11 (Miramax Films, June 2004), was "pretty brutal" and "said a lot of things about President Bush and other conservatives," and Air America Radio, which O'Reilly claimed "does the most vile, despicable things on a daily basis." In his June 8 interview with Coulter on The Radio Factor, O'Reilly likened Coulter to liberal Air America host Al Franken, stating that Coulter risked becoming "the right-wing Al Franken" because both "smear" others in their books.
As Media Matters for America has documented, O'Reilly has also compared Coulter to Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines, stating that both women spout "rhetoric" that is "extreme." O'Reilly was apparently referring to Maines's remark during a March 2003 performance in London, where she told the audience, "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
But O'Reilly provided no specific examples of Moore, Franken, Maines or any other progressive individual or organization making any remarks similar to those made by Coulter.
In Godless, Coulter writes of the 9-11 widows: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." [p.103] Media Matters has identified several other attacks on the 9-11 widows included in Coulter's book:
- "These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." [p.103]
- "[T]hey believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process." [p.103]
In addition, as Media Matters has documented, Coulter has recently criticized the 9-11 widows on television. For example, on the June 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Coulter declared that "nobody likes being lectured by a victim" and asked: "[D]o I have to kill my mother so I can be a victim, too?"
Moreover, Coulter has engaged in inflammatory rhetoric on a number of other topics, as well. For instance, she has:
- stated that "[w]e should invade their [Muslims'] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." [United Press Syndicate (UPS), 9/12/02]
- suggested that Islam is "a car-burning cult." [UPS, 2/8/06]
- wished "[t]hat the American military were targeting journalists." [CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer, 2/7/05]
- stated: "My only regret with [Oklahoma City bomber] Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." [New York Observer, 8/26/02]
- stated that the debate over former President Bill Clinton should have been "about whether to impeach or assassinate." [High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton (Regnery, 1998)]
- asserted, "I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantánamo." A "daisy cutter" is the nickname for a 15,000-pound bomb with a lethal radius of 300 to 900 feet -- the largest conventional bomb in the U.S. arsenal. (UPS,12/21/05)
O'Reilly has previously attempted to trivialize Coulter's repeated controversial remarks. As Media Matters previously noted, during the May 24 broadcast of his radio show, O'Reilly conceded that "if you were going to make an example of somebody who takes rhetoric to the extreme, Ann Coulter would be probably your best right-wing shot." Yet, O'Reilly also stated it was "funny" when Coulter "takes something and runs with it;" suggested Coulter was "just doing this for theatre;" and praised Coulter's ability to back up her opinions.
Additionally, though he criticized Coulter for making "personal attacks" while "trying to persuade people to her view," O'Reilly touted himself as an example of how to responsibly criticize the positions of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq. O'Reilly, apparently referring to himself as "the smarter fighter," repeatedly claimed he did not engage in "personal attack[s]" against Sheehan, despite criticizing her for her opposition to the war in Iraq. O'Reilly claimed "[t]here's nobody who did more damage to Cindy Sheehan in this country than I did, but I did it by exposing her agenda." He added: "I did not call the woman any names, disparage her as an American citizen or do any of that." In fact, as Media Matters has previously noted, O'Reilly has called Sheehan "dumb enough to allow" herself to be "run by far-left elements who are using her," stated that Sheehan's "behavior borders on treasonous," and included Sheehan on his "coward's list."
From the June 7 broadcast of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Now, many conservatives have joined liberals in condemning Miss Coulter's words, but not all. On The Radio Factor today, some callers supported Ann. "Talking Points" believes most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive. The question then becomes: Why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books, but she's already well off and famous. No doubt the widows have become liberal activists.
They replied to Miss Coulter today on a far-left [web]blog. But as Americans, they have a right to take any political position they want. No doubt, some far-left pundits have said far worse things than Ann Coulter will ever say and the mainstream media often celebrates them. But a no- spin rule is that you don't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Now, three years ago, I chastised Ann Coulter for the personal stuff.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, you may remember Miss Sheehan telling CBS News reporter Mark Knoller that the terrorists in Iraq were "freedom fighters." My point was that Sheehan's description injured the families of U.S. service people killed and hurt by those savages and the far-left activists, Miss Sheehan, needs to be called on that, even if she did lose a son in Iraq. Now, if I had used a personal attack against Miss Sheehan, which I did not, my point would not have been as persuasive, I believe. So, if Ann Coulter's trying to persuade people to her view, the personal attacks are foolish. If she just wants to sing her choir a song, well, you can make money doing that. I believe that, in the end, those standing on the high ground will win the culture war. The vicious fighter often loses to the smarter fighter. And that's "the Memo."
[...]
O'REILLY: You can criticize their criticism, absolutely, and now -- look, there's nobody who did more damage to Cindy Sheehan in this country than I did, but I did it by exposing her agenda --
SANDY RIOS (Fox News contributor): Yes you did, Bill, I agree.
O'REILLY: -- telling people who was behind her movement, who was paying the bills, who was running her.
RIOS: Yes. Yes, and thank goodness, you did that.
O'REILLY: I did not. I did not. I did not call the woman any names, disparage her as an American citizen or do any of that. And if I had, I would have lost the debate instead of Cindy Sheehan losing credibility in my opinion.
[...]
O'REILLY: But here's the point. Miss Coulter has a good point about these women being used by one spectrum of the political debate in this country. That is a valid point. That's why I used the David Letterman clip. It is absolutely valid. But by calling these women "witches," "harpies, " by saying that they should play -- pose in Playboy and all of these things, she diminishes her argument, don't you get that? She then becomes an object of derision herself and then what her point gets lost. Do you think Matt Lauer or any of these people care about the point she made? No, they're after her.
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, Michael Moore came out with a movie, and it was pretty brutal. And it said a lot of things about President Bush and other conservatives. I didn't see him getting worked out -- over by the mainstream media. I mean, they mocked him a little but not a lot.
WILLIAMS: You mocked him.
Certainly, Air America does the most vile, despicable things on a daily basis, yet there have been more than 20 pro-Air America articles, even though it's a disaster financially, in The New York Times. It looks like there's a double standard, here, Juan.
KAREN HANRETTY (Republican strategist): And they're --
O'REILLY: Let me get to Juan, and then I'll get to you Karen.
JUAN WILLIAMS (NPR senior correspondent): No. Wait a minute -- but even you --
O'REILLY: It looks like there's a double standard.
WILLIAMS: Even you have gone after the Michael Moores of this world. Michael Moore is getting sued. I mean, people go after and say, "Here's where Michael Moore went over the line."
Ann Coulter is so far over the line, it's beyond Michael Moore. That's what's going on here. And that's why I think the callers to The Radio Factor are way off if they are truly supporters of the president or of the president's position on the war, because all this does is make it look like it's a joke.
It just looks like this is all hard-line, right-wing politics and maybe even nuts.
O'REILLY: OK. Let's give --
WILLIAMS: Ann Coulter comes off here --
O'REILLY: Let's give --
WILLIAMS: -- and you know, she's the harpy, not the -- not these four women.
O'REILLY: Let's give --
WILLIAMS: In America, we honor widows and we honor our war dead. What is she doing?
O'REILLY: All right. Let's give Karen the last word. Go, Karen.
From the June 8 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Why don't we let everybody read your book -- because that's good for you -- and they can decide whether these are personal attacks or not?
COULTER: No, I did not -- I must say, several of my friends read the book before it came out, and we knew that liberals would say they were indignant. We knew they would say, "This time, she's gone by far, too far" -- which they do, you know, hundreds of times -- this time, unlike the last 47 times. But, we did not know that this it what it would be. Wait. Wait until they read the rest of the book and what I have to say about them in the rest of the book.
O'REILLY: All right, what's the difference between you and Al Franken? Al Franken makes money by putting out smear books, and is there any difference between you and him in your technique?
COULTER: I don't even -- I don't even see the beginning of a similarity.
O'REILLY: Well, I mean, you both call people names.
COULTER: I don't call people names!
[...]
O'REILLY: Oh, the compliments keep coming. We're talking to Ann Coulter whose new book Godless -- number one on Amazon. It's going to sell lots of copies. Obviously, Miss Coulter is a publicity genius. All right. Now, Cindy Sheehan exposed herself because she called the terrorists in Iraq "freedom fighters," and as soon as she did that, I came in and said, "This is insane. Here's who's running her. Here's how her point of view is just off the chart." But, I didn't attack her personally. And I think that I won that pretty convincingly -- so was my way of doing it better than your way.
COULTER: No, and I didn't need time to think about that. First of all, although there are many things I would give you sole and exclusive credit for -- exposing Jesse Jackson for example, and there are others. You weren't the only one attacking Sheehan. That was pretty much all over. So, OK, we've taken care of, you know, that one small issue.
O'REILLY: Right.
COULTER: And a few people had mentioned -- had posted (inaudible) little objections to the Jersey Girls. I'm attacking the whole technique, the whole system, and the fact that people, even like you, will say, "Well, yes, you can attack them, but you have to use these certain words." Well, why? I attack them the same way I attack --
O'REILLY: Well, attack the argument and not the person.
COULTER: No, but that is -- no, don't give me rules on this particular area --
O'REILLY: I can give you rules. It's my program.
COULTER: I attack them the same way I attack [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean, [incoming CBS Evening News anchor] Katie Couric. The same way I've attacked you.
O'REILLY: OK. I understand. You're mean and you're rotten, but I'm not going to -- I'm not going to --
COULTER: No, no, no. The point that I have exposed is precisely what I'm talking about that these (inaudible) spokesmen that suddenly there are rules --
O'REILLY: OK.
COULTER: -- of how we can respond to them.
O'REILLY: No, wait, look. It's a free country. If you -- if you want to be the right-wing Al Franken, then you can be that, but you have to understand that you're using the personal attack, you're using it. Now, here's another question for you --
COULTER: Bill, that is just an insult. Do not say I am the right-wing Al Franken. I don't go into people's personal lives. I am talking about the things for which they are in the public eye.
Bill and Annie,
sitting on a swing,
Loofa, loofa, loofaling.
There, I've sunk to their level.
Now I need a shower.
Where's my loofa?
Bill would call your poem awful, reminding you he used falafel.
Don't they get soggy in the shower?
really really believe that Fox is fair and balanced? At best they are a republican advocacy media outlet at worst they are a right wing propaganda channel. In my opinion they’re a hybrid of the two. Now if they were honest and stuck to the advocacy thing and they were honest and kept their facts strait and stopped using the fair and balanced slogan I wouldn't have any problem with Fox whatsoever. But as it stands now I am really upset with them for duping the elderly and the mentally challenge into believing that they are really a neutral fair and balanced news outlet.
I responded to a troll and his post got deleted.
I responded to the same troll yesterday and the same thing happened. Then my response looked like a criticism of the post above it. I think he can only come out from under the bridge for an hour or so at a time.
my $500 chalenge is missing.
challenge!
While you were out, Al Franken came by and said Air America really needs the money. So I said to take it--I didn't think you would mind.
Sorry.
It's amazing how much money one can acquire by publishing trash. I wonder what kind of publisher would even consider putting Coulter's book in print. Bill, well, he is making money by interviewing the low life. Bill, why don't you get some substance on your show instead of a bleached out bimbo who raises your ratings because your conservative dumb asses are drueling over Ms. Anorexia. I have finally realized that Ms. Coulter feeds off of the press because she will probably never be gainfully employed by any reputable company.
People have often pointed out that the main reason these right-wing smear books sell so well is becuase they are bought by the caseload by right-wing think tanks and special interests to give out. Also, people have reported incidents in the past of people calling bookstores to pre-order books and then never show up to actually pay for them but the numbers count in the initial sales tallies.
Interestingly, no such tactics have been reported for left-wing books which don't seem to sell as many copies.
Look at the New York Times Best Seller list the next time a right wing tome is placed on it, inevitably there will be a "dagger" which indicates bulk ordering. Do you think anybody actually "reads" Annie C's crapola?
I'm sure tomorrow you'll feature his Coulter-isms on tonight's Factor.
I caught his show last night you're documenting here but tonight's was far, far worse. His agenda is clear. Reign in Ann enough that she's not a risk to Bill's beloved conservatism - he's hitched himself to her wagon too eagerly in the past.
But he only goes so far and tonight's criticism proved a seque to his real target: Al Franken, Air America in general, liberal blogs, The New York Times, etc. He quickly contrasted Coulter to liberals claiming Ann never lies. Huh? Does that mean Bill believes all Democrats are traitors and godless, as Ann claims?
Unbelievable!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Funny how he uses a "no-spin rule" as a convenient way to avoid providing an example to back up his statement.
What have liberals said that compares to Ann Coulter? Are there going to be just as many Factor shows that are dedicated to Ann Coulter's idiocy as say Ward Churchill? How has Ward Churchill or any other supposed left-wing bombthrower been celebrated for such idiocy?
Bill claims there are worse people than Ann, but doesn't leave the viewer with anything to compare her with.
I guess we will just be stuck with Bill's assertions in lieu of any examples. Factor viewers must be pretty stupid to keep watching this guy.
Bill's show tonight was the biggest travesty I have ever witnessed. Nothing but wall to wall in your face hypocrisy in all its ugliness.
Personally smearing Al Franken (a personal hateful obsession of O'Reilly's) and liberals in general as he whines hypocritically they're so vicious. Complaining gently that his buddy Ann Coulter has gone a bit too far in her rhetoric while he eggs on right-wing guest Horowitz who's making up whole cloth accusations of liberals accusing the president of being a child molester. It's so absurd it's funny but the rhetoric displayed on The Factor is so hate-filled and mean-spirited it's even more disturbing.
And, unfortunately, there's no way to slow down the O'Reilly hate factory because he's preaching to the choir that feeds off his hate. Millions of them tune in daily for their fix. And he's careful to invite guests who he knows are either sycophants or are people he can control (his staff test interviews newcomers). And, should some lib get the best of O'Reilly, since it's not live TV there's plenty of time to re-edit it to flatter Bill. Just like the hand-picked viewer mail he uses to promote his cult of personality.
Hmmm...
Didn't some 'news' show host recently justify the Haditha massacre by pointing to (and butchering) the incident at Malmedy?
Who was that? Someone help me out here.
Where are the examples he references? I have yet to hear any liberal make comments that even come close to the outrageous crap that comes out of the mouths of Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others like them.
I am truly amazed each day at the comments these idiots make.........and what's really sad? These people are the primary source for news for many Americans?!
I happen to be a fan of the Ed Schultz show, and I would not characterize him as far left by any means, but he did call Bush a Nazi at least five times on his program yesterday. Just for the record.
But Big Eddie is the best thing going on AAR by far IMO.
Your local station is just buying his syndicated show.
(Not that I don't like Ed.)
She doesn't go into these widows personal lives?Last night on H&C she said how do we know these dead husbands weren't about to divorce these "harpies" for their wives shrillness.Apparently,according to Ann,they were lucky to be killed on 9/11.
to Billo- to compare anyone to Al Franken. He accuses gangleskank of attacking the person (as in "ad hominem", not addressing the issue), but actually, BillO often doesn't attack a person, he attacks a mythical vague composite (the left, the media, ideologues).
BO's liberal guests often ask him for a specific, as in "name one person who said that", to which BO's usual response is "you know who I'm talking about"
Maybe the insult to annie is some jealousy.He's nuts. but enough of a wuss to not name names.Coulter's slightly more insane, making ridiculous claims about specific people.She sells books to the slugs that think Billdo is too "PC"
Franken doesn't attack so much as point out the ridiculous lies of BillO.so he has more facts, Coulter has less conscience, BillO feels a little inadequate next to both of them.
Did anyone catch BO's TV show on June 8 where he had the Editor from the New Republic (Beinart) talking about Zarqawi. BO was fuming that LIberals find ways to attack the president even when something good happens like Zarqawi'd death. (BO's evidence of this Nick Berg's dad saying that Bush is worse than Bin Laden--as if Burg represents the left). When Beinart tried to point out that Burg no more represents the left's views on this subject than Falwell does the right on certain issues--BO chastised him for trying to avoid the subject, and for instead talking about bad things others do.
Funny, however, when BO was addressing Coulter's comments, he did so through his prism of "worse stuff" said by people on the left like Franken and Moore.
Why is it that BO can trivialize a right winger's nut bag remarks like Coulter's by saying that the left says worse stuff, but Beinart cannot do it when BO brings up something that Nick Burg's dad says? Lets hear from the BO fans on this double speak in the no-spin zone!
Coulter's over-the-top presentation style is giving the left a convenient out on actually addressing her underlying valid point. Whether these women and other "victims" are effectively beyond reproach when they become political pundits is an issue that merits consideration. However, rather than addressing the underlying point, the left won't get beyond the admittedly overstated language used to deliver it.
This appears to be what O'Reilly was doing. You will not find me defending O'Reilly. I do not feel he is a conservative as he has too many "liberal" positions if you ask me. However, on this he seems to be right on.
Case in point, on Hannity and Colmes on 8 June, Coulter was on along with Democratic strategist Laura Schwartz. Hannity reads off a list of outrageous comments said about George Bush by Cindy Sheehan. When asked about calling Sheehan on the comments, Schwartz's response? "She lost her son." That is the entire point! When did losing your son give you a free platform to spew venom and push your own political views without being subject to being questioned?
In your post, you talk about the Left's failure to respond to Coulter's "underlying valid point." My question to you is... are you sh*ting me? You can't be serious. Calling Crazy Annie's language as "overstated" is like saying that Hitler's rhetoric as "harsh", & that he had some "underlying valid points" if you could just get past the viscious antisemetism. The "overstated language" is the sole purpose to her obnoxious attacks.
And when you question whether O'Lielley is a conservative... well, that's just plain astounding. I mean, if you were to say that he's not really a conservative because his positions are nearly universally reactionary, that would be one thing. But to say that he is too liberal is to completely redefne the word. O'Lielley is a rhetorical thug & a chronic liar.
You really do need to start paying attention.
And that issue, regardless of whether Ann Coulter brought it up or not, is are some liberal activisits/pundits/spokespeople/etc. beyond reproach and are they getting away with hiding behind personal tragedies to avoid being called on some of their positions and in some cases, outrageous comments.
As I clearly stated, I am not defending how Coulter stated her argument so there is no point in responding to your comments there. I am more interested in the merits of the underlying point.
As for O'Reilly, apparently neither one of us like him. You think he is too conservative, I do not think he is consistently conservative. Kinda of a funny agreement to have but I guess we do.
As I clearly stated, I am not defending how Coulter stated her argument so there is no point in responding to your comments there. I am more interested in the merits of the underlying point.
I saw the segment that you're referring to and that is precisely Coulter's underlying point, her unfortunate diatribes aside. When Hannity listed those accusations that Sheehan made toward Bush, terrorist, Nazi, Liar etc and asked her if she would similarly condemn them, she said, "The woman lost a son." That's when it HIT ME like a ton of bricks. THAT was/is Coulter's underlying point!
I cannot always defend how Coulter makes her argument much like I cannot defend HOW Michael Savage makes his. But on this issue, I think Coulter has a valid argument. Unfortunately, she has given the left an out on dealing with the matter of substance because of the manner in which she framed her argument
you do think Michael Moore has valid points and you don't like the fact that he uses humor (NOT NASTINESS) to make them. Hmmm regardless of how you feel about Michale Moore's politics he is damned funny and nobody does a documentary like he does.
He has the right to make his movies but does not mean I have to laugh at it.
That anyone who has lost a loved one deserves to have self-promoting idiots take pot-shots at them if they don't toe your parties line? Or is it that widows and orphans should be shunned and considered less then citizens? Please, what IS this 'valid point' you keep claiming she has but you refuse to explain?
to address the point.
Here it is for you crystal clear:
Should someone be beyond questioning of their political or activist position simply because they have lost a loved one? Is "well she lost a son" a valid excuse to defend the political commentary of someone? I have not read anyone taking the position you just raised.
Coutler isn't attacking their political positions in these statements; she's attacking the widows personally.
Why do you keep making an irrelevant point? Please tell me where I defended the manner Coulter made her point?
Are y'all going to address the point of keep using Coulter vehicle as a shield to avoid the issue of a possible left-wing tactic?
The "point" you keep pressing - that losing a loved one does not make a person immune to criticism for their political positions - is unarguable. I haven't seen anybody deny it. Why do you keep pressing a point that nobody's arguing, as if it were somehow an open question?
Well if no one is denying that point and no one is defending how Coulter made her point what are we debating???? :)
...that Coulter's point is itself fallacious.
strategist illustrated it, while discussing it on national television! You might have an easier time making this point if the person representing the left wing position in the debate had not used the tactic being discussed!
You argue based on anecdotal evidence, another fallacy. (Look up "anecdotal evidence" or "person who" fallacy.)
SHE NEVER MADE A POINT. She never attacked one of their positions, in case you forgot what that is, she never said their position on this or that is wrong and this is why. She made personally insulting remarks ABOUT THEM. While saying they have some kind of immunity to attacks. What she was REALLY saying translates into something like this. WWAAAAHHHHH, I cant hope to say they are wrong or make cogent arguments against their positions but since they are widows when I make my USUAL attacks on them, that is personal smears, ad hominem attacks, outrageous characterizations, it makes me look like a jerk. It isnt fair for them to not vulnerable to my usual smear tactics as thats all I EVER HAVE. Its not fair that their standing as widows makes ME look like the jerk I am when I attack them the same way I attack everybody even though I am going to do it anyway. THAT IS NOT A POINT. THERE IS NO POINT THERE. How is it a point to say they cant be attacked WHILE she attacks them without EVER making a cogent argument against their positions. Your whole take here is weak and totaly bereft of any logic or cogent argument.
Exactly!
I cant hope to say they are wrong or make cogent arguments against their positions...
So are you attempting to Cindy Sheehan's suggestions that George Bush is a terrorist and a Nazi? I am betting you will try to say he is a liar, but that is a fairly common comment by some on the left.
As for not making a point, seems that Laura Schwartz illustrated that point very well last night on H&C. Also, if there was no point, how come there are two of us on this forum attempting to get y'all to address it?
Is just THAT an opinion. IF you dont like the OPINION, you can freely say why you think its counterproductive to make such a claim. You can state WHY Bush is not a terrorist or a Nazi. See THAT is what making a point is. What Coulter is snivelling about is it makes HER look bad when she engages in her usual character assasination NOT POINT. Because the widows have sympathy. Its WAAAAHH. Not a point. Just because FOX propaganda network talks about it doesnt make it a point either. Its not my fault your far right has come to depend so heavily on the personal attack they no longer seem able to even FORM a cogent argument nor that there are people out there that have a position that makes such tawdry tactics look bad. SNIVELLING about not being able to do her usual character assasinition WHILE doing her usual character assasination is no where NEAR a point.
Ann Coulter and the Right-wing seem to decry the fact that they cannot attack Cindy Sheehan &al. with their favored weapon -- personal attacks. It appears to drive them crazy to the level they need to resort to Coulter's nuclear handgranades to try to make their point.
Coulter's point cannot be attempted subtly either because it exposes (even more obviously) the right's predelection.
Now I don't believe Clinton was above this tactic entirely, but I never once saw the Democrats try to complain about Bob Dole's war service or even try to besmirch it in 1996. This despite the fact that Clinton had avoided to some degree being drafted into Vietnam.
The point is that both sides have had people who are difficult to personally attack. John McCain used to be one of them. Ask him what happened in the South Carolina primary in 2000? I think Ann is really channeling Karl Rove.
"I cannot always defend how Coulter makes her argument much like I cannot defend HOW Michael Savage makes his."
Grayson:
Savage's problems with rationality go well beyond how he expresses himself (though he is always seemingly stuck at a rhetorical volume of 10). I won't accuse you of saying that you agree with everything that Savage says (you didn't), but your statement was that you cannot "always" defend "how" Coulter and Savage make their points, from which I must draw the conclusion that you at least "usually" agree with "what" they are saying.
The inference is that Savage's problem lies primarily in the province of how he expresses himself, when the real problem is that he is as hate-filled an individual as you are likely to find anywhere. I have included some modest exemplars of the Savage philosophy below.
Putting aside HOW he expressed himself, how would you politely rephrase the following statements without destroying or distorting the meaning behind them?
"Whenever you see the word 'South Asian,' substitute the word for 'terrorist,' or reference to 'terrorist.' That's the new code word, 'South Asian community.' "
[link to mediamatters.org]
What factual evidence can you supply that "South Asian" and "terrorist" are synonymous?
"When you hear 'human rights,' think gays. ... [T]hink only one thing: someone who wants to rape your son."
[link to mediamatters.org]
So when people think "human rights," they are objectively pro-rape. Maybe it's just HOW he said it that makes it sound so loopy.
"radical homosexuals" and "radical Islamists" are "one and the same, they're all terrorists."
[link to mediamatters.org]
Really dumb. Putting aside the fact that radical homosexuals and Islamists would have very little nice to say about each other, maybe you can document the vast networks of violent homosexual terrorist cells that Savage claims are lurking out there. What buildings did they blow up in service to the gay agenda? What planes did they highjack? Whose heads have they cut off? Remember, it’s not enough to demonstrate that there have been terrorists who happen to be gay. (There were gay Nazis, but Nazism was radically anti-homosexual.) You have to rationally rephrase HOW Savage said this to demonstrate that radical homosexuals and radical Islamists are “all terrorists.”
Savage has called for the United States to “kill thousands of Iraqi prisoners and nuke a random Arab capital.”
[link to www.dailytimes.com.pk]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
I was actually listening to his show a while back when he dropped this one. Maybe you can rephrase how he said it and lay out a more civilized way of proposing the random murder of millions of innocent people. There will be bonus points if you can describe how such an act of barbarism would be in keeping with the professed ideals of the United States.
Savage is as twisted a customer as you are likely to find on the air anywhere, but your problem is not with what he says but HOW he says it? Please explain.
---"they getting away with hiding behind personal tragedies to avoid being called on some of their positions"---
It's more like "We can't fling mud at them (like we're accustomed to doing with others) because, after all, they HAVE experienced a terrible tragedy. I mean, there ARE lines that even WE, the hardcore, Coulter-ish right-wing crap-flingers, can't easily cross. Makes us look real bad. It's dam frustrating for us. BUT!-Ann Coulter can help us across that line, and she has!
Take Sheehan for instance. I hate that her son was killed. I respect all of our military people and on that I do not question her pain at all. But that does not give her a pass on how, from an activisit point of view, I feel she went off the deep end. I have no problem pointing that out. In fact, in my opinion, though I doubt this was her intention, I think she is embarassing the memory of her son. Coulter did make a valid point on what about losing a husband in 9/11 made the Jersey widows experts on other political issues like gay marriage for example? It's like the Dixie Chicks or someone else who has fame but has no known expertise speaking their mind. They have every right to do so, but who cares about their opinion any more than any other American citizen?
Why does loss or fame ban them from making their opinions known? If they are given a platform to speak why shouldn’t they use it to push for changes that they feel are necessary to prevent others from experiencing what they have suffered? It is all to common to passively sit back and do nothing until you are directly effected by something. For example we can all agree child molestation is a horrible crime and we should do all we can to prevent. But often it takes having someone you know victimized to one: give you a platform and two: the impetus to stand up and be heard and push for reform and legislation. You say you have no problem commenting on Cindy Sheehan’s positions but I noticed instead of doing so you chose to make a personal comment about her loss (“embarrassing the memory of her son”). Is your position so weak that you can not dissect her position with your own logic and reasoning but instead go for the cheap shot by making a comment about her loss and her son that you no nothing about.
She even has a right to voice outrageous comments that she has. But if she wants to abuse her platform to make such outrageous comments, then she should have to answer for them and not lean on someone saying "Well she lost her son."
Some example of the type of comments made by Sheehan as posed to the Democratic strategist on national television last night:
Bush is a.... terrorist, Nazi, Liar etc and asked her if she would similarly condemn them, she said, "The woman lost a son." That's when it HIT ME like a ton of bricks. THAT was/is Coulter's underlying point!
Bush is a.... terrorist, Nazi, Liar etc and asked her if she would similarly condemn them, she said, "The woman lost a son." That's when it HIT ME like a ton of bricks. THAT was/is Coulter's underlying point!
That doesn't sound like Schwartz was saying "you can't question those harsh comments because the woman lost a son," it sounds like she's saying "Sheehan made those harsh comments because the woman lost a son." You yourself said the comments are so absurd they refute themselves, so is it surprising that Schwartz didn't bother to refute them?
That doesn't sound like Schwartz was saying "you can't question those harsh comments because the woman lost a son," it sounds like she's saying "Sheehan made those harsh comments because the woman lost a son."
That's the very point. It's not a question of questioning her points. It's a question of calling their outrageous comments that are over the line just that, outrageous comments. Coulters comments were outrageous and over the line. So were Sheehan's to use THAT example. When Sheehan said that Bush is a terrorist, a murderer, and Nazi and on and on, THOSE COMMENTS ARE OVER THE LINE!! But no one CAN tell Sheehan that because she lost a son. What Coulter is saying is that the fact that she lost a son, does NOT give her license to make similarly outrageous statements and not be called on it, AS COULTER IS BEING CALLED ON HERS.
Get it yet??
She even has a right to voice outrageous comments that she has. But if she wants to abuse her platform to make such outrageous comments, then she should have to answer for them and not lean on someone saying "Well she lost her son."
Some example of the type of comments made by Sheehan as posed to the Democratic strategist on national television last night:
Bush is a.... terrorist, Nazi Liar (this is the only one even remotely reasonable and even then relies on the left's redefinition of lying and supposition)
I cannot state more clearly: Sheehan has a right to make those comments. This is America and she has freedom of speech. NO ONE is suggesting that she should be prevented from making such comments. However, both the media and other citizens have every right to question her on these comments.
I don't think Cindy Sheehan has ever shied away from answering for her statements.
I am taking your word for it, but I saw a Democrat last night brush off addressing her points by saying "She lost a son."
Why should the Democrat have had to defend Sheehan's points? Was he a spokesperson for Cindy Sheehan? (Also, what program was this on, and is there a transcript?)
Check the site to see if there is a transcript there. The Democratic strategist in question is Laura Schwartz. And the reason Schwartz was asked about Sheehan's outrageous comments is that she was going off on Coulter's comments. So Sean asked her what her position was on Sheehan's comment. "She lost a son." Point proven in that instance.
I looked for the transcript but they don't have it at the FOX site. But let's say for the sake of argument that it is exactly as you describe it. How does this one instance involving Cindy Sheehan (not the 9/11 widows), which occurred after Coulter wrote her book, support Coulter's "point" that the political positions of the 9/11 widows (not Cindy Sheehan) are considered untouchable by the media?
Frankly, I think Coulter's point is completely invalid. Just because the media haven't jumped all over the 9/11 widows doesn't mean that they're being deferential because of the women's loss. It could just mean that the widows' political opinions aren't really that important or newsworthy. In fact, I never heard about them until Coulter started talking about them. I think she made this whole "controversy" up so that she could make a high-profile smear on some women who vocally disagree with right-wing policy. Perhaps we should address that point.
"human shields" (admittedly a poor choice of words IMO) to prevent criticism of political comments when someone has experienced a personal tragedy. I do not think it is limited to just the New Jersey widows. Granted, I have not read the book and probably will not, this is the impression I have gotten from the coverage and from her interview with H&C last night.
Ann must really, really hate those Mothers Against Drunk Drivers commecials that feature videos of children killed by drunk drivers. Or those pro lifers who use signs of bloody fetuses and such to "argue" their point.
What about O'Reilly's favorite Jessica's Law? MMFA was able to show some problems with the law without resorting to personal attacks or decrying that it was named after a victim?
We have all kind of groups and initiatives in this country that get their status from victimhood of some sort.
What is wrong with Michael J. Fox or Janet Reno pushing for more Parkinson's research?
John Walsh on America's Most Wanted is in a similar situation. Nancy Grace at CNN famously lost her fiance through a murder. There are laws being passed around the country to make murdering a pregnant woman a double homicide because of the Lacey Peterson murder. The list goes on...
The only time it seems to set off Coulter is when she is really chomping at the bit to personally attack, but hates the apparently brutal societal norms that seem to prevent her from her favored method.
Coulter is either insane, a sociopath or a media whore. Is there really any other option at this point?
What sort of arrogance is in play that you think YOU know better what would embarrass HER son (whom I bet you never even met) than SHE does? The arrogance to put yourself on a pedestal and say that (actually repeat and regurgitate that particular propaganda parrot talking point, heard ad naseum) and pretend YOU have any standing to say you are better equipped to say what is a way to honor HER son is a form of insane arrogance. It is also an ad hominem personal attack. She is embarrassing her son is NOT saying she is wrong this is why, this is what really pisses you rightwingnuts off. When you make personal attacks on them it makes YOU look insensitive. So they have some immunity to the childish way you guys like to argue. Boiling down to the third grade level personal attacks. IF you said she is wrong about that and this is why no one would argue that you shouldnt make an argument against her position. You guys dont WANT to argue positions and facts. You WANT to make personal attacks and it doesnt seem fair that some people have a standing that makes you look like an insensative jerk when you do so.
It is my opinion that a soldier would not appreciate her comments. Hey...I could be wrong. But that is just my perception and I am entitled to that. But let's not try to chractertize it as something it is not.
Where you go completely wrong in your post is in the conclusion that you draw. I cannot question the accuracy of her comments so I resulted to a personal attack??? I am sorry - does a ludicrous comment like Bush is a Nazi or a terrorist really even need to be refuted point by point? Isn't the absurdity of this apparent on the surface and thus render any attempt to refute it superficial and unnecessary? No...it is fairly easy to refute Cindy Sheehan's comments - they refute themselves for me. (And notice...despite the ridiculousness of her comments, until some of the personal attacks of the left on the right calling people "stupid", I did NOT do so.)
Then I am allowed to point out its arrogance and basic stupidity. Did you think freedom of speech meant you get to say whatever YOU want and no one gets to comment on it? It doesnt. Again you arrogantly say that you THINK, you know better what her son might think or feel than his own mother.
IF the statements are so outrageous then you can easily refute them BUT YOU DIDNT TRY. You attacked HER. This is what is making the right crazy. Personal attacks and smears is now your basic tactic and you dont like when some standing a person has makes you look like a jerk when you do it. Try taking apart their positions not them personally and no one is going to complain.
I dont care for the Nazi claim its over used but I think it fair to say Bush is a terrorist. He lied and misled to take us into a war that is terrorising the people of Iraq. The Armys own definition of terrorism bringing violence to civilians to effect social political or religious changes works for me. You STILL havent made a point. In fact in many of your posts like this one you make excuses for NOT making a point, or cogent argument. You make an assertion we are expected to take at face value and CALL it an argument. You really arent very good at this.
(First..while I was not attacking her in saying that I feel her behavior is an embarassment to her son, if you took it that way, I apolgize. However, I do feel it is inappropriate to use the memory of her son as a political vehicle. While I do not know a lot about the Jersey widows, from what I have seen, I do not see a similar use of the memories of their husbands. If you consider this a personal attack - fine. How else does one state their opposition to her positions.)
Refuting Sheehan's comments on Bush. This is so ridiculous to even have to do this:
Bush is a Nazi - Factually incorrect. Bush is a member of the Republican Party.
Bush is a terrorist - False. There is no evidence that Bush is attempting to operate outside the law and target innocent people.
Bush is a liar - No evidence, only 20/20 hindsight and a redefinition of being incorrect as lying.
There...happy? This is the last time I play your games, Solon. I have no problem debating your points, but if you cannot make more rational points like other left-leaning posters here, I will just ignore anything you have to say going forward. Sidetracking the discussion by asking someone to refute a comment that Bush is a Nazi is silly IMO.
How in the WORLD is saying someone is embarassing their son NOT an attack. Words have meanings, real meanings not just what you retroactivly decide you MEANT rather than what you SAID. Exactly WHAT standing do YOU have to decide for a MOTHER what is appropriate or inappropriate as far as her son, who I assume you DID NOT KNOW, is concerned. This arrogance is astonishing.
As to your Nazi argument, I agree.
The terrorist argument is not so cut and dried. I assume you have heard of Abu Ghraib? Mahar Arar? The war was absolutly illegal by international law though probably not by OUR laws. Therefore this argument is problematic at best, her opinion here still seems to be on solid ground
Bush is ABSOLUTLY a liar. He LIED when on Sept 7, 2002 he said I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq and finally denied access an IAEA report came out saying Iraq was six months from a (nuclear) weapon. No such report, didnt exist. Bush pulled it directly out of his ass. This was NOT a mistake of intelligence, it was NOT a misrepresentation since the IAEAs actual position was that they had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program and capability in 91 and saw no evidence of any attempt to reconstitute it. He LIED when he said by far the vast majority of my tax cut goes to help those on the bottom of the economic ladder even though less than 15 percent went to the bottom 60 percent of the 'economic ladder. He threatened to FIRE the head actuary of Medicare if the man revealed the results of a FIVE MONTH OLD study saying his Medicare bill would cost 530 billion while he continued to tell Congress it would not cost more than 400 billion. He lied when he said that he had brought republicans and democrats together to pass a patientst bill of rights bill in Texas when in fact he VETOED that bill. Now when you make things up. When you threaten to fire someone if they tell the truth while you continue to lie, when you misrepresent your OWN position, I mean isnt he repsonsible to know his own position? He pulled the IAEA report directly out of his ass. It didnt exist if this is NOT a lie there is no such thing as a lie. Bush is a lair, that is a strait out fact. Only by protecting yourself from reality itself can you continue to claim Bush isnt a liar. The man lies like McDonalds sells hamburgers, as a matter of course, its just what he does. None of my example can be explained away by well he was just wrong in hindsight. Making something up to bolster your position that doesnt exist is NOT being wrong in hindsight ITS LYING.
Respond, dont respond dress up in a clown suit and dance a jig, I couldnt care less. Its not my fault I am taking you apart. Dont you see how absolutly EASY you are? Your reason for not wanting to continue debating is obvious, your points are weak WHEN they exist at all. I am obviously making cogent arguments, you just dont like them most likely because they ARE cogent arguments that you cannot refute. Here is a clue you desperatly need. Regurgitating a propaganda parrot talking point phrased as a baseless assertion is NOT making a cogent argument
---"Personally, I have no problem with questioning their positions ... who cares about their opinion any more than any other American citizen?"---
What YOU actually said was that the widows are "hiding behind personal tragedies to avoid being called on some of their positions ..."
But no one says you can't question their positions. No one says you have to care about their opinions.
Again, what the Coulter fans and apologists REALLY mean by statements like you made is, "We are dam frustrated that we can't fling our usual dirt at the widows like we do and have done to others (see Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Kerry, Murtha, et al.) because --after all-- these women lost husbands on 9/11. Even us right-wing crap-throwers know to only go just so far outside the limits of decency and taste (with the notable exception of Coulter)."
I know this was no intentional Democratic strategy as these crazy right wingers allege. But many of the 911 families and military families have come out against the Bush administration policies. Also many many returning Iraqi vets are entering into the political arena and running for office on the Democratic side. The usual slime thrown at NEWLY returned vets and the usual degree of vitriol aimed at widows and grieving parents is distasteful. It's going to force them to debate more civilly and damn they don't like that? As Matt Lauer said to Ann you can respond to these people, but why in this manner.
When societal pressure and decorum dictate the means of the debate, this is the reaction you get from Coulter (and her ilk). She is a guerilla or an insurgent -- not much different than Zarqawi in that sense. She doesn't have it in her to put on a uniform and fight the battle in a civilized fashion.
... Ann Coulter also said her critics are misquoting her. She is now saying that she claimed in her book that the 9/11 widows were enjoying their celebrity status, not the deaths of their husbands. Got that?
When considering a liberal's comments, they can read comments in context and recognize something beyond literal meaning. However, when dealing with the comments of a conservative, they seem to only see the absolute, literal statement and are often oblivious to context. Of course, this often is the case when it is congruent with the liberal position. When the literal comment does not support the left-leaning position, THEN liberals start to see underlying meaning, again often not in agreement with context, to be able to spin positions to fit their viewpoints.
What a bunch of c*ap. You could have only generalized more if you had claimed that conservatives are always "fair and balanced" in their interpretations.
Regarding the context of your response, you're just wrong. Ann Coulter writes on p. 103 of her book ""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."
Now she's trying to claim she didn't mean what she wrote? or she only meant the first part of that not the second? Ms Coulter clearly meant something by that comment, even if it was that the widows are enjoying the results of their husbands deaths, not their deaths per se. In any event, it was a stupid, hateful comment that is there in black-and-white. Deal with it.
It doesn't change the idiocy of Ms Coulter's comment. A good underlying message doesn't excuse a hateful comment. I would agree that a hateful comment can hurt one's ability to persuade.
Regardless, I don't buy Ms Coulter's underlying point. Has the type of thing she claims - i.e., victims using their position to avoid criticism - ever occurred? Of course. However, Ms Coulter is using this claim not to point out a fallacy, but to directly attack and undermine the widow's views. I.e., she's implying that the views of these women aren't valid because they won't let anyone respond. That's absurd and fallacious.
out. The Democratic strategist's response when asked about some of the outrageous comments of Cindy Sheehan: "Well she lost her son." Never dealt with the content her comment. Just brushed off the question with an irrelevant answer. There is an example of this tactic.
...and completely beside the point. My point was that Coulter's underlying message is itself a fallacious attempt to discredit the views of 9/11 widows. What some Democrat said with regard to Ms Sheehan, right or wrong, is totally irrelevant.
This is the THIRD time in this thread that I have said I am not trying to defend the way that Coulter made her argument. WHY do you keep bringing that up??? I am not defending her comments that these women enjoyed their husbands' deaths. While I do not think that was meant literally, I am still not trying to focus on how she made her point. I am solely focused on the main point which has been stated multiple times. Stop trying to change the focus away from a valid question about the tactics of some on the left.
I wasn't changing the subject at all. You accused "liberals" of being literalists when it suits their purpose, but being more liberal - pardon the pun - in interpretation when it suits. I then pointed out that both a generlization and also wrong in this specific instance.
---"they seem to only see the absolute, literal statement and are often oblivious to context"---
Contrary to what you say, the "context" in Coulter's very direct and blunt accusations against the 9/11 widows, such as "These broads ... believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony" or "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much" can ONLY be that she posesses utter contempt and a complete, total absence of compassion for these women. Coulter was deliberately direct and brutal, and she meant every word of it.
Any attempt to inject hidden meanings or intentions, or to say she was quoted out of context is nothing but obvious post-PR-disaster spin, blatantly obvious.
Any attempt to inject hidden meanings or intentions, or to say she was quoted out of context is nothing but obvious post-PR-disaster spin, blatantly obvious.
First off, there is no disaster for Coulter. Her intention is to sell books. All this media frenzy is free advertisement for her. Second, her comments are indefensable, but probably very much intended regarding the aforementioned media attention. Getting by all that, the point that she makes in her book, which I have NOT read, is that these people are NOT confronted when THEY make similarly absurd or reprehensible statements. Again, the segment on Hannity the other days was case in point. They had a Democratic stategist on with Coulter who was just lambasting Coulter for her personal remarks about these women. When Hannity said, well what about the statement by Sheehan, calling Bush a terrorist, and a Nazi and so forth, would she similarly condemn these clearly over the top comments, the Democratic strategist said, "She lost a son." That's precisely Coulter's underlying meaning that he is referring to in his post. Sheehan, and those like her are allowed to make equally, or at least similarly offensive and personal statements but the can't be confronted because they lost a son, or a husband or a.......
the issue.
Hey lefties...do me a favor? When your post addresses the issue and not continuing to deal with Coulter's manner of expression, which I do not see anyone here defending, note that for us.
In the ONE incident that is being used to justify Coulter's statement - the question on Hannity or whatever that was answered by "she lost a son" - note that it wasn't Sheehan herself that was being questioned, it was a "Democratic strategist." (And we're not even getting the context of the statement.) And because of this ONE incident involving someone who speaks for neither Cindy Sheehan nor 9/11 widows, we are to conclude that the political positions of 9/11 widows and Cindy Sheehan are somehow considered immune to criticism?
1. The point is not just about the women making the comment. It is about people on the left defending left wing points by brushing them off because someone had a personal tragedy. No one is saying it is ONLY relevant to the person making the comment. (And do not attempt to say that it cannot be relevant, because we all take issue with what people on the opposite side of the political spectrum and debate it. That is what we are doing here.)
2. Go find the transcript. I know you will not take my word for it, but you are getting the context of Schwartz's comment.
The point is not just about the women making the comment. It is about people on the left defending left wing points by brushing them off because someone had a personal tragedy.
But this isn't happening, except for the one example of Laura Schwartz, a self-styled "Democratic strategist" who seems to exist only to be on FOX programs. That's a thin reed to hang your premise on. Not to mention that she made her statement AFTER Coulter wrote her book, and that Cindy Sheehan's points are her own and not necessarily anyone else's.
Someone out of grief may be lashing out in their OPINIONS and overstating or crossing a line. No one ANYWHERE though is making an argument that you cannot say, what she said is wrong here is why. The Ann Coulters of this world have no intention of doing that they want to personally SMEAR political opponents and because of the sympathy factor it makes them look bad to do this against someone who HAS such sympathy. These two, excusing overheated rhetoric with grief, and stopping actual discourse on what is said, its substance are NOT the same thing and you are pretending they are. Since they are not Coulter did not make a point, she snivelled her usual character assasination (which she made anyway) was not as effective against them
----"First off, there is no disaster for Coulter. Her intention is to sell books...."----
Her comment on the widows will haunt her forever. A glance through the papers lately will tell you she's quickly turning herself into box office poison. She'll sell books allright--it's obvious from some of the posts on this forum that she has followers who love the taste and smell of her garbage. But I submit she would sell more books, get more respect and get more tv appearances on more serious outlets if she toned it down. But she clearly relishes her role as chief crap-thrower too much to give it up. And she won't. She will become marginalized and an outcast eventually, and then blame her fall not on herself but on the liberal media.
----"The point that she makes ... is that these people are NOT confronted when THEY make similarly absurd or reprehensible statements."----
No one --NO ONE-- said that the 9/11 widows couldn't be questioned or confronted on their positions. But confronting positions is not what Coulter does. Coulter, lacking the ability or desire to do just that, attacked them, personally. Coulter doesn't offer an argument. She offers an absurd, preposterous accusation that the women are "enjoying" their husbands' deaths. How are these women supposed to defend against a slander like that?
What this whole deal amounts to is that the right-wingers are feeling hamstrung because they can't dish-out the usual smears to the widows and to Sheehan and to some extent Murtha because they are frustratingly aware of the sacrifices made and the losses suffered. The Hannitys, Limbaughs and the Coulter-wannabes realize that there is sometimes a point at which flinging crap will make them look bad. So the route they take is to lash-out at Sheehan and the widows by falsely claiming they are "hiding" behind tragedies. It's despicable, of course, and plainly obvious.
"Whether these women and other "victims" are effectively beyond reproach when they become political pundits is an issue that merits consideration."
Since the Republicans have never had a problem with going after "victims" or using "victims" for their own agenda, I don't believe this is the true reason for the attack. Case in point, Anne has recently been talking about Hillary Clinton. In doing so, she brings up the women (by name) who Bill Clinton was accused of raping. It is clear she has no problem using these "victims" for her agenda. Also someone like John McCain was fair game to a whisper campaign that he was crazy for being a POW. Victims of crime and tragedy have always been fair game to people like her. So what is the real issue here? I think it is clear the bigger issue with her and the Republican side is how to effectively smear these people. The Jersey girls are something different from the other smear jobs they have done. They are young white women; they are from average homes and families. They were not part of the established media, or professional politicians. To attack them would take something different. Hannity, Limbaugh, O'reilly and such could not go after them. They would need someone more like them to attack first and attack with vicious abandon. Now the other pundits, the male ones, can decry "oh, Anne went a bit too far, but she had some points we can now discuss". Ann looks bad, but not nearly as bad as if some mean old man had done this.
So we are left with the whole "they supported Kerry" thing during the campaign as proof they are being "used by the left". Let us look at the landscape here. We have 2 major parties in this country. The one in charge had to be drug kicking and screaming to even look into the factors behind their husbands’ death. Even then, the current administration did very little that the commission said should be done. So who do think they are going to be against? That leaves them with one legitimate option on who to support. No conspiracy here, just logical sense.
To say they were unable to criticize these people is ridiculous. Cindy Sheehan was savaged by her critics both justifiable on her political positions and inappropriately on her loss. That is the distinction that some on the right don’t seem to get. You can criticize all you want with respect to the political positions they are arguing if you don’t agree. The problem arises when you attempt to gain a political advantage by minimizing their loss. Their loss does give them a unique perspective to interject themselves into the debate much the same way mothers against drunk drivers or breast cancer survivors speak out about the topics that have directly affected their lives. I tend to agree with the political positions of the Widows but I have many disagreements with things Cindy Sheehan has said. I have no problem saying I find some of her positions extreme but I don’t see the need to make my arguments by making unfounded claims about her loss. It is not necessary and only makes the person doing so look small. Unfortunately some on the Right seem unable to make a logical argument to defend their position and instead revert to making these inappropriate remarks about the loss their opponents have suffered.
I do not agree with anyone minimizing someone's loss. I may not like Cindy Sheehan's politics, but her son was an American serviceman. He deserves our utmost respect as he made a sacrifice that none of us here have made - he gave his life in service of his country. I would disagree with anyone, right or left, minimizing that sacrifice.
I would counter that simply losing someone does not make them an expert on political issues. They may have perspective on loss and they may have a strong opinion on the matter, their right as an American, but to treat that they political position is any more valid than another average citizens would not be accurate either IMO
I don't hear anyone saying they are any more valid. However I do think someone who is directly effected has a unique perspective to give to the discussion. I suppose that is why they bring out supporters of the war who have lost a loved one who still support the war to show that someone who has had the experience feels this way. I do think sometimes the excuse of "well she lost a son" is misinterpreted as one saying you can noit challenge her positions. As I said I have much disagreement with what Sheehan has said but I do find my self at times trying to empathize with her and wonder how vitriolic I would be in my anger and grief. Not to say you can't challenge her statements but i have a hard time not also considering her loss. That is why I contain myself to just commenting on the issues and noit making personal judgements about her, her grief, or her son and how he would feel about his mom.
Whether these women and other "victims" are effectively beyond reproach when they become political pundits is an issue that merits consideration.
No it doesn't. Nobody who engages in political discourse is above reproach. That's such an unexceptional point that it goes without saying. The problem is that Coulter isn't just attacking the widows' political points, she's attacking the widows personally. Now, Coulter is entitled to smear anybody she wants, but to justify her personal smears with the false premise that the political opinions of 9/11 widows are "above reproach" is ridiculous.
Crazy Annie's excuse for smearing 9/11 widows is that they "make a political point while preventing anyone from responding." This, of course, is a completely inane comment. She was always free to respond & forge a bit of dialogue on the issues surrounding 9/11. What was absolutely driving her (& apparently also O'Lielley) nuts was that the sympathy that most Americans felt for these women made them DIFFICULT TO SMEAR!
It is Coulter's near total inability to engage in any discussion that doesn't consist mostly in the use of lies, distortions, & personal attacks that prevented her from publicly disagreeing with these "broads." It's likem asking a rattlesnake to fingerpaint. She can't put three rational thoughts together...& that's giving her the benifit of the doubt.
Ms. Coulter is also apparently ignoring the long hours of investigative work done by the "Jersey girls," which even more that their status as 9/11 widows has earned them a public hearing. And of course, none of this group appears -- not even remotely -- to be the Playboy type.
O'Reilly doesn't criticize Coulter's verbal tactics because they are mean, or untrue, or nasty, or slanderous, or in horrible taste.
He instead frets that her "good message" will be weakened. He advises her to instead attack in the manner HE does, but his depiction of his own performance is ... well, delusional. He is so into his own fantasy world, he will launch a personal attack IN THE SAME SENTENCE as he claims he doesn't engage in personal attacks.
A classic case of the blind leading the sightless.
Ann Coulter and her ilk dismiss the 9/11 widows as opportunistic. She claims that no one can respond to their positions because they are "off limits".
No. The reason that she can't respond to them effectively is because they are right. Their criticisms of the Bush administration were carefully presented and almost entirely correct. And who can argue that there should have not been a 9/11 Commission?
She must really fear their message since she is willing to resort to personally attacking them. Pathetic.
I heard Bill O say that this was terrible. Another attempt to attack Bill who is harmless. What about Michael Savage and his tirade yesterday that CNN should be shut down and reports who question the war should be charged with Sedition. Why does Media Matters report on non sense about O'Reilly but ignore a man who has millions of more listeners than O"reilly.
Scary.
Exactly what I was thinking. O'Reilly didn't trivialize Coulter's comments - he said she is over the top. O'Reilly didn't trivialize Haditha - he said wait for the investigation. There's a real obsession with O'Reilly. More psychotic than O'Reilly himself. The O'Reilly outrage is what's becoming trivial.
as you might well remember OR said that that tragic incident was honey for liberals who would enjoy it and abuse it for their own good. The only ones who did so so far have been right ing pundits, including OR. After that he said that we have to await an investigation (that was performed in November 2005 after which nothing was heard anymore).
This incident, as is the death of Zarqawi is used by the right repeatedly to bash the left: from enjoying a massacre to being sad about Zarqawi.
Nothing is more besides the truth! However, the truth does not seem to matter here, as long as the left can be attacked, smeared, demonized, and its opinions, solutions, and question marginalized.
These women should sue Coulter and O'Reilly for slander. Neither one seems to realize that mayb, just maybe, these women are right and that Bush has done NOTHING AT ALL to further protect the people from another 9/11. Hell, they've recently cut funding for New York city and DC for terrorist prevention! They've received near-failing grades for their actions, and yet if anybody points this out they are suddenly a tool of the left.
Somebody needs to shut these lying, misinforming, a@@holes up NOW. Their lying, smearing, divisive and hateful BS is getting over the line when they smear the real victims of 9/11 and say they are happy their families were killed and should STFU if Bush does nothing to prevent another attack.
This is a new low, even by O'Reilly's idiotically low standards.
Sad. We can disagree with them, but they should be allowed to speak.
Your just as bad as the Cons who want to shutup CNN.
I'm sorry, but contrary to popular misconception there is a difference between free speech and slander. What COulter and O'Reilly do, thanks to right-wing support and funding, is get a venue for their hate speech and lies to be given credibility.
Hate speech and lies are not free speech when they are done maliciously. If I go on TV and say the sky is green...that isn't free speech. That is a lie.
And somethign I learned way back in my hgih school law class is that IGNORANCE is no defrense of the law. Yet O'Reilly and COulter rely on willfull, head-in-the-sand ignorance to form their views. They don't care about the facts or truth or reality and they will ignore these things when they don't fit the agenda.
No...rest assured that what O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Coulter and the like do is not "free speech" anymore than I am allowed to maliciously shout "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a crowded theatre. Free Speech demands a level of honesty, accuracy and certianly responsibility....especially when you are being heard by millions. O'Reilly and COulter don't care about Free Speech; if they did they wouldn't be so eagre to shut up and write off as many people who disagree with them. They abuse free speech to push their own agenda of slander and hate and it shouldn't be allowed anymore than Nazis shou8ld be given their own cable channel to bash Jews.
One thing that i did agree with is that she is the far-rights version of Al Franken. Now thats true! They are both nuts!
He is as much of a hatemonger as Ann Coulter. But he should be allowed his right to free speech. Its scary that all the posters on Media Matters want people silenced.
Not silenced…Just not given a national platform from which to spew her bile. I have no problem with her setting up a post on the street with her fellow nutcases to spew her nastiness. She can rant and rave all day long. But I do have a problem with those who would offer her a platform that in anyway brings legitimacy to her idiotic commentary.
...and ranting and raving is exactly the way to characterize it. My daughter had never heard Ann Coulter speak She saw the interview and actually called me and asked "who is this crazy woman? She's like foaming at the mouth."
---"[Franken] is as much of a hatemonger as Ann Coulter."---
That's pure Bulls___, and you would not be up to the challenge of seriously substantiating it. You are trying to minimize Coulter's serious mistakes by comparing her to someone who on any given day is far more reasonable, honest and restrained. There is no comparison.
I don't think jlyon is a right-winger, but I wonder how he can compare Franken with Coulter. Franken is very self-efacing and absolutely anti-pompousness personified. Ann takes herself very seriously even when she is taking a stand that would make most decent people say "Whoa! Did I just say that?"
Can anyone provide a quote that compares to what Ann says? The violent fantasies? The despicable baseless accusations?
O'Reilly calls Franken terrible, but don't forget in the Mackris Transcripts where he alluded to Mackris that a knock on Franken's door could change Franken's life forever.
I don't think he was alluding to Publisher's Clearinghouse knocking on his door.
to 'prove' that all cons did not approve of her stupidities? Will he come to this thread and apologize for that? Nah, doubt it.
O'Reilly made a valid point. You CAN attack and or debate the argument of the person, no matter who that person happens to be. He criticized Ann Coulter for attacking the widows personally. The valid point he said Ann had was that the 9-11 widows are being "used" by a portion of the political spectrum.
Yes, he made blow hard comments on how he brought down Cindy Sheehan (a legend in his own mind, that Bill). However, I think I remember that he did attack her stance on the war, and not the lady herself....oh wait, he did insult Cindy Sheehan.
No matter, his point is valid even if he himself doesn't follow it. Coulter's entire argument is that she's not allowed to insult the 9-11 widows. Basicly, she wants to insult victims without being insulted herself. Not bad for a lady who's entire claim to fame was being a lawyer for a woman Clinton had sex with.
I believe your argument is that she does have a valid point, even if she made it using hateful speech. Ms Coulter's underlying point, as you argue it, is that liberal's hide behind tragedy to avoid challenges to their arguments. Correct?
I and others here have argued that Coulter's statements - meaning her comments re. 9/11 widows - are actually fallacious AND hateful. That is, besides the statements being hateful, the underlying point is also not valid.
The assertion that liberal's hide behind tragedy to avoid argument is a generalization. Ms Coulter uses a similar assertion to attack 9/11 widows. However, she doesn't use it to refute actual statements of the type you noted (Democrat strategist speaking in re. to Ms Sheehan). Instead, her only purpose would seem to be to attempt to discredit the political views of 9/11 widows. Thus, Ms Coulter's underlying point is a red herring.
Coulter says we don't see criticism of the 9/11 widows' political positions because they're shielded by tragedy. You know what else we don't see? Harsh questioning of the political views of people who have lost family members in Iraq, but who are still pro-war. It may be because of a simple concept called civility, which is alien to Coulter.
Although, I believe there is actually plenty of criticism of the political views held by both groups of people. However, I agree with your point to the extent that I'm not aware of instances of character-assassination of pro-Bush victims.
that's the balance the right doesn't seem to get.
I'm just glad those comments were not made by Hillory Clinton. If they had O'Rielly would have spent 3 times as long on the comments, of course he would have had a different view point. Which makes this point pretty ironic; "it looks like there's a double standard" in the treatment of conservatives and liberals by the "mainstream media."
....from the guy who can't even keep Malmedy straight??? LOL!
A match made for each other.Beauty and the Beast.But which is which!
the fact that decent people keep falling for this crap is astounding.
To go on a cable-news pro-Gov't show and complain that you're being restricted from criticizing a group of people (never mind that they're women whose husbands were killed in a BS war) who you're criticizing at that very moment, and to be fooling even a tiny fraction of our fellow voters...
well, what do you say?