Colmes challenged Coulter's claim that "you never see conservatives ... using someone's tragedy"
SUMMARY: In two appearances on Fox News, Ann Coulter continued her attacks on the widows of 9-11 victims and added that "you never see conservatives ... using someone's tragedy." But as Alan Colmes noted, Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the 9-11 attacks, and "a little girl who lost her mother during 9-11" were both "used to promote President Bush" during the 2004 presidential campaign. Coulter's response: "[H]e's the commander in chief."
Appearing on the June 12 editions of the Fox News programs Hannity & Colmes and The Big Story with John Gibson, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter continued her attacks on the widows of 9-11 victims and added that "you never see conservatives ... using someone's tragedy." But as Hannity & Colmes co-host Alan Colmes noted, Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the 9-11 attacks, and "a little girl who lost her mother during 9-11" were both "used to promote President Bush" during the 2004 presidential campaign.
Coulter's response to Colmes's examples? "[H]e's the commander in chief." Colmes asked, "[S]o it's OK to use someone's tragedy if you're the commander in chief?"
Coulter has repeatedly used inflammatory remarks about the widows of 9-11 victims to promote her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). She repeated these attacks on The Big Story during an interview with guest host and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano. Coulter said that "the left keeps using human shields to promote its half-baked liberal bromides," and that the 9-11 widows are "enjoying their celebrity status." Coulter cited former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA), anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as other examples of "victim spokesmen, which the left always springs on us." Napalitano appeared to accept Coulter's allegation, asking Coulter: "[W]hy is the left, then, willing to use people who are victims to promote its political causes?"
As Media Matters for America has noted, far from being immune to challenge, the purportedly "infallible" spokespeople Coulter cited have faced strong Republican opposition in the political sphere and, often, ad hominem attacks from conservatives.
On Hannity & Colmes, Colmes asked Coulter whether Bush also used "tragedy to promote a political agenda," citing Burlingame's advocacy for Bush's re-election and a commercial supporting Bush during his 2004 re-election campaign, which highlighted Ashley Faulkner, the daughter of a 9-11 victim.
On the opening night of the 2004 Republican National Convention, as Media Matters has noted, three relatives of 9-11 victims gave speeches broadcast on national television -- Burlingame and two women who lost their husbands, Deena Burnett and Tara Stackpole. On numerous occasions, Burlingame publicly supported Bush's re-election. Following the public disclosure of Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program, Burlingame defended the program in a February 6 New York Post op-ed and in appearances on the April 3 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show and on the January 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes. Further, a conservative advocacy group, Progress for America, released an ad in October 2004 in support of Bush's re-election titled "Ashley's Story." In the ad, Faulkner recounted the story of Bush embracing her at a campaign event. Said Faulkner: "He's the most powerful man in the world, and all he wants to do is make sure I'm safe, that I'm OK."
From the June 12 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: You always ignore Debra Burlingame, who's been used to promote President Bush. And let me show you something that President Bush, a commercial that President Bush ran during his last campaign for president. Let me show you a little piece of that. We don't have that; I'm sorry. He ran a commercial using a little girl who lost her mother during 9-11 and used that and that helped sell him to the American people. Was that using 9-11?
COULTER: No, you refuse to grasp the distinction --
COLMES: Was that using the tragedy to promote a political agenda?
COULTER: No. He's the commander in chief. Do you think FDR didn't run on World War II when he was running for president? He's the commander in chief. He's the one responsible for the response. You didn't have a little girl denouncing John Kerry and saying he wasn't doing enough to fight the war on terrorism.
COLMES: So it's OK to use someone's tragedy if you're the commander in chief --
COULTER: You never see conservatives doing this.
COLMES: -- and running for office?
COULTER: No, he's not using someone's tragedy. He's talking about the war on terror, which we are in the middle of -- He's the commander in chief.
From the June 12 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
NAPOLITANO: Ann Coulter joins us now. Ann, welcome here. So, why is everybody up in arms about what you said this time?
COULTER: Probably because people like you keep describing it as what I say about 9-11 widows, which is nothing of the sort what I say. I'm talking about the Jersey Girls, the self-described Jersey Girls, four of probably tens of thousands who had relatives die in 9-11. These were the four who were -- used their platform as victims to viciously attack George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, demand a 9-11 Commission, be feted in Vanity Fair, and, of course, cut campaign commercials for John Kerry. If what I say is so outrageous, I don't know why there's this -- this compulsion to misdescribe what it is I'm talking about.
NAPOLITANO: Let's -- let's put up on the screen exactly what it is you did say in the book about these four people. Quote: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. I've never seen people enjoy their husbands' deaths so much." Now, why did you call them "broads"?
COULTER: I don't know. Why didn't you just ask me that question? You sort of have to read the whole chapter to get the flow of it. I think the point is clear, that the left keeps using human shields to promote its half-baked liberal bromides. Let somebody else make the point. Make someone --
NAPOLITANO: What do you mean when you say they enjoy their husbands' deaths?
COULTER: Pardon?
NAPOLITANO: I'm sorry, Ann. What do you mean when you say they seem to be enjoying their husbands' deaths?
COULTER: I mean what I say. They're enjoying their celebrity.
NAPOLITANO: This is the point that really got under their skin, and which they said nobody revels in our husbands' deaths. We wish they were alive.
COULTER: No. Technically, what they said is, we did not enjoy watching our husbands die, which, of course, isn't what I said. What I said is, they're enjoying their celebrity status, based on the fact that they can promote themselves as -- as victim spokesmen, which the left always springs on us. And it's become far more prevalent, with Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey girls and Joe Wilson -- oh, can't respond because his wife works at the CIA.
NAPOLITANO: All right.
COULTER: Well, that's the only reason he was even sent to Niger.
COULTER: Max Cleland. You can't talk to Kerry or Murtha about war, because, well, they fought in Vietnam. Well, send up somebody we can respond to, then. And, yes, you have to read the full flow of the chapter.
NAPOLITANO: What is wrong with the Jersey Girls expressing a political opinion deeply left of center?
COULTER: There's nothing. The problem is, we're not allowed to express one back. That's my point.
NAPOLITANO: All right. Why is the left, then, willing to use people who are victims to promote its political causes?
COULTER: Well, that's the question. I mean, as I describe in this chapter on the liberal doctrine of infallibility, they've come up with various methods over the years to prevent an opposing viewpoint from being heard. It used to be easy; they just wouldn't put us on TV. They had 100 percent control of all news dissemination in America. That -- that got broken by hate radio, the Internet, and, of course, Fox News, which has driven them out of their minds. And so, consequently, the next trick is to send forward these -- well, they complained about, you know, hate speech and hate radio and angry white men.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
COULTER: Well, you know, they weren't sending us chocolates and flowers back when they were attacking Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Judge [Robert] Bork. What they mean by divisive voices and a lack of civility in debate is, conservatives get to talk, too. And so, now -- I mean, they done this for years, but it's far more prevalent now. They send up victim spokesmen, making the same points [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean could make, except, if you respond to Howard Dean, he won't turn around and say, "My husband died."
NAPOLITANO: Right. Before I let you go, why do you call them godless? And who precisely are you saying is godless?
COULTER: I have already responded to that in last week's column. I'm describing the whole philosophy of liberalism, the religion of liberalism. And I call them godless because liberalism is a religion. It's just not God-based. It's precisely in opposition, the opposition party to God. They worship Mother Earth. They're obsessed with global warming and the furbish lousewort but don't mind disemboweling human embryos or humans in the womb. It is a religion. It's a godless religion.
NAPOLITANO: Ann Coulter -- the book is called Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Ann, thanks very much.
COULTER: Thank you.
go Colmes. Very good. And the answer of Coulter is nothing more than funny: only we may use victims, if the victims are talking for their own cause or are being used by Dems than they are wicked.
"you are only our friend when we can use you'
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, religion is (among others) "a pursuit or interest followed with devotion". This would make Mrs. Coulter the High Priestess of yet another religion..... Conservatism.
I wonder if Coulter is mad at Christianity for putting forth its Victim (you know, Jesus Christ, crucified Son of God). How dare liberals be on the side of victims! (But isn't that where God is, too.)
Now it may be true that conservatives often find themselves supporting the interests of the powerful, but of course it is not true that they never rally around vicitms. Remember Elian Gonzales? Or The Passion of the Christ?
is that liberalism is a religion contrary to godliness. That's the point Coulter was making. Conservatism promotes godliness, liberalism promotes, well, death to human fetuses and handicaps, intolerance of free speech and thought, hate crimes, victimization and loathing for capitalism and economic and individual prosperity.
In fact, abortions decreased during the Clinton years; it is Ann Coulter who is promoting hate and who is intolerant of the right of the Jersey Girls to hold political views she disagrees with; Social Secuirty has kept generations of the elderly from living in abject poverty; Republicans have won the last several elections by making white males feel as though they were victims of minorities and lifestyle liberals (something Joe Klein understands as well as anyone); George Soros and countless other liberals hardly hate capitalism or economic and individual prosperity; real wages grew for most people under Clinton; Democratic policies post-WWII largely made possible the growth of the American Middle Class etc., etc.
Conservatives, meanwhile, told voters in the last presidential election the complete and utter lie that Democrats wanted to ban the Bible! Conservatives also falsely claim as their own our nation's Founding Fathers, whose religious views were far different from today's evangelicals.
she represents the pathology of the right? if i do it, it's correct because there is no doubt i'm correct. and how dare those broads "demand a 9-11 commission". what nerve, wanting to know why this happened. i really think this is the bee under her bonnet, because the commission pointed out all the failures of the bush administration pre 9-11. face it ann, your boy didn't just drop the counterterrorism ball. he never picked it up to begin with. perhaps you feel perfectly comfortable with a bumbling incompetent in charge of this country, but a lot of us don't. of course, if you had an ounce of common sense, you wouldn't dare to put yourself in the same league as a talent like mark twain. i'm sure he would be able to dismiss you in a couple words. and by the way, read his absolutely scathing comments on our occupation of the phillipines after the spanish american war. he wasn't backing the commander in chief then. but he wasn't a mindless lemming like you.
philippines
How dare Democrats say Debra Burlingame seems to enjoy her husband's death! Oh wait...You mean Democrats haven't said anything like that? What is wrong with them?
Just one follow-up. Who made him a reporter? A tape recorder sitting in front of Coulter would have done almost as good a job as Napolitano.
NAPOLITANO: Ann Coulter joins us now. Ann, welcome here. So, why is everybody up in arms about what you said this time?
COULTER: Probably because people like you keep describing it as what I say about 9-11 widows, which is nothing of the sort what I say. I'm talking about the Jersey Girls, the self-described Jersey Girls, four of probably tens of thousands who had relatives die in 9-11. These were the four who were -- used their platform as victims to viciously attack George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, demand a 9-11 Commission, be feted in Vanity Fair, and, of course, cut campaign commercials for John Kerry. If what I say is so outrageous, I don't know why there's this -- this compulsion to misdescribe what it is I'm talking about.
(If I was Napolitano, I would have said, "Nobody is saying that you are attacking all 9/11 widows. You are specifically being criticized for slandering these four women. Also, why do you call these women's criticisms of Bush slanders if they are telling the truth? Furthermore, who is "misdescribing" what you're talking about? Name one and quote them.")
NAPOLITANO: Let's -- let's put up on the screen exactly what it is you did say in the book about these four people. Quote: "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities. I've never seen people enjoy their husbands' deaths so much." Now, why did you call them "broads"?
COULTER: I don't know. Why didn't you just ask me that question? You sort of have to read the whole chapter to get the flow of it. I think the point is clear, that the left keeps using human shields to promote its half-baked liberal bromides. Let somebody else make the point. Make someone –
(I would have followed up, "So reading the whole chapter would have convinced me that those women enjoyed their husbands' deaths? What evidence do you have that they enjoyed it. Also what half-baked liberal bromides are you talking about. All you do is make straw man arguements against platitudes no liberal has ever made in the real world.")
NAPOLITANO: What do you mean when you say they enjoy their husbands' deaths?
COULTER: Pardon?
NAPOLITANO: I'm sorry, Ann. What do you mean when you say they seem to be enjoying their husbands' deaths?
COULTER: I mean what I say. They're enjoying their celebrity.
(To Napolitano's credit, this is the only time he gave a follow up although I would have added,”You didn’t say that they enjoy their celebrity. You said that they enjoyed their deaths. You also present no evidence that they are enjoying their celebrity either.)
NAPOLITANO: This is the point that really got under their skin, and which they said nobody revels in our husbands' deaths. We wish they were alive.
COULTER: No. Technically, what they said is, we did not enjoy watching our husbands die, which, of course, isn't what I said. What I said is, they're enjoying their celebrity status, based on the fact that they can promote themselves as -- as victim spokesmen, which the left always springs on us. And it's become far more prevalent, with Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey girls and Joe Wilson -- oh, can't respond because his wife works at the CIA.
NAPOLITANO: All right.
COULTER: Well, that's the only reason he was even sent to Niger.
COULTER: Max Cleland. You can't talk to Kerry or Murtha about war, because, well, they fought in Vietnam. Well, send up somebody we can respond to, then. And, yes, you have to read the full flow of the chapter.
(Napolitano should have said, “So you have no problem with them being spokesmen, just that conservatives cannot respond. Give an example where anybody has ever stopped anybody else from defending Bush and the GOP in the public arena and how do they keep conservatives from responding. Also, isn’t is also possible that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger because he the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq from 1988 to 1991, was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1990, has been ambassador to Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe, helped direct Africa policy for the U.S. National Security Council and headed a consulting firm specializing in strategic management and international business development.”)
NAPOLITANO: What is wrong with the Jersey Girls expressing a political opinion deeply left of center?
COULTER: There's nothing. The problem is, we're not allowed to express one back. That's my point.
NAPOLITANO: All right. Why is the left, then, willing to use people who are victims to promote its political causes?
COULTER: Well, that's the question. I mean, as I describe in this chapter on the liberal doctrine of infallibility, they've come up with various methods over the years to prevent an opposing viewpoint from being heard. It used to be easy; they just wouldn't put us on TV. They had 100 percent control of all news dissemination in America. That -- that got broken by hate radio, the Internet, and, of course, Fox News, which has driven them out of their minds. And so, consequently, the next trick is to send forward these -- well, they complained about, you know, hate speech and hate radio and angry white men.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
COULTER: Well, you know, they weren't sending us chocolates and flowers back when they were attacking Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon, Judge [Robert] Bork. What they mean by divisive voices and a lack of civility in debate is, conservatives get to talk, too. And so, now -- I mean, they done this for years, but it's far more prevalent now. They send up victim spokesmen, making the same points [Democratic National Committee chairman] Howard Dean could make, except, if you respond to Howard Dean, he won't turn around and say, "My husband died."
(“Give an example of a liberal claiming that these women are infallible keeping conservatives off TV. How did you manage to get on TV with all of those incredible obstacles and all of those people stopping you? How have you instilled civility and non-divisiveness into the debate? Why do you consider the truth to be divisive and uncivil?”)
NAPOLITANO: Right. Before I let you go, why do you call them godless? And who precisely are you saying is godless?
COULTER: I have already responded to that in last week's column. I'm describing the whole philosophy of liberalism, the religion of liberalism. And I call them godless because liberalism is a religion. It's just not God-based. It's precisely in opposition, the opposition party to God. They worship Mother Earth. They're obsessed with global warming and the furbish lousewort but don't mind disemboweling human embryos or humans in the womb. It is a religion. It's a godless religion.
(“Conservativism isn’t god-based. Belief in god is not necessary to be a conservative. Is conservativism a religion also? A large portion of Christians are Democrats and liberals. Are they godless. Were those Founding Fathers who were not Christian, also godless? You also contradicted yourself. If one worships Mother Earth, they are not godless.”)
"It's okay if the president does it."
Thanks Ann, I was getting nostalgic for Watergate.
Oh where to begin... or why even bother... it's obvious to everyone with a positive IQ: Fox News is a right-wing circus. All that's missing is an usher shouting "peanuts, popcorn, Cracker Jacks".
I caught the H&C in question. What's this? The 3rd or 4th appearance for Coulter on H&C in a week? What's Murdoch's cut (she's also featured on other Fox shows) of book sales?
Even if she had a point in all her outrageous vomit nothing can excuse her disgusting rhetoric - well, she's justified it in her own mind blinded by dollar signs. Colmes got a rare good counterpoint in but was otherwise his usual ineffective, wimpish self. But then this is Fox News. He's paid to be a liberal doormat.
Napolitano is nobody's fool but reading the transcript I hope someone poked him with a stick when the Coulter interview was over to wake him up. He, too, realizes his role: Promo the heck out of Coulter's book.
Coulter's explanation of the book's title and alleged premise is so dopey it boggles the mind. But I have to consider the audience. The same pack of droolers who absorb like a sponge a daily dose of Rush Limbaugh explaining such brilliance as trees being the real source of global warming.
This stuff would be all terrible funny if millions of conservatives didn't buy it hook, line, and sinker. Then you start to realize how truly dangerous these gold-digging shills are.
And Coulter is Bozo the Clown. Comic relief. Why is the media treating her so seriously? Should she not be introduced as "comedian, Ann Coulter"?
How do you know when you've lost the chess match? When Alan Colmes yells checkmate!
And she still tries some strange pawn defense. I wish MMFA would run that hilarious clip featuring David Horowitz trying valiently to defend Coulter on Larry King last night. The entire set broke out laughing at him and he STILL didn't get it!
HOROWITZ: "and I don't think for a second that she wrote this book for money, ahhh..."
ALL OF THE GUESTS AND EVEN LARRY KING: LMAO (Well they didn't really say that. But you get the point)
I guess it was an honest mistake that Colmes' clip was unavailable....He obviously took the time to find it in archive somewhere and prep it for his interview with the Witch. Nice to see a fixed game all around.
Only on Fox
>> it is a religion; it's a godless religion... it is not God based <<
Huh? I am a liberal Christian. I believe in the Christian God, that the Christian God made and maintains the universe, that Jesus came to reconcile us to God, etc. But I also care about the environment, am concerned about global warming, don't think the super rich should get tax breaks, don't think the commander in chief should lie to the public or have his admistrative officials lie for him (unless it's absolutely necessary), etc. John Kerry is also a liberal Christian (in the Catholic tradition).
So Ann... what are you talking about? How much talent does it take to slander people?
-- Pat
... does it take to slander people?
The ability to type, apparently, and to be completely devoid of morals.
That's it!
Since Ms. Coulter has publicly set herself up as an authority on religion, I would really love to see someone debate her on strictly theological issues. My guess is that she couldn't even hold her own in a theological conversation, much less a debate.
Frankly, there are a lot better examples of Christianity here on the MMFA boards than in any Coulter interview I've seen so far.
Then again, she's a self-appointed expert on politics (never held or ran for any public office) and family values (never had one after leaving home).
It would be so nice if people could simply see her for what she is: a lawyer. That's her only legitimate field of expertise. She has no specialized training that gives her authority status in any other field.
The only reason she has any audience at all is because the right-wing media loves her nasty routine and keeps promoting her, and her brain-dead sycophants keep buying her books.
God, help us.
>>Since Ms. Coulter has publicly set herself up as an authority on religion, I would really love to see someone debate her on strictly theological issues. My guess is that she couldn't even hold her own in a theological conversation, much less a debate.
Sure, she could! She'd just stammer out a few propagandic talking points about Jesus being a Republican, run dry, and then start making Ted Kennedy jokes.
But recall, Ann's anti-logic on what constitutes a religion is brought to you by the same right-wing morons who claim evolution is also a religion. For that matter, maybe global warming is a religion too.
She’s dancing around her own hypocrisy by making stupid comparisons:
"Do you think FDR didn't run on World War II when he was running for president?”
I'm too young to have firsthand memory of FDR's campaigns, but I'm guessing there was a huge difference between FDR's and Dubya's campaign tactics.
Did FDR exploit relatives of servicemen who were killed at Pearl Harbor during his election campaigns?
Did FDR exploit jews who nearly starved to death at Auschwitz?
I think her comparison is absolutely ludicrous.
is perverse and a disgrace. Of course, what else would you expect from Mann Coulter?
next time I watch "America's most wanted". Conservatives run the gamut on this, from Terri Schiavo to Willie Horton, from Jane Fonda to burning flags. They are all about putting up supposedly non-respondable sources.
No, WRONG! Herr dubyah is the CIC to the military. Mann Coulter and the majority of the radical right never served in the military, so he's the POTUS and not the CIC to "her" and the rest of their ilk.
Nonetheless, just because he's the CIC, herr dubyah is allowed to politicize 9/11? Great "logic" there Manny Coulter.
Where are the conservative apologists now?
anyone?
Bueller...
They've been working in pairs for the last couple of weeks. There are at least two teams. One team will work a few days, then nothing for a few days. Then the other team takes over for a few days.
Many have pointed out the similarity between the four most recent conservative apologists and trolls from the past. I'm sure that two of them are people who've posted here under different names.
And I'm not talking about Tommy, or any of the people who are being compared to Tommy today. The Tommys are not vicious and seem to be sincere in their beliefs. They usually behave themselves and are usually almost polite. But the two teams are vicious, heartless, arrogant and will support any lie that the right wing is presenting. They are shameless apologists for the dark side.
and they present it as 'conservative watchdogs' and make claims, use denegrating names and remarks and bark when people yell back at them. The latest one (grhino) has a blog aimed against MMFA in which in his first post he is directly accused of namecalling and bias ([link to truthmattersfa.blogspot.com]
In watching this excruciatingly long clip of pure evil incarnate, I found myself wondering what the hell I am doing wasting my time with this. Al Franken said it best when he said, "Ann Coulter is a b#tch." Fox News is a joke. I respect Media Matters for what it does, but I wonder if all of this outrage caused over Ann Coulter is the only thing that gives her any credibility. Look how mad we all are...that just shows that she must be important...that's her take on all of this.
As mad as I got watching this, I realized that its always darkest before dawn. The right has no honor. They are downright disgusting. This crew that rose to power and took control of the nation is cracking...even their propaganda macine is weaking.
Relax, Media Matters...Ann Coulter is exposing the conservative media for the horrific monsters that they are...Just sit back and try to enjoy the show!
Ann Coulter calling attacking someone else for being a 'millionaire' or a 'broad'? For enjoying public attention? Surreal. You know what this means. Coming soon: "Ann Coulter to appear in Playboy!"
The one who wants to clean up Planet Earth, help the poor and destitute, and keep our troops out of harm's way?
Or the one who promotes hate of those who do not share the same viewpoint, espouses killing people of different faiths or skin colors, and supports a baseless, senseless, endless war that we can never win?
I don't know which god Coulter claims to worship, but her words and actions do not coincide with the Christianity she claims to defend. Her greed, selfishness, shameless self-promotion, and outright lies lend itself to following Mammon, not Jesus Christ.
Yeah, that was weird. God vs. Mother Earth? I think we are seeing in Ann Coulter (and many others on the Right today) the fruits of an unorthodox conservatism, which has apparently substituted its own class-based biases, prejudices, and preferences for the Word of God.
Coulter is interviewed by every major news network across America, and uses the spotlight to criticize 9-11 widows for the fact that ... she can't criticize them?
If that is not the primest example of cognitive dissonance, then I don't know what is.
Now, if you’d excuse me, I must pick up the pieces of my head on the floor.
Why would anyone pay any attenion to this woman. No matter what O'Rillyand that bunch says, she can lie with the best of them. One thing I would like to see. I hope the cameras are rolling when someone decides to punch her lights out. Know one would deserve it more. Johnny
Props to Colmes for calling Coulter on her lies but in my view, the real issue is why does the media treat this woman like a serious pundit?
Instead of questioning what she says, shouldn't they be questioning her character? She's under investigation for voter fraud (which she may have admitted to on Hannity & Colmes last week), she may have committed tax fraud as well. Now Rude Pundit has come up with passages from her book that seem to be plagiarized. And did anybody catch her incoherent "boombox" interview on H&C last winter? She seemed high as a kite.
[link to www.newshounds.us]
Ann, I dare, nay, double-dare you to go against even just one of the people who posted intelligent, coherent comments in response to your rambling, slurred diatribe, on National TV. You against one civilian in an unedited debate. No? Didn't think so.
Thanks to Ann Coulter, the Rightwing can now RESPOND to these "victim" spokespersons of the LEFT.
Clelland: Were there WMDs in Iraq?
Coulter: Oh yeah? Well, you didn't earn your medals!
Kerry: Was there any plan for this insurgency?
Coulter: Oh yeah? Well, you're a coward!
9/11 widows: We need to know what information the White House had about terrorism prior to the attack of 9/11. We need no know how they responded, IF they responded.
Coulter: Oh yeah? Well, you are harpies who are ENJOYING your husband's deaths!
YUP. It's been evened up, so that NOW the RIghtwing can really respond to the issues, questions, and concerns of these people BY ATTACKING THEM PERSONALLY.
This is a grand day for Republicans, the ability to SMEAR and insult has been both preserved and expanded. Thanks to Coulter, personal insults can be made against ANYBODY, and invented by reading their minds and inventing false "facts".
Of course, have the Rightwing EVER hesitated to attack victims AND heroes AND the defenseless? Limbaugh attacked Chelsea Clinton as "the White House DOG." Seems like the Rightwing have no scruples whatsoever about attacking anybody at all, and never HAVE.
Coulter will beon the Tonight SHow with Jay Leno who also has GEORGE CARLIN as a guest! I will definitely Tivo this episode. I hope Carlin mops the floor with that bony piece of garbage.
Lets see... Can anyone tell the difference between Ann and the people who penned the following?
But the two teams are vicious, heartless, arrogant and will support any lie that the right wing is presenting. They are shameless apologists for the dark side.
In watching this excruciatingly long clip of pure evil incarnate,
Al Franken said it best when he said, "Ann Coulter is a b#tch."
The right has no honor. They are downright disgusting.
Her greed, selfishness, shameless self-promotion, and outright lies lend itself to following Mammon, not Jesus Christ.
I hope the cameras are rolling when someone decides to punch her lights out. Know one would deserve it more.
Ah yes.. these are just a few of the latest quips from a few of the enlightened on this thread.
Thanks for the laughs. Your lack of self awareness among many of you is priceless!
hahaha...
ps. Thanks for the tip blueblood. I'll set my tivo to Leno tonight. Should be good TV!
But you didn't make the cut. As soon as a spot opens on one of the major league Troll teams, we'll keep you in mind. As for now, keep up the good work. a lot of minor league trolls have moved up to the majors. We can almost promise you a spot on next years squad if your performance keeps up.
I personally try to avoid name calling as I find it to be juvenile. But here's a point that seems to go unnoticed or at least unadressed; for YEARS the Right have accused the Left of smearing, name calling, unable to debate the issues. For YEARS the Right has said that the Left is immoral and Godless. The Right has placed itself on the pedestal of morals, integrity, and accountability. So, according to the Right, when people resort to tactics illustrated in your example, what do you expect. That's what they do, right? But when the moral, integrity, values laden Right does it, doesn't that smack of hypocrisy?
The main difference seems to be that while Coulter's venomous comments and attacks are baseless, devoid of evidence, yet presented as uncontestable fact and given a nation-wide platform with which to spread this misinformation. The posts that you have chosen to equate with Coulter are the frustrated vocalizations of those who are indignant and annoyed by this, based on the evidence debunking most of the things that come from Coulter's mouth, and given a relatively small forum in which to share their opinions with confidence.
The comment "The right has no honor. They are downright disgusting. " is the only one you've presented that really comes close, since I'm an optimist and like to believe that there are honorable people among conservatives. Even if the current political climate appears to reward the dishonorable more than usual.
The bottom line is that she is called vile because she says vile things, so it is a case of reaping what you sow.
Ann Coulter is on CNN and Fox regulartly spouting HER inane hatebased stupidity and these posters are NOT. THEY are only writing opinions on a message board.
"They're obsessed with global warming and the furbish lousewort but don't mind disemboweling human embryos or humans in the womb. It is a religion. It's a godless religion."
In order for Coulter to be consistent on stem cells (and don't we all know she isn't consistent on anything except madness), she and other right-wingers must also oppose in-vitro fertilization which regularly extracts several eggs, fertilizes them, but uses only one for implantation, while discarding the rest down the toilet.
Where are the self-right(ous) wingers on this? Shouldn't Operation Rescue be picketing outside these clinics?
What does Coulter think of Nancy Regan?
[REPRINTED FROM MM ARCHIVE]:
From Coulter's June 17 syndicated column, titled "Let's rewrite one for The Gipper!":
Someone persuaded poor, dear Nancy Reagan that research on human embryos might have saved her Ronnie from Alzheimer's. Now the rest of us are supposed to shut up because the wife of America's greatest president (oh, save your breath, girls!) supports stem-cell research. ...
But you can't blame Nancy. As everyone saw once again last week, she's still madly in love with the guy. She'd probably support harvesting full-grown, living humans if it would bring back Ronnie.
>>>>
Although I doubt he'd ever do it, I'd love to see Ron Reagan debate Coulter. He'd destroy her.
except Coulter doesn't actually "debate" anyone. She just get's hysterical, interrupts, and shouts people down. There is no civil discourse with this woman. I would watch the firestorm on Leno tonight, but I honestly can't stomach the sight of her.
I have watched Coulter on several interviews, and she actually looks nervous when someone confronts her with hard facts contrary to her screeching position.
And, as you said, failing an intelligent conversation Coulter simply tries to out-yell whomever she is debating. I can't believe someone with such refined rhetorical skills ever got thru law school.
From what I have seen, her career as a pundit has from the start been little more than an embarassing temper tantrum.
Reagan
Embryos don't have bowels.
Ann cannot argue honestly on any level.
Embryonic development is rapid, contrary to what you libs wish to hear. Justifying the killing of millions of human embryos, you must make them less than human simply to live with yourselves, I understand. By the 10th post ovulatory week, the embryo has intestines within the abdominal cavity that have migrated from the umbilical cord. Those, would be bowels, open mind.
Can someone with access to the Michigan Law Review check out Ann Coulter's bio -- when I was a b-school student there a few years ago, I was studying in the law school and tried to find her name in any old law review and I couldn't find it (on her official bio she says she was on the editorial board of the Michigan LAw Review when she was a law student at U of M). I may have undershot her age -- she constantly lies about her age, but she should have been in law school sometime in the mid to late 1980s -- maybe 1988 or around there.
>>>My book makes a stark assertion: Liberalism is a godless religion. Hello! Anyone there? I've leapt beyond calling you traitors and am now calling you GODLESS. Apparently, everybody's cool with that. The fact that liberals are godless is not even a controversial point anymore.
No, Annie. It's just that no one with a brain believes anything you say has value.
This bitch makes me sick
(notice I didn't say "That bitch, Coulter..." therefore it was not a direct attack on her.
How exactly does one disembowel human embryos????
Is Alan Colmes growing a spine?