NY Times' Nagourney compares hatemonger Coulter to Sen. Clinton
In a belated report on right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's reference to former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) as a "faggot," New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney purported to explain a denunciation of Coulter's remark by Edwards, as though it needed explanation. Nagourney wrote:
The question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside, the Edwards campaign saw an opportunity in the remarks of a woman who is about as popular in liberal Democratic circles as [Sen.] Hillary Rodham Clinton [D-NY] is in Republican circles (not very). Mr. [David] Bonior [Edwards' campaign manager] sent an e-mail to supporters last night urging them to make contributions to the Edwards campaign.
Hillary Rodham Clinton? What did she do to deserve a comparison to Coulter? Whether or not Coulter is "[un]popular in liberal Democratic circles," the reasons for liberals' denunciations of her could not be more different from the reasons that Republicans might dislike -- and apparently fear -- Clinton. Last we checked, Clinton had not referred to anyone as a "faggot" or advocated the assassination of anyone. Nor has she, to our knowledge, lamented that Timothy McVeigh did not blow up a news organization.
And why put the "question of whether the remark was offensive enough aside"? Isn't the offensiveness of the remark central to assessing the Democrats' reaction?
Moreover, in merely reporting that former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) "mentioned that [Coulter] was speaking later," Nagourney left out a relevant fact. Romney did not simply jokingly suggest that Coulter was a moderate, as Nagourney wrote, Romney also spoke positively of Coulter, saying: "I'm happy to learn also that after you hear me, you're going to from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing."
As the website Americablog noted, The New York Times was not the only media outlet to ignore Coulter's "faggot" slur.
Romney just lost his chance at the Presidency. I mean how stupid can you be to allow yourself to be the one with the thankless job of introducing Ann Coulter to the stage?
I agree.
If monkeys fly out of my behind and Romney wins the nomination, the Dem nominee would be foolish not to capitalize on Romney's endorsement of Coulter as an ambassador of the conservative right.
Unfortunately, Lindenbully, I can't agree. Gay bashing and the specter of the "gay agenda" gained George Bush and Dick Cheney millions of votes across the country in 2004. The gay bashing element of this newest addition of Republican anti civil rights sentiment won't go away for 2008. It WILL be a bigotry policy AGAIN now that anti-black racism has been solidly driven into the underground of Buzzword Bigotry, needing to be stated in couched terms and insinuation.
And they've never been able to use misogyny in such direct terms either. They've always had to rely on separating women by "the good ones" and "the bad ones" - but Coulter herself is a loud-mouth in her 40s who has "shunned" marriage and dresses in a provocative manner to get media attention.
In the only Bigotry Sweepstakes that remains for Republicans to safely use DIRECT terms of derogation, Romney had the MOST to lose in getting the nomination AND getting the NeoCon faithful to the polls. Out of all current contenders, he has the most gay supportive record that he needs to get out from under NOW.
Romney was already vilified by the fundamentalist right because he's a Mormon. He'd be further vilified by the religion wearing, but well secular regionalist conservative segments solely for being the Governor of Massachusetts who was Governor when same sex marriage was legalized in that state.
Romney didn't have to say anything about Coulter's remarks save the cowardly way Rudy Giuliani chose to (another contender who has "too friendly" a record on gay civil rights). He could have said that he didn't think personal insults had any place in political discourse.
Instead, Romney didn't REALLY blow the nomination until he responded to Coulter's remarks in the bravest and most honorable of all ways taken by himself, Giuliani and McCain. Romney criticized the slur itself, commenting that all persons should be treated with respect and dignity. He didn't mean John Edwards personally. He meant homosexuals.
THAT will blow the GOP nomination for Romney far more than choosing to have simply dismissed Coulter's "low brow" approach.
You make an interesting point. I agree with your take on the overall direction the Republicans are going with respect to using wedges steeped in bigotry. I'm just thinking that as was demonstrated with George Allen in the Virginia Senate race, all it takes is one 'macaca' moment and an entire campaign can be derailed. This instance may not be egregious enough.
To be clear, I'm not minimizing the importance of this episode. This is at least as offensive as Allen's gaffe. The media just isn't picking it up. NPR reported on the C-PAC gathering on Saturday and Sunday and failed to mention it.
Oh, I didn't take your comments as diminishing of the offensiveness of the remark. I agree with your point that the "mainstream" media will diminish the offensiveness of the remark.
On the Allen/Webb race and how "macaca" derailed Allen, I'm not exactly sold. The Allen/Webb race was so close that it wasn't called on election day. Additionally, Allen and Webb were running for Senator in a state whose constituents still make their bigotry a priority in "policy" decisions. I still can't make a judgment as to whether Allen lost because of the "macaca" comment or whether he lost (narrowly), because of the combination of the revelation that his mother was Jewish and the revelation of Jim Webb's sexist positions of the past.
If Webb was seen as "manly man's man tough" enough to be a misogynist and Allen was seen as a "Jew" (therefore less "manly man's man tough"), then that alone could have carried the election for many in that constituency.
In Romney's case, the only people so offended by Coulter's comments are the very same people who won't be voting for Romney as President anyway.
1) Romney will never get the Republican nod because he is on record as being pro-choice. The rabid right that the current Republican zeitgeist depends on for votes does not approve. This goes for Giuliani too (never mind his current marital situation).
2) The reason her comment won't fire up "the base" is that Edwards is NOT gay! It was just hurled as an insult, not a criticism of his sexual orientation.
3) You can't compare what "Family Values Spinster" Coulter says to anything Hillary says because there are different standards for pundits and politicians (as there should be).
The media is a strange creature.
Why they lie and make excuses for nutjobs like Mann Coulter is beyond all normal ability to understand.
Had Hillary made the same comment it would have made headline news around the world.
Mann Coulter says it, and the MSM ignores it completely.
Or, like this guy, they trot out the "everybody does it" meme.
Does anyone need any additional evidence that the mainstream media is just a corrupt, rotting shell? It is not an accident that Couletr's comments are not being reported .
If Hillary had spoken that rubbish, Hannity would be beside himself for the next six months
I would like to submit a good reason for not liking Hillary Clinton is one I hear expressed a few times whenever this subject comes up and it is this: Hillary is tainted by the DC atmosphere of lobbyists and other corrosive elements. Democrats have to face this fact in this particular campaign season, we the people are very wary about trusting any politician. In the wake of Enron 2001 we have seen the almost constant news stories concerning corruption in and around DC. I would NOT vote for anyone who has been in DC over 4-6 years. Hillary has been in DC for almost 15 years, Biden, Dodd way too many. These candidates are influenced by the DLC which is a jr. republican party who looks after the corporations. Al Fromm, Paul Begala, Carville-Matlin, Schummer, Imanuel and even my senator Levin. UGH!
It's good to see more people wake up and smell the corporofascism. I've been urging Dems to go with Kucinich in the primaries if they consider themselves liberals worthy of the name. But watch, the DLC and AIPAC will pick a far-right candidate, give them all the money, beat us to death with them in air time. One of them will get the nomination, and all the once-liberal Dems will be fiding reasons why they must vote for the bad candidate instead of refusing. It's always the same.
And then everyone will get mad at the people that voted for Ralph Nader because they're sick of it.
That's nice, Stip, but the subject was the NYT's comparing Crazy Annie to Senator Clinton . . . not the length of time she's spent in DC {half of which was in the honorary position of First Lady}
I'd say impling that the GOP acts like plantation owners puts her on par w/ coultier
No it doesn't.
would you say that? gosh, we're all amazed that you would. : D
Money for hating: that's the business Coulter (aka "coultier") is in. And customers like you are her cash cow.
or Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis.
Here's the full quote and place. "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.
Yep calling someone a Fggt is exactly the same.
Ummm, ajwan, who do you think she said that too? And WHY would the crowd know what she means regarding 'plantations'? She showed her racist side that night and you liberals are still trying to excuse her. Quite similar to ex-kkk LEADER Sen. B-y-r-d. For being a group that (claims to) hates racism, you sure embrace a lot of racists. Quick question...is racism decided by a gene, too or a choice?
since she said it to a church in harlem, as noted, i'm betting it was a black church. if they did not take her comment as racist, where exactly do you see it? and byrd was in the kkk what 60 years ago?
She was definitely trying to pay court to her chosen audience, and there's no doubt that it was a truly awkward attempt, but I have yet to see one person explain how exactly it could be considered racist. At worst it was patronizing, and at best it just looked silly for a white woman to be comparing anything to a slave plantation. Even Bill would have looked silly trying to get away with that one, but racist? I'd love to see you step up and explain why, particularly given the racist rhetoric that you yourself have displayed here in the past. (see here: [link to mediamatters.org] and here: [link to mediamatters.org] for some examples.)
Face it, she is a racist, she's grown up that way and it's obvious she still feels that way. Why would she emphasize that the black denomination 'would know' what she means by plantation? It's because she is a racist and thinks blacks still belong on the plantation.
I'm glad you pointed out those links. It shows that you are the racist, when I questioned why liberals promote racist practices you called it "empowerment". You liberals are a crazy group (almost mentally deranged) when you live to point out others transgressions, yet ignore your own.
The Crusades...the Inquisition...the Catholic/Protestant Wars...the Salem Witch Trials...the Verdict of Verden...
What do all those things have in common?
Before you start throwing out comments about knowing what a particular group likes to do take a look at the one you claim to be proud of being.
Unless I'm mistaken, all those events happend hundreds of years ago. Therefore I think it is safe to assume that no one today belonged to any of those groups. ;-)
"It's because she is a racist and thinks blacks still belong on the plantation."
That makes no sense at all, and is so obviously false that I don't even think you believe it. Once again you're simply demonstrating how rightwingers think that the definition of racism is when a liberal brings up race. And no matter how many times you say it, celebrating Kwanzaa still isn't a racist practice.
PC,
Seriously, what are you smoking? I have seen that remark many times on tape and the congregation responded in the affirmative. What you are saying makes no sense. She said the audience knew what she was referring to because they knew what she was referring to. It was not an example of racism. It was an example of knowing your audience.
I'm white, I get it. Explain how it's racist. Since you parrot Hannity's KKK Byrd comment, what are your thoughts on Strom (I know he's dead, but what about his racist past)? What about Lott's comments on Thurmond? What year was that again, like 1960, er, I mean 2002? I'm sure that's just the MSM showing their liberal bias. Say, is there anything in the bible about hypocrisy? Why aren't right-wing christians (lower case intended) critical thinkers? Nevermind, they have this 2000 year old book that tells them everything they need to know including God hates gays, dinosaurs walked the earth with man and millionaires need tax breaks. They never bring up being stoned to death for disrespecting your parents or eating shellfish. It's a buffet, just pick the hateful policies you like and stick your head in the sand.
How HANDY Coulter is to the Rightwing. Here we see her in action, right here in this thread. Her "remarks" in which she quips that she cannot discuss Edwards without using the term "f-ggot" allows the rightwingers to begin making the case that all Democrats are racists.
Non-sequitur, anyone? Doesn't matter ... the HATERS love her, and she's their queen. The rightwingers-who-HATE believe Counter makes hating "COOL", and nothing to be ashamed of. For that, we all owe her a debt of gratitude. Like a "Pied Piper" for mental sickness and evil, she lures the rightwing out of their sewers and marches them to their destruction, out in the public where all can see.
What a shallow and narrow mind you must have. Please explain your anxiety about utterance of the word plantation. The analogy is apt, plain and simple. Is it really for you to take offense? It seems to me quite interesting that you would lump that congregation into a "set" that could reach no other alternative conclusion about Sen. Clinton because of the use of that particular word. Would Clinton be any more or less of a bigot if she stumbled over the word, made a U-turn and apologized on the spot, thus assuming that she had offended them as an entire group of people by reminding them of an unfortunate history? She had context and purpose--quite different. (I know I need to explain this to you: It would be only THEN that her bigotry would be in evidence).
Oh, and much the same as yours is now. Fellow Christian, I am ashamed of you. Shed a little of the self-righteousness and pray for your own coming judgment, that it not be quite as baseless, quick, and indescriminate.
Not even close. When she says we need to beat conservatives with baseball bats, that we should drop daisy cutters at random in some country she doesnt like, that the only question about Bush is should we impeach him or kill him and that we should poison Scalia's red wine get back to us.
Or hoping a suicide bomber kills the vice-president.
[link to www.salon.com]
" The people feigning upset over those matters are either active participants in, or passive aiders and abetters of, a political movement that, at its very core -- not at its fringes -- knowingly and continuously embraces the most wretched and obvious bigotry and bloodthirsty authoritarianism. "
That was my favorite passage from the link you posted. Why did you post that link? it seems that statement could be directed at everyone using this site along with everyone who likes Coulter (as I think it was directed).
And WHEN did Hillary do that? Oh yeah, thats right, it never happened. Why do you lie so much?
Well, it seems like a reasonable comparison. I mean, they both have vaginas. Presumably.
Of course, Ann Coulter is unpopular with liberals because she's a vicious, lying bigot who makes her living saying vile untruths about, well, liberals. And Hillary Clinton is unpopular with conservatives because she has a vagina.
so many jokes, so little time.
So much hate, so little time, so few brain cells.
She's not too popular with liberals either. We have judged her mind and find her ignorant, illogical, and dangerous.
That was totally gratuitous on the part of Adam Nagourney. There was no need to bring up Hillary Clinton. That was totally out of left field. Im not exactly a fan of Hillary Clinton and she is certainly not a saint, but you cannot possibly compare her to Ann Coulter, and to suddenly inject her into the story smacks of something deliberate with a sinister flavor.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I'm with you, NJ.
I'm not rooting for Hillary to win the nom, but she is in a completely different league than Coulter.
Of course,Hillary's in the women's league, Pete.
Anne Coulter smeared a democratic candidate at a Repuplican sanctioned "conservative" gathering if candidates. If any candidate's name that should have been mentioned- it should have been Mitt Romney denouncing Ms. Coulter's very nasty homophobic smear.
NYT- the "liberal" rag... right?
That's what I love about the ads I see for the Nation magazine.
"Get that famous 'Liberal media bias' you can't find anywhere else"
Disgusting
Ann Coulter is disgusting and I can only compare her to some of the worlds biggest hatemongers like Hitler.
Take The Hitler vs Coulter Quiz and see if you can get all of them right.
Loonz, I took that quiz a while back. The funny part was that I actually correctly guessed some of the Coulter quotes after deciding that they didn't sound thoughtful or politically savvy enough to have come from Hitler.
Good one. I only got three wrong, by analyzing the grammar. They spoke differently then. Oddly, the Hitler quotes don't sound translated, ie. they look like they could have been written in English...
HuntingtonBeachLefty, those were my very thoughts when I first took the quiz a while ago. While the sentiment is the same, Hitler is the superior writer of the two. The language alone provided the answer. Compared to, perhaps, Pat Buchanan, it might be more challenging. Coulter's just way too pedestrian.
That's not to say there isn't MUCH fun to be had with rabid conservatives and Hitler quotes. I've had cumulative hours of fun posting passages of Mein Kampf to the more drooling of right wingers, replacing only terms like "Germany" with "our country" or "Ayran" with "us". Hitler goes off on the "liberal press" enough on his own to not need to replace much.
For extra measure, I've included the information that the author was a European who wrote the passages while imprisoned for his political beliefs and who eventually committed suicide out of a conviction that the Reds were out to kill him. However, he was right. The Reds WERE out to kill him.
Makes 'em all misty-eyed for this "visionary" writer.
Oh, that's great--I should try that...
Considering Ann's comments over the past couple years, is anyone suprised the Andrew "Dice" Clay is making a comeback appearance this month?
This is weird . . . I've yet to hear of HRC calling for the assassination of either a sitting SC Justice or the president of the US, voting in multiple districts, opining that all Middle Eastern countries should be invaded, their leaders killed, and their populations converted to Christianity, being amazed that her US Senate colleague {Obama} is a black man that can walk and talk, or referring to Al Gore and John Edwards as "f*gs" . . .
So, I'm sorry, I just don't get the comparison . . .
Let Coulter Speak Up So She Can Mess Up?
Sadly, Republican name calling continues to take center stage. Don't be outraged; it is what they do when they can't speak to the issue of the day. Ann Coulter is no exception to the name calling factor; in fact, she might of created this major defense.
I must admit Coulter leaves little to be desired. Still, she was before a room full of supporters. In mass, these hatemongers rally in name calling like a pig in du du. When you get right down to it, the attempt to bring Hilary Clinton into her world is akin to someone saying "i may not know those big political words, but I know how to call Democrats names." In other words, fight on Coulter's turf. Yes, Coulter can and will name call with anyone who thinks they can beat her. I want Republican name calling to be front and center come 2008, so America can make a informed election decision.
Coulter has to right to free speech, and the consequences that come with that speech. Democrats can make this work for them, if the let her speak up, so she can mess up.
Joseph
I agree, Joseph, let her talk.
I realize that Coulter is offensive and irritating enough that most decent people have the initial reaction of wanting to get rid of her.Of course most decent people don't want censorship, so we accept that she'll be around as long as we have a media as embarrassingly goofy as we have now.
Coulter attracts the freak show audience (myself included- I do watch her appearances to marvel at her inanity) but she also probably has a "fan base".Some of these fans are locked up and can't vote, most of them are within a few years of dying. I say let her talk, and maybe the rest of America will start to notice just how close her views are to the GOP platform.
The only difference is Coulter says straight out what most Repubs candy coat.If she, or whoever replaces her after her moment, can open some uninformed conservatives eyes as to what they are really voting for, I say "Good for America".
A gay friend of mine this weekend reacted by sending an email which slurred Ms. C. as directly and unfairly as she disparaged him. The only way to expose the transgressors is to let them step into their own sh*t. Speak away, Annie, your sh*t is showing.
Nagourney is a notorious member of the gang of Heathers that included Kit Seeyle, Ceci Connelly, Gwen Ifill, Elizabeth Bumiller, Mark Halperin, among others -- supposed "reporters" that did their level best to magnify Gore's and Kerry's "imaginary" faults at the same time they gave BushCo a complete free pass. (Bob Somersby at Daily Howler does a marvelous job picking these shills apart.)
"Nor has she, to our knowledge, lamented that Timothy McVeigh did not blow up a news organization."
Shouldn't someone point out that the specific news organization whose destruction Coulter desires is Nagourney's own NYT?
Coulter is one of those animals that right-wing terrorists cherish in that she is a throw-away. Being a woman, the lowest class citizen in their hierarchical order, Coulter can be dispensed with at anytime, as Saddam Hussien was neatly disposed of before revealing the depths of US-Saddam Hussien partnership. As long as Coulter demonizes the intended targets of the right-wing terrorists she will be supported and tolerated, and easily dismissed as a loud mouthed typical woman by the pious right-wing terrorists; a form of hate laundering like mafia money laundering, catholic priest pedophilia laundering. Our America is under attack by subversive pious right-wing terrorists who have set out to dismantle the United States Constitution and democracy. Coulter is the pious right-wings Berabee who worked for Stalin; the Axis of Evil hides in the Bushes where Coulter resides for now, along with others like Jeff Gannon, and the rest of the brown-shirts of the Bush administration that includes those media outlets that support and promote the incendiary hate mongering scripts of Coulter (cloud sitting terrorists).
Yes, let Coulter talk to reveal the media and organizations that promote the destruction of America and Americans. Coulter is the perfect ambassador of christianity (catholosism especially, maybe Bushes born again repeatism). Yes, let this perverted mouth piece of christianity speak to reveal the true vile nature and agenda of pious right-wing subversives that have only the destruction of the United States Constitution in sight fashioned after their own deity of eternal torture. The Axis of Evil may hide in the Bushes, but that does not prevent a light from exposing the poison.
I can see the comparisons:(substitute Coulter's name for Hillary)We all loathe Coulter (the mere mention of her name causes some of us to vomit in our own mouth). We all suspect that Coulter is a lesbian. We all have reason to believe that Coulter is in love with Bill Clinton. For a woman, she looks really odd.
I don't know, I think they can be compared. Both exist in an environment of constant scheduled appearances and endless political cliche, desperate for camera attention, surrounded by retinues of paid fawners. Both are about as deep as a mud puddle, very ignorant as to what goes on in the greater world, poorly read and ill-educated. Neither can empathize with people, they have no clue how the majority in this country live, they don't even give it a second thought. They're creatures of the moment, they do not think ahead, just to the next poll or next speaking engagement. They are very similar actually.
I appreciate a good strawman argument the same as everyone. But this is just preposterous. Find me ONE quote where Hillary threatened the life of a US government official, or insulted family members who lost loved ones on 9/11, or called someone a fa**ot.
Coulter is a rightwing harpy of hate. Clinton is a politician. Period. Argument over. Now back in your bunker, Mr. Cheney.
Randy
I was making a joke. shesh.
Oh, I have been waiting for an opportunity to post this for a while:
"Laugh while you can, MONKEYBOYIV!!!"
That was satisfying.
Well, that is an apparent difference. Coulter just makes empty threats at people, Hillary actually gets to vote to blow people up. Hillary has had the opportunities to actually kill women and children and taken them, while Ann just has to settle for cheering for it from the sidelines.
REDKING:
So, your "psychological" analysis leads you to conclude that Ann Coulter and Hillary Clinton are "VERY SIMILAR"??
In that instance, you cannot be trusted to perform the simplest of errands. Sent for shoe polish, you will return with a bag of excrement. Asked to present your arm joint, you will bend over.
ANNIE COULTER, SPOKESPERSON FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Now that has a familiar ring to it.
ANN COULTER speaks for ALL Republicans...if you don't believe it, listen to her. If you are a Republican, show what little b*alls you have and denounce her and the Party that allows her to continue her hatred (or should I say jokes). She has the RIGHT to speak but I'd like to hear her yell FIRE in a movie theatre..or at least tell her jokes when her bodyguards aren't around.
You have heard the old saying, "When handed a lemon, make lemonaide". That is what the far right does with Ann and others. Every time they make an ignorant statement they try to make a wild comparison to a dem.
Oh, I get it, Nagourney! They're both WOMEN. Any female in politics who gets a large amount of media notice MUST be the same as any other.
That's why a hatemongering freakazoid who panders to the lowest common demominator of political "debate" resonance among conservatives is EXACTLY LIKE a United States Senator and former First Lady. I mean, who pays attention to females in politics anyway, unless you're getting the "female" perspective on things?
Speaker of the House...c'mon! She's JUST like Melanie Morgan. Both broads babbling on things that ain't women's business.
Just as Fox should never be given the luxury of being taken seriously, neither should Ann Coulter. Comparing her to Clinton is way too active in justifying Coulters existence in the media today at all. This is the woman who when asked: If you could be anyone throughout history, who would you be an why, said she'd be Roosevelt so she could NOT enact The New Deal; she needs no recognition from the New York Times nor any other news outfit. Why are we still talking about her or Anna Nicole Smith? These aren't people of influence or importance in any way shape or form. I hope American media will stop playcating to the apparent 28% of Americans who still think Bush is doing a heckuva job; this 28% of people are wrong. They lack any sort of human values and appreciation for American history, economics, and family.
I know one of those 28%. They just have very different ideas of what's okay and what isn't. They think the fact that Clinton lied is worse than the fact that Bush lied, beacause Clinton did it under oath. They furthermore belive that the current situation in Iraq is okay, and for some reason the loss of life is acceptable...
In Republican circles, murder, as an immoral act, is a highly malleable concept. Stem cells and fetuses are sacred. Eighteen year olds in the military are fodder. The 3,000 lives lost in the WTC/Pentagon attacks, horrible. The 54,000 to 650,000 Iraqi civilian lives lost in the US fiasco in Iraq, whatever. One thing is clear: the Republican moral compass points toward some limited part of America; everyone else can just go to hell.
Randy
"They think the fact that Clinton lied is worse than the fact that Bush lied, beacause Clinton did it under oath."
This is another example of what I was talking about in a thread the other day ([link to mediamatters.org] The authoritarian mindset of the Right only allows them to see a wrongdoing if its been declared wrong by rule of law.
You'd know this particular 28 percenter better than I would Kaelun, but what you've provided from them sounds like just more juicy rationalization like I've heard from other 28 %'ers.
Those so obsessed with this "lying under oath" thing never seem to know that the House Managers never cited a single statement made by Bill Clinton under oath that was proven to be untrue. They refused to cite ANY testimony of his at all, presenting, at best the argument of "He lied. We won't show you where. Remove him from office."
I find that when asked to provide the "lie made under oath", these 28 percenters who cling to this myth will quote "I never had sex with that woman", which was a press conference quote and not said under oath. Pointing that out gets them fishing around for some other reason Clinton's lie was worse, mostly having to do with adultery outraging them so - when a Democrat does it. Questioning that double standard will eventually bring out complaints of "The PC Thought Police" and the existance of "welfare". IMO, these complaints require little analysis to get to their core.
Since I know precious few billionaires and multi-millionaires on a social basis, I have not had a great deal of opportunity to speak to them about their continued support of Bush. I figure I really don't have to anyway.
For the vast balance of the 28 percenters, however, I find that scratching enough through the BS they first offer brings you down to the same ol', same ol' conservative stand-by on "policy" preference - bigotry.
It isn't so much about whether the MSM reports Ann Coulters slur. Yes they need too but only to ask the real question: why is this woman so integral to the conservative movement? That question leads to an inevitable conclusion: the conservative movement has become a vicious and morally corrupt movement. Some might argue it always was, but when you have a woman like Coulter acting for the movement as some kind of twisted Mark Twain figure minus any of the wit or any of the socially redeeming value...it becomes painfully obvious just how rotten the movement is at its core.
Nagourney - Elisabeth Bumiller a cast of present and former Clowns - hang your head Barnum .
COULTER, AS USUAL, HAS THE LAST LAUGH . SHE FULL WELL KNOWS THE ATTENTION HER RIDICULOUS REMARKS AND INCENDIARY BOOKS GET . THE ONLY WAY FOR HER TO MAKE NEWS IS TO SAY UTTERLY OUTLANDISH AND HATEFUL THINGS ABOUT DEMOCRATS. SHE IS THE MODERN DAY CARPETBAGGER, DEVOID OF ANY SERIOUS IDEAS BUT AWARE THAT SHE CAN STIR THE POT AND MAKE MAKE MONEY DOING SO.
"Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other conservative pundit, Ann Coulter. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word "flirtgill," so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Coulter. So I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
Media Matters writes "Hatemonger Coulter"--how professional. Way to stay above the partisan name-calling and provide rational, serious analysis.
Major oops--didn't catch the story till just now. Describing Coulter as a "hatemonger" is indeed appropriate--I was wrong.
Classy self correction IO. I agree, its appropriate
I love all this (right)eous indignation. She uses sarcasm and hyperbole to make her points. That is all. It is her schtick. It's what gives her air time. Nobody, besides you guys take her quotes as literal.
So you are beating a dead horse if you think Romney or any one else will be tarnished by Coulter. Nobody cares. She's a commedian who roasts liberals every chance she gets.
Just take her 'quotes' with a grain of salt. She is simply an outspoken, sarcastic, opinionated conservative, not a hatemonger. Unless of course you consider others of the same breed like Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Randy Rhodes, Al Franken, and the rest as hatemongers. At least then you'd be consistant.
ps. I find it ironic that so many here use the same techniques that Ann uses. Many of you try to outdo each other by disparaging those on the right with epithets, insults, putdowns, and name calling. But somehow you think it is okay for you and not for her. Others of you pontificate on hateful Ann is but nary a word to all the hatefilled comments directed at liberals. Hmmmm....
Sounds like the classic definition of hypocricy to me. ;-)
oops.. another point down the drain.. I meant to say "hateful comments directed at conservatives"..
Oh well.. have at it. ;-)
Have at what? You have to give me something substantive to respond to... I could make any number of generalizations and ask you to defend them, but that would hardly be fair.
I don't support attacking Ann for her looks, her adam's apple, etc. I understand the desire some seem to have to try and hurt her the way she hurts others, but I don't support it. I don't see the need to lower myself.
Other than that, I don't know what you're asking for. I don't see any equivalence between some crap someone posts as a blog comment, and something that is said on national media.
I found it ironic that you say you had nothing to comment on.. in your comment.
;-)
valen,
The media are different as is the audience, but the technique is the same.
It really seems like you guys are big on the false equivalence defense. If you can say anything to help me understand how some comments on a blog are equivalent in any way to what Coulter says, that justify or validate her staregy, that would help.
What you seem to be saying is that I am a hypocrite for judging Coulter, because people that comment on the same blog I comment on often use tactics that are similar to hers.
If I am misunderstanding you, please correct me.
Cons need to learn what sarcasm is. Sarcasm is when you say something that is the opposite of what you really mean. For instance, if I say 'AnotherAmerican, that genius of our time...", I'm being sarcastic. Seeing my eyes roll in person would give it away, but the context of written comments, along with the general understanding of the views of the writer should suffice.
Very little that Coulter says and writes is the opposite of what she believes. In fact, it often matches her views exactly. So, you could say that Coulter may be going for a joke with comments such as the Edwards insult, but they are certainly not sarcasm.
"HAVE AT IT?" AnotherAmerican, if you are OK having Ann Coulter being your spokesperson, why would any liberal bother to protest?
She has no problem speaking clearly and plainly, demonstrating to all humans with any shred of decency that she is a vicious hater. And she has fans in the so-called "conservative" camp. Having plain-speaking vicious haters, bigots, homophobes, and racists, namecallers and smearmerchants, liars and propagandists ... come out of the closet and parade their credentials ... that's a GOOD thing.
I must say, I FAR prefer this new development to the days of old where the rightwing actually HID their evil tendencies and thoughts. For too long the rightwing had this Jeckyll/Hyde act going, having their PUBLIC image engineered to be vastly different from their actual POLICY stances. I.E. Vote for the "COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE", and get enviromental destruction, cruelty towards those in need, inhuman medical accomodations for our returning heroes, rampant corporate greed and corruption.
Now, the need for phony posing has passed. Coulter (and others) have made it OK to be up front with the virulently anti-social notions which drive the rightwing. It's GREAT that they have dropped the facade, and stand with Coulter as the racist bigoted HATERS that they truly are.
Out of your laundry list- who called any one a f*&%$#?
Please.
There's nothing funny or "sarcastic" about Coulter.
She's plain old mean and ignorant.
She was given a public forum at a conservative PAC event- introduced by Romney- to utter hate?
Romney, McCain, and Gulainni have denoucnced her "statement".
As would ANYONE with any sense of decency or attention to the forum she was in.
Pragmatic Liberal,
I think you are confusing sarcasm with verbal irony, which is saying one thing but meaning the opposite.
Sarcasm includes jesting or mocking someone or something. Very few mock as well Coulter.
For somebody who believes hyperbole and sarcasm are nothing to get upset about, you've certainly gotten your knickers in a twist when you get called a Christofascist.
I guess it's only liberals who need to "take things with a grain of salt."