Matthews claimed Coulter forces him to "go to confession" -- but he keeps inviting her on
Concluding an hour-long interview with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said: "We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don't know if I can go to confession fast enough." Matthews' comment came after Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, called into the program to confront Coulter about her past comments regarding the Edwardses, including her November 19, 2003, column, in which she wrote: "If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those 'Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident' bumper stickers?" Responding to Elizabeth Edwards' comments, Coulter claimed that Edwards "is asking me to stop speaking," and dismissed Edwards' criticism of her November 2003 column by saying, "This is now three years ago." During his June 27 appearances on MSNBC Live, as well as on NBC's Today, Matthews discussed the confrontation between Elizabeth Edwards and Coulter. On Today, Matthews said of Coulter's 2003 statement regarding the Edwardses' son, "[Y]ou don't make jokes about those things in polite society." He added, "[I]n this case it involves a very personal tragedy and a family. When you lose a son in youth ... it never goes away. And to have someone rip away at it for journalistic or book-selling purposes obviously hurts." On MSNBC Live, Matthews repeated his line about needing to go to confession after interviewing Coulter -- this time describing himself as "kidding" and adding, "[W]e're all in this business." During a separate appearance on MSNBC Live that day, Matthews noted that the Hardball interview had been "very well timed" because Coulter's "paperback just came out the other day." Anchor Chris Jansing then asked Matthews if he was "feeling used," and he answered, "No, because we invited her on the show."
As Media Matters for America has documented, NBC and MSNBC have repeatedly provided Coulter a forum for her vitriol.
On June 27, the Hardball website featured a large image of Coulter, a poll question about her appearance, and four links under the headline: "More of the Coulter interview." From the website:
Coulter's Hardball appearance is just the latest example of MSNBC and its parent NBC hosting Coulter despite her ad hominem attacks and inflammatory rhetoric. As Media Matters noted, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson said in March, "[W]e're always happy to have her on," and described her as "great TV;" MSNBC hosts spent a day hyping a July 26, 2006, Coulter interview on CNBC in which she attacked former President Bill Clinton as a "latent homosexual"; and Matthews remarked that Coulter reminded him of "the young George Will" and said, "We'd love to have her back" during a July 27, 2006, Hardball interview in which she called former Vice President Al Gore "a total fag."
As Media Matters noted, on the June 25 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, Coulter said, in apparent reference to a comment by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in a June 23 speech, "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence." And on the June 25 edition of Good Morning America, Coulter, referring to the criticism she received for calling Edwards a "faggot" at a March 2007 Conservative Political Action conference, said "Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished [Vice President] Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he has been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
From the June 25 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: And tomorrow, the always controversial -- and I know some people aren't going to like this and some are going to love it -- Ann Coulter. There she is last time she was here, with her sunglasses on, dressed for success. There's Ann Coulter out here. We're going to stake her out in the sun and find out what happens. What a show it's going to be. I think we're going to do the whole hour with her if she keeps it hot, and you bet she will. That's Ann Coulter tomorrow.
If you have any questions for this lady, just send them in to hardball.msnbc.com. And say what you will, she sells books.
From the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter, the name of the book is Godless. We have sold a lot of her books tonight. I don't know if I can go to confession fast enough. We will be right back tomorrow night with more Hardball. Thank you.
From the June 27 edition of NBC's Today:
MEREDITH VIEIRA (co-host): So is it politics getting personal, Chris, or is it just Ann Coulter being --
MATTHEWS: It has always been personal, and she's an agent provocateur. She sells huge numbers of books because I think a lot of relatively boring guys like to walk around carrying her books, to be honest with you. She's a very brilliant writer. She knows how to enrage, and she did it. This is very personal stuff. Unfortunately, you're dealing with a real-life situation with Ann [sic] Edwards' medical challenges, which we all know about, and the fact that they did lose their son Wade. And you don't make jokes about those things in polite society.
VIEIRA: Well, given the fact -- yeah, given the fact they did lose their son Wade, and here's Ann Coulter speaking with the mother of that young man, were you surprised that she didn't back down at all?
MATTHEWS: No, because I know Ann Coulter. And if she did back down, she wouldn't be selling millions of books. It's a way of charging up the political debate, from the right, in this case -- I'm sure the left is just as good at this. And in this case it involves a very personal tragedy and a family. When you lose a son in youth, and you have to live with that every second of your life -- and anyone who's familiar with these families knows what that's like -- it never goes away. And to have someone rip away at it for journalistic or book-selling purposes obviously hurts.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the June 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
JOE SCARBOROUGH (MSNBC host): The sad thing here is -- I mean, it helps the Edwards campaign but the other side of it is, the sad thing is, the sad part of it is it will also help Ann Coulter sell more books. I mean, Ann Coulter always wins. We saw it with the 9-11 widows, when she went after the 9-11 widows. Everybody went out and bought her book, even though it was just a throwaway line or two about the 9-11 widows.
JANSING: Well, then, in a weird --
SCARBOROUGH: This is what feeds Ann Coulter. It makes Ann Coulter happy, it makes her publishers happy, it makes her much, much wealthier.
JANSING: Why are you shaking your head, Chris?
MATTHEWS: Because her paperback just came out the other day, yesterday. I mean, this is very well timed.
JANSING: Are you feeling used, Chris?
MATTHEWS: No, because we invited her on the show.
JANSING: So it's a win-win situation. It makes people feel sympathetic -- many people feel sympathetic toward Elizabeth Edwards -- they're thinking about John Edwards' campaign again, and it helps Ann Coulter sell books. Win-win situation?
From the 10 a.m. ET hour of the June 27 edition of MSNBC Live:
MATTHEWS: Ann Coulter apparently wrote a column a couple years ago when where she said that John Edwards was driving around in a car with a bumper sticker that said, "Ask me about my dead son."
JANSING: You know, and when you look at it just from that perspective, you know, your initial reaction is Elizabeth Edwards, if this is the way to put it, wins this one. Although you make a good point: Ann Coulter speaks for a certain group of people who believe certain things, and I'm not sure she lost any points there last night with those people who follow her and buy her books. Do you?
MATTHEWS: No, I think that her book sales are probably brisk. She's selling the paperback right now. You know, I laughed on the way -- at the end of the program last night, I said she'll probably sell a lot of books because of last night, and therefore I have to go immediately to confession. But you know --
JANSING: Good Catholic boy that you are, Christopher.
MATTHEWS: Well, I obviously was kidding, but, you know, we're all in this business, and clearly some authors do very well by being agents of provocation.
For what does it profit a man (or woman) to gain the whole world but lose their own soul?
The first words on this page are "Matthews claimed Coulter forces him to go to confession".
The last words on this page, comments aside, are "MATTHEWS: Well, I obviously was kidding..."
Four thousand comments made yesterday about the most pressing (and now, mercifully dead) issue of the day, the immigration bill, and MM focuses on a joke?
For the posters who think Coulter made fun of the death of Edward's son Wade (apparently there are a lot of you here at MMFA, "Where the Use Of Context Has Been Proudly Banned Since 2004!"), she has never done any such thing. She has certainly made fun of Edwards' habit of bringing up his son's death while claiming to never bring up his son's death for political points. I've made fun of him for that too, because this habit of his is revolting.
He even has a disturbingly creepy habit of saying "I've never told anyone this before", right before launching into the same story about his son. Ask his campaign manager from 2004, or his running mate John Kerry and they'll tell you all about it.
What Coulter wrote (in 2003...so why the complaint now? desperation) was this:
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage.
If you want to claim she's making fun of the death of Edwards' son, go right ahead, but you're lying.
Edwards will never stop talking about his son, which is fine, but it's also very calculated politically as the reaction to the Coulter interviews this week have proven.
Edwards' campaign is over, every bit as much as McCain's is, but neither guy will admit it. Edwards is milking this for campaign donations since for him, the campaign is toast.
Matthews wasn't giving Coulter a platform to attack Edwards, he was giving Edwards' wife a platform to attack Coulter, and Coulter a platform to sell books. All of this in the name of MSNBC's pathetic ratings, selling Coulter's latest bestseller, and helping the soon-to-be-over Edwards campaign raise cash. If you doubt that, ask yourself when you last saw a show like Hardball in which a conservative was, at the last minute, allowed to call in and go after a liberal guest.
Having his cancer-ravaged wife go on Hardball to tell a girl to stop picking on Johnny will not help.
First of all the fact it was a joke is irrelevant to the point. He DID make the claim even as a joke it points to the fact he is aknowleging that Coulter is worthless and has no business in any venue that has anything to do with public discourse. Yet he keeps bringing her on. The joke aspect is completely irrelevant to the point. As to Edwards I have seen him on many public appearances and listened to many of his speeches and never once heard him talk about his son. His son died at an early age that is a life altering event, it isnt an obligation that he NEVER talk about it but Coulters bringing it up in such a crass way is typical soulless, no substance all bile Coulter. He has never that I have seen used this tragedy to further his political carreer so Coulter was making a huge stretch just to make a non point in her typically evil way. True she was making fun of the way the Edwards deal with this tragedy not the tragedy itself, a distinction with little difference. It hasnt happened to her, has it happened to YOU? And yet you both feel quite comfortable with criticising them for how they are dealing with it and publicising a program is a good way to get it money and help with its works it is NOT the same thing as publicising the death that motivated him to start the program.
He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on every suit he owns.
He is asked all day long why he wears the pin, and it gives him a chance to tell the story again.
I wonder if he knows, after all these years in politics, that he'll keep getting questions about the pin he never takes off, or if he is actually surprised by all the questions he is asked about it.
Hmm...
Yes but that is about the non profit organization and all the publicity IT can get is good for the organization. He doesnt wear a button with a photo of his dead son. The organization does good things he helps it by giving it visibility AND the good it does is enhanced. That is NOT evidence he is trying to bring up his dead son and its disengenuous to claim it is.
For crying out loud Solon, if you have nothing to say, just don't reply. You don't need to make up nonsense like that.
Having wasted my time googling "John Edwards", "Outward Bound", I was shocked, surprised and floored to find zero references to Outward Bound that were not about the pin he wears in memory of his son.
There is absolutely nothing about Edwards wanting to give OBound some free publicity. The USAToday describes the pin as "a silent tribute" to his son.
In the 2004 book I didn't know existed, Four Trials by John Edwards and John Auchard, Edwards mentions OBound only because his son took an OBound course.
First off, I rather doubt people go around all day pointing at lapel pins and saying "My gosh! What's that about? There must be an interesting story there!"
Is this lapel pin supposed to be the size of a manhole cover or something?
Secondly, try just googling "Outward Bound," it in fact does seem to be a charitable organization in its own right. That googling it in conjuction with John Edwards name gets you different results speaks more to the media (and articles like Coulter's) than it does with whatever it is John Edwards might be discussing when people actually do ask him about his pin.
So far it was a good discussion then solon posts this weak bull....
Will someone please explain to me what exactly makes Coulter a 'conservative'? Is any racist, gay-bashing nut who doesn't care how much the administration trashes the constitution and destroys our rights qualify as a conservative? What is a conservative anyway? Have people like Max ever given any thought to the meaning of that word? I'd like to 'conserve' our republic and save Habeus Corpus and the other Inalienable Rights that the Bush administration seems to want to do away with. And didn't conservatives used to want to cut government spending and avoid needless military conflict overseas? Is jingoistic now synonymous with conservative? What is a 'conservative' like Ann Coulter (or Max for that matter) trying to conserve??
And didn't conservatives used to want to cut government spending and avoid needless military conflict overseas?
Yes, several generations ago. If we're describing political ideologies by cherry picking what we like and don't like from past generations, I'll go with this to start:
Lincoln and the GOP, where conservatives are found, freed the slaves.
Democrats were opposed, ergo Democrats are racists.
Notice how clever it was of me to leave out the fact that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus on Sept. 24, 1862, since I don't want that fact to make anyone think we really enjoy suspending h.c. whenever we please.
If you didn't catch the sarcasm or the point, I'm sure you'll let me know.
Nice, snotty tone there max. I guess I'm just too dumb to get your clever bit of sarcasm. You completely skipped my point, 'cherry-picked' a quote out of my post and sort of weirdly attacked it and then accused me of missing the point. You really didn't even attempt to answer my question. What is a conservative now? Is it an appropriately applied term? Are there 'real' conservatives out there being drowned out by a new breed of Limbaugh, Coulter-type people who enjoy the term conservative? I mean, has it really been generations since conservatives didn't believe in fiscal responsibility? I mean, if you believe yourself to be conservative and you also think this about conservatives in general, I guess you're just making my point for me. Especially as you used a very Limbaughesqe method of argument to go after my post.
It's hardly my fault that you tried to partially define conservatism by going back 70 years (isolationism) for examples of what it could mean.
If you really don't know what conservatism is, why are you chatting on a political thread?
Coulter's beliefs are very clear thanks to her billions of columns and five bestsellers.
Unfortunately, if you're like most MM posters, you'll whine if I don't do your homework for you. Actually, you already have.
She's a strict constructionist, as exemplified by, for example, the majority opinion in Minnesota v. Carter from 1998 (I think it was '98), in which our Fourth Amendment right to privacy in our homes applies only in...our homes.
A temporary visitor in your house gets no such right to privacy. Should he have that same right? Scalia doesn't care, since it's not his job, as he sees it as a constructionist, to decide what should be the case.
Unlike adjudicators who come from the left, Scalia and those like him determine the law based on what is in the Constitution, not on what one can infer about what the founders meant to say.
Coulter also wants the strongest possible military, is pro-life, prefers dead terrorists to complaints about how they're fed at Gitmo, especially when they get much better food than the troops guarding them, wants a great big wall on our southern border, lower spending, lower taxes etc. The same can be said for most conservatives these days, which is interesting since there are very few in DC right now, and none in the White House.
If you don't like people answering your queries sarcastically, don't try to define ideologies by going back 70 yrs for examples.
I don't mind it at all. Insults from right-wingers feel like the highest of praise. Do you really not see your own Limbaugh type of argumentation? You make false claims about me and then shoot down the pretend me. It's called a straw man argument. I'm sure you must know that but you don't seem to mind doing it. One example; I said "avoid needless conflict." That would seem like a pretty reasonable position to take for a conservative or liberal. Your response? -snidely take shots at me for claiming that conservatives should still be isolationist like before the World Wars. Gosh, that's clever max. Does it make you feel like you've won an argument by trying to get me to defend a position I never took? I don't mind your sarcasm because you're such a good example of what the retarded right-wing media has done to so many people. It's like you guys do this so much you think it's somehow legitimate now. Yes, every Fox pundit does this every night. Yes, Rove steered the 00 and 04 campaign discussion this way dozens of times. It's still stupid and dishonest. You do this in almost every one of your threads. Is it so much fun that you just don't realize what you're doing any more? Anyway, you really help MM make their point here by throwing that garbage around. So, keep it up I guess. -R
Will someone please explain to me what exactly makes Coulter a 'conservative'?
What is a conservative anyway? Have people like Max ever given any thought to the meaning of that word?
In my second post I answered both of these questions.
To my amusement, this made you even more upset.
Have a nice day!
You've never made me upset max. Like I've said, I think you wonderfully demonstrate what is wrong in America today. You included some ideas about what makes Coulter a conservative within the post where you pretended to discredit me with a straw man argument. This is why you're so great for this site max. Just like Fox News you've adopted this mode of 'discrediting' people or at least pretending to, even when you've got nothing to do it with. Bush ran against two Democrats mostly by sneering at them. And as for the 'constructionist' argument; does that really qualify her as a conservative? And is it an honest position in the first place? If she's so literal about the Constitution I guess she thinks the Second Amendment is simply about raising militias? I guess she's going after the Bushies really hard for their attacks on Habeus Corpus? As for doing my homework for me; if that means reading Coulter books so I don't have to, thank you very much. Nice day to you too. -R
Chris Matthews and all of the other talking heads who invite her on their shows are nothing but enablers of Coulter and her mud slinging.
She is nothing but a shill for the right wing and a disgrace to the literary world.
The people that think she is right despise democrats. They are primarily the religious right and they are imune to logic, truth and reality. Everyone else sees this cretin for what she is.
Oh Chris, where to start? I used to think the title of your show should be Softball because of all the lobs you threw your guests but who know that name was dead on, except it is the guest lobbing the hardballs while you just sit there. You called out Jack Kingston of Georgia when he equated Iraq to Korea, yet you let Ann say Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda. You sat there while she compared Bush's handling of the war with FDR's handling of WW2 and said nothing, maybe you were in shock. I am surprised she didn't compare Bush to Lincoln, after all Lincoln freed the slaves and Ann has freed the right wing from reality. You say she is an agent of provocation but you legitimize her by giving her a forum, will you in the interest of fairness give someone with another point of view the same forum? David Brock? David Corn? Eric Boehlert? Jane Hamsher? Somehow I doubt it.
....a better comparison would be to put on Rhandi Rhodes or Mike Malone and let them call Conservatives a whole bunch of nasty names for an hour. It won't happen because there is a double standard. The firebrands on the left are not given the same stage as the ones on the right, and I’m not sure why that is. The truth is I'm sick of all the ugliness and name calling and I wish that all name callers regardless of political persuasion would go away; but until the MSM starts demanding the same behavior from the right that they demand from the left the Rhandis and Mikes are needed. You can’t keep showing up at a knife fight without knives and you know the other guys are going to have machetes. In addition, I watched Dan Abrahams last night making fun of CNN for their stupid Paris Hilton coverage, well MSNBC should get off their high horse because this is exactly what they did with Ann Coulter. Ann brings nothing substantial to a political debate except her mean girl humor that her winger follower’s love. Moreover, MSNBC should stop going after all these other cable shows and personalities and concentrate and making their own shows better. With Fox leading the pack the big three cable news shows are becoming more and more pathetic each year.
I don't ever recall hearing Randi Rhodes or Mark Malone wishing a politician dead in a terrorist attack like Cotergeist did regarding John Edwards.
The fact that she mocked the Edwards for their tragic loss of their son in a car accident and the profound effect it had on their lives- says anything anyone DECENT needs to know about this hate monger. She's total slime. ( yeah, she mocked 9-11 widows too)
There is no excuse for Matthews or any other MSNBC show or BNC show to promote someone who is as twisted as Coulter. She's beyond propaganda. The fact that there is an audience for this trash is chilling.
There is no legitimacy in what she says, writes, or does.
I sent an e-mail to Hardball yesterday after watching Matthews interviewed on the Today show on the coulter- Elizabeth Edwards confrontation. He was treating it like it was a "prize fight". Equally as slimy and disgusting.
As always Elizabeth Edwards demonstrated just what the word integrity means. I can only imagine how angry I would be if a family member of mine was wished died, referred to as a homosexual in a mocking way ( let's not forget that) or if my dead child was mocked.
I mean really...
Please let the powers that be know this is a disgusting way to grub for ratings.
No amount of confession is going to take this sin off Matthews.
I know that, but those two will dish it back. Rhandi got banned from CNN. I saw the episode on Lou Dobbs that I think did it. Rhandi kept talking over everyone just like Anne Coulter does in every interview I've seen her in.
Yep, some ONES do need to call Coulter out for the slimeball she is and dish it right in her face. I volunteer.
Matthews is so full of it. "Some authors do very well by being agents of provocation." What the hell is he by inviting her onto the show? He talks about her as though she's so low. Good Catholic boy that he is. What a hypocrite. I wonder if he still believes in sin? Just as her book makes sales by being on his show, his show makes headlines by having her on. Again. He's wallowing in the same swamp that she is. His pose of evenhandedness becomes more nauseating every time I see his smug, disingenuine face. He should just go work for Fox so his 'ethics' could be more widely understood.
His pose of evenhandedness becomes more nauseating every time I see his smug, disingenuine face.
Most people stop watching long before the program makes them nauseous. Not you though.
What a trooper...
Elizabeth isnt asking you not to talk Gangleskank. She is saying in public discourse you should somehow find an ounce of decency. We all know however that as a souless creature of the hive you have no concept what that is.
Asking Coulter to stop the personal attacks is the same as asking her to stop speaking.
Hearing Coulter try and use facts is laughable. She has no clue about anything. Everyone who talks to her on the few occasions she's been on and actually tried to use facts, start laughing. It's almost embarrassing to watch - especially since Coulter herself never understand that they are laughing at her.
Coulter said as much when she kept asking Elizabeth if she wanter her (Ann) to stop talking, so evidently it is impossible for Ann to talk and write without being hateful and nasty. Is there re-hab somewhere for this affliction. The woman is pure darkness and one day I think that cross she wears around her neck is going to catch on fire. Just imagine Dick Cheney and Annie C. as the lead characters in a vampire movie, now that would be a great vampire flick.
Haha was that post meant to be a joke? Yeah to bring decency to debate Elizabeth should have just called her "Gangleskank" or maybe "Doo Doo Head". Hmmm....I agree.
You guys keep trying to conflate a venue like this, which is the equivilent of cocktail party gossip, to what is said on National Television to millions of people. That is about like comparing what you say to your nieghbor over the fence to taking out a full page ad in the New York Times. Its weak but then weak seems to be the best you guys ever come up with. If Elizabeth had called her Gangleskank it STILL wouldnt have been as bad as the soulless one bringing up their dead son to score cheap political points but at least you would have a point. She didnt, YOU DONT.
Pew.
Sorry, Chris Jansing, it is not a win-win situation when Coulter comes on. NBC and its viewers ultimately lose because hate speech from Coulter that drags down our political discourse is not only condoned, but passively promoted to help her sell books.
Poor annie has the torettes
But when countered, she gets upset
She spews enough swill
To overflow a landfill
Negative regard is all she gets
She actually went into a nonsensical diatribe. I notice she couldn't remember specific passages in her own book. Her assumption that we are too dumb to get her " jokes " is wrong. I am sure the muslims of the world didn't think it was a joke when she promoted the killing of could be terrorrists and innocent muslims as collateral damage. She better tone down or she will be dodging things bigger than cream pies thrown at her face.
Well, whoever is stupid enough (Scaife) to make AC rich, then they get what they reap. I wonder how many discreet individual sales are actually made of her books, rather than mass orders to be given away for free. There can't be that many plebians willing to spend good money on that sicko.
JJ, I don't know if you've noticed, but there are a couple of posters here giving her "Attagirls".assuming they're serious and not just trolling, she appeals to a certain segment.
As nasty as she is, I almost feel bad for her when she resorts to that 5 year old response - "if I can't talk sh*t, I'm not gonna talk!"- and that's the measure of a pretty pathetic person, when they can be that deliberately offensive and stupid, and you still feel pity for them.
I wouldn't guess that Annie has had a very happy life.She shows the sort of attention- whore tendencies that sends really neglected kids into porno, politics or reality television.
And what's up with this evaluation: "She's a very brilliant writer. She knows how to enrage, and she did it."
First off I can't really believe that Tweety is literate in anything beyond a reading signs and menus kind of way if he really thinks she's even a mediocre writer. Evidently he takes an instrumental view of the written word - if it provokes rage it must be powerful and therefor good.
has Mathews ever written a book ? the kind of book that sits on your coffee table and not relegated to some obscure bookshelf in the attic ?
Look, there are talks that Rosie O'Donnell will get a show on MSNBC. So then you liberals will be happy with the insanity balance.
Do you ever contribute anything other than "BLAR YOU LIBRULZ IS STUPIDZ"?
"Look, there are talks that Rosie O'Donnell will get a show on MSNBC. So then you liberals will be happy with the insanity balance."
=
"Hey! Look over there!"
Copius-commencing Operation Change-the-Subject, failing anything else to say.
Can't wait for the day when someone will write a tell-all book about Coulter. This will be the day she goes into hiding.
MATTHEWS: No, because I know Ann Coulter. And if she did back down, she wouldn't be selling millions of books. It's a way of charging up the political debate, from the right, in this case -- I'm sure the left is just as good at this.
No, the "left" (which is more like middle) isn't as good at this. Please Chris, tell me the last time you heard a prominent "lefty" say anything close to the falsehoods and insults that Coulter spews out on a nearly daily basis when she's promoting her books.
The fact is that the rightwingers are doing and saying this stuff every day, all day. Don't try and pretend that the "left" does it too, just to appear objective.
Fualtylogic: Exactly this is not a left-right issue. What cappola. Matthews heaps insult upon injury with such an ignorant and baseless spin.
I'm so tired of this. Let the "news" networks know- having on hate mongers like Coulter is simple intolerable.
I don't understand your objections here. If anythng, Chris Matthews was being the most open and honest I have ever heard him be. What are you discovering or revealing in this article? I am a questioning Republican at the present and am considering changing to Independant and have never been to the right but for the life of me cannot find anything objectionable in this article.
cew28027
CEW, I think the main point is that Matthews continues to give somebody as untalented as Coulter a forum, and aside from the occasional half-hearted criticism of her tactics. treats her as a serious commentator.
I realize it's about ratings, but it contributes to the overall lowering of the level of discussion on the mainstream "news".
And that doesn't even count the lies that Coulter told during her hour, and the fact that Matthews failed to address most of them. Amazingly, Coulter is still repeating nonsense about Saddam working with al Qaeda, and about how we found the WMDs even though that was never given as a reason for going to war, blah, blah, blah. He gave her a platform to spew all sorts of thoroughly debunked propaganda. That should be the real story.
And of course, moments later, I now see that was the story a couple articles down. That'll teach me to read the articles in reverse chronology.
it contributes to the overall lowering of the level of discussion on the mainstream "news".
That's ok, it's balanced by Olbermann's puppet theater, which never fails to raise the level of discourse in America.
Don't be mislead by these dishonest posters, they just don't want conservatives on tv, period. They don't care how talented she is or is not.
The objection here is that Mathews laments having Coulter on his show but he continues to bring her back again and again.
Hardball?
Slimeball!
Is this what we've become?
Widows and parents who've lost children are the new targets?
I know the trolls usually say that that the victims of their abuse deserve to be ridiculed because they are the ones who spoke out about their loss. So I guess the defenders of this behavior think it best that the widows and parents should just keep it to themselves, right?
This soulless creature and her followers need to be excised from the political process. They seek no common ground. With them there is no compromise. They are pushing us towards national dissolution.
Chris Matthews is an embarrassment and a disgrace to the world of honest journalism. Given the pain that the Edwards family has endured, Matthews should ask himself the question, "Would I want someone to talk about by family in this vile manner?" Sadly, Matthews has demonstrated that he has little or no respect for his own family, so how can we expect him to respect others? And he is ably joined by the dubious Tucker Carlson..who is becoming the new "hot boy" of the trash talk TV world.
worrierking
There's a perverse logic that gets used again and again by these hate slingers, which goes more or less as follows:
"This person (9-11 widow, wife of a dead soldier) is automatically granted special immunity from criticism because of their victim status, so it is unfair for them to make any kind of political statement. But I'm brave enough to call their bluff, drop any pretense of human decency and attack not their ideas but them personally in the most insulting and hurtful terms imaginable."
one shrill moron cannot resist another!
The amazing thing to me is how much programming they get out of one appearance by Coulter. Not only did she fill an entire show of Hardball unopposed, but now she is discussed on MSNBC live, the Today Show, etc.
I know the best thing to do is ignore her, but when NBC fills seemingly most of its shows with content from her appearance or recapping her appearance, I guess we should just boycott most of NBC (except the show that actually has good content) at this point. Amazing
Good point. The conservative apologists who frequent this board tell us to ignore Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, etc. because they're "just entertainers". The problem is that the "liberal news media" keep trotting out these troglodyte douchebags and soliciting their opinions as if they had something intelligent to say about important issues. All they add to the public discourse is their venom and Karl Rove's talking points. It's kind of hard to ignore that.
This is such a clear cut example of the myth of the liberal media. Can you imagine someone with a left-leaning viewpoint that spoke with the same venom she does getting any air time? I mean, an hour to herself?!? It boggles the mind! Yet, there are people out there who ridiculously cling to the SCLM to this day. Truly mind blowing...
What do you expect?
Tweety seems to have a schoolboy crush on all sorts of men. I guess we can add Ann Coulter to the list.
For all of his transparent BS about feeling some pang of conscience about repeatedly bringing the deranged harpy back and letting her screech, spew and fling S**t all over the general state of political discourse, he invites her back because he fantasizes about her sweeping him off of his feet (with the help of Rudy and Mitt) and making him the airtight, rotisserie center of the sort of perverse spectacle few can imagine and fewer want to see
David Gregory interviewed Elizabeth Edwards this morning on the Today show, and he repeated the maddening canard that vitriol such as Coulter's can be found both on the left and right. No, David, it can't be found on the left, at least not in anything approaching the number of prominent rightards who get undeserved face time on TV. David Gregory is a shining example of a member of the SCLM who has been so intimidated by the right-wing noise machine that they qualify every criticism of right-wing blowhards with the "both sides do it" fallacy. He's so afraid of being accused of being liberal that he bends over backwards in a lame attempt to appear "balanced".
Coulter is a money grubbing shrew who will say whatever it takes to raise her own exposure. The more exposure she gets the more books she sells. The fact that she found her audience shouldn't surprise anyone. As long as people buy her books, she will have people putting her on TV (just ask Matthews).
What I find most interesting isn't that she has an audience who agrees with her. It is that her audience knows how to read. Her "humor" is on a 5th grade level, as is her discourse. I would imagine her readership would be on that level as well.
I think Coulter's audience is alot smaller than we are being led to believe. It wouln't surprise me if there were certain wealthy individuals out there buying thousands of copies of her book just to inflate her sales. But, I suppose there is that self-described "silent majority" out there that really wishes they had the nerve to say what she says and get away with it. The listen to her or read her "writing" and giggle like children reading a dirty book.
I truly believe that the only reason she gets as much attention as she does is that she is shameless. She knew the call from Mrs. Edwards was coming and had no shame. Of course, she also had pretty lame, immature come-backs not even based on facts or reality, but, she sits there and preens and hisses when attacked.
The show should be called "Hairball," at least when they have Coulter on because that's exactly what it makes me want to do - cough up a big one.
what the heck you been licking?