Coulter falsely claimed Elizabeth Edwards "lied about" her column
During an interview with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough asked Coulter about an exchange Coulter had with Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews. Scarborough noted that Elizabeth Edwards "said that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards' dead son," and asked Coulter: "What's the story behind that?" Coulter replied: "Needless to say, that is not true. ... You can look it up. It's all over the Web. It's a fabulous column, titled 'The Party of Ideas,' written in 2003. I had to go back and get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents." In the column, published on November 19, 2003, Coulter, addressing John Edwards, 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?" Coulter further said on Morning Joe, "I'm the only person in America who has to go back and constantly explain an entire column when it is lied about like this. ... I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters. In any event, it was about the Democratic presidential nominees back then." But Coulter did not explain how what Elizabeth Edwards said constituted a "lie[]."
On the June 26 Hardball, Elizabeth Edwards, who called into the show to speak to Coulter, said: "You had a column a couple of years ago, which made fun of the moment of [brother of then-presidential candidate and Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean] Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, 'Ask me about my dead son.' " But contrary to Coulter's claim on Morning Joe that Edwards "lied about" the content of her November 2003 column, Coulter did joke that John Edwards "had a bumper sticker ... that said, 'Ask me about my dead son.' " From the column:
John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
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. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.
I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing.
Furthermore, Coulter wrote of Charlie Dean's death in the same column:
Howard Dean talks about his brother Charlie's murder at the hands of North Vietnamese communists. Bizarrely, after working on the failed George McGovern campaign, Charlie Dean went to Indochina in 1974 to witness the ravages of the war he had opposed. Not long after he arrived, the apparently ungrateful communists captured and killed him. Hey fellas! I'm on your s-- CLUNK!
When Edwards mentioned the column on Hardball, Coulter did not claim -- as she would later on Morning Joe -- that her column had been "lied about"; she merely responded, "That's now three years ago," and, echoing an audience member, asked, "[W]hy isn't John Edwards making this call?"
Also on Morning Joe, Coulter claimed that her March 2 comments at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) were misunderstood. She said, "And if you want to go back to CPAC, I was speaking to a group of 7,000 College Republicans and no, I will not be arranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I'm saying." On the June 25 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, Coulter similarly suggested that her CPAC comments had been misconstrued, asserting, "I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word." At CPAC, Coulter concluded her speech by saying: "Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot' ... so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards. So I think I'll just conclude here and take your questions."
From the June 28 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: OK, but Ann, you -- I think sometimes you give people too much credit when you make references to Isaiah Washington at CPAC, from Grey's Anatomy, when you make references to Bill Maher --
COULTER: I described the entire Bill Maher scenario in one sentence. If the Good Morning America audience -- which is pretty large and pretty broad -- gets the joke and no one figured out a way to truncate that sentence until 36 hours later -- I mean, it's not like the liberal blogs weren't -- as they always do -- watching my appearance and instantly posting from the moment I walked off Good Morning America all of their indignation, which apparently centered on my comparing George Bush to FDR, because he's great on foreign policy, lousy on domestic policy. Nobody even thought of how to lie about what I said for 36 hours. So don't tell me I was giving them ammunition. And if you want to go back to CPAC, I was speaking to a group of 7,000 College Republicans and no, I will not be arranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I'm saying.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Now, I will tell you the part of that Elizabeth Edwards interview that jarred the most people -- jarred me, jarred just about everybody I spoke with -- was the part where she brought up the fact -- she said that you had written some column where you had made light of John Edwards' dead son. What's the story behind that?
COULTER: Needless to say, that is not true. And coming from people who have done what we have just seen them do in the earlier segment, I don't think they deserve a lot of credibility on this. You can look it up. It's all over the Web. It's a fabulous column, titled "The Party of Ideas," written in 2003. I had to go back and get the full gist of the column. It was about all of the Democratic primary opponents. And by the way, lifting a quote out of context from a short, five-minute TV interview is a little quicker to correct than an entire column --
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
COULTER: -- written four years ago. There is a point to a column. There is a woof and a wharf, and let's see -- oh yeah, that's right. I'm the only person in America who has to go back and constantly explain an entire column when it is lied about like this and describe why I chose this adverb rather than that adverb. And was this a joke? Was that a joke? So, you know, I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters. In any event, it was about the Democratic presidential nominees back then. You know, [former Rep. Dick] Gephardt [MO], Dean, of course, this guy -- the trial lawyer -- and how they were not talking about the war, they were not talking about the economy.
What they were talking about was either they're running for president either because they had a dead relative -- "Vote for me!" -- or had suddenly discovered a Jewish heritage. And in the various dead relative categories, that included, of course, "well, one who wasn't running, but the one who started it all" Al Gore in two, two speeches at the Democratic National Convention. Once, it was the sister, once, it was the near fatal accident of his son, so that it got to the point that all of his family members had to start fearing more runs for higher office.
You had Dean's brother. You had Gephardt's -- I don't know -- sister or the close death of a child. And then I went through the trial lawyer. A fact that is now memorialized in Bob Shrum's book, who describes John Edwards telling -- John Kerry felt queasy about it and almost didn't put John Edwards --
SCARBOROUGH: That's right. Yeah.
COULTER: -- on the ticket because Edwards kept saying to him, "I've never told anyone this story before," and then tells a tear-jerking story about how he climbed up onto his dead son's slab at the funeral home.
[...]
SCARBOROUGH: Again, I wouldn't have written that in a column, Ann, but certainly, nobody's talking about this.
COULTER: Why not?
SCARBOROUGH: Because it's not just who I am. I don't do that.
COULTER: You would write what in a column? [inaudible]
SCARBOROUGH: I wouldn't have put on a bumper sticker -- I would not have put on a bumper sticker 'ask me about my dead son.' That's just not me. That is you. And there are certainly people out there that provoke thought that way. I don't do that, but at the same time --
COULTER: Well, I kinda think you have to read the full thing in context.
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
COULTER: And apparently, however I write --
SCARBOROUGH: OK, fine. Hold on a second, Ann. Let me make a point.
COULTER: I have written five New York Times best-sellers.
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
COULTER: People like the way I write.
SCARBOROUGH: All right, Ann. Let me make my point, Ann.
COULTER: I comment on America in a lively and entertaining way. These are legitimate topics and I'm a little sick of being browbeaten by a bunch of harridans about why I chose this word or why I told that joke. And then people turn around and say "Oh, you're so mean! You're so mean!"
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Ann, I'm not browbeating you here. I'm trying to put it in proper context.
COULTER: Well, you haven't spent 24 hours being asked, "Oh, why did you use this word?"
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
COULTER: I've never seen people avoid ideas so much in such an obvious way and try to alert Americans not to read anything, not to listen to something someone says -- not because of what she's saying, but by trying to portray her as a Nazi. This happens every time I put a book out, and I'm getting a little bored with it. To use a Smith College word, it's getting a little tiresome.
SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, that is a Smith College word. I -- again, trying to put this in context. We're reading Shrum's words, and --
COULTER: "The Party of Ideas" -- November 20th, 2003. It is one of the greatest columns ever written and I highly recommend it.
SCARBOROUGH: OK, well, we will recommend that to everybody Ann, and I greatly appreciate you being on with us. And again, the thing is -- I appreciate it, Ann. The thing is, you know, obviously Ann is very angry right now. And you all have been around me when I've been angry because my words have been wrenched from their context. And, you know, the thing is, again, whether you talk about the first issue -- whether it's Good Morning America where they just cut out the last part of that instead of telling the whole story about it, you know, it's misleading. There's no doubt. The wire services have been misleading, a lot of news shows, because people hate Ann Coulter so much that you can get away with it. That's just the bottom line.
From the June 25 edition of ABC's Good Morning America:
CHRIS CUOMO (co-host): Some tough words for you by the three top candidates in response to what you had said. Some were calling it a homosexual slur, you said it was a taunt. They all came out when you were talking about John Edwards and said, "This was wrong. We must deny it." Fair criticism of you or a shift towards the tolerant among the GOP?
COULTER: No, no. There were -- I was denounced all over. All over. I think the one that hurt the most was from I'mALittleGirlInAPinkPartyDress.com.
CUOMO: Why?
COULTER: Very upsetting.
CUOMO: You --
COULTER: Though about the same time, Bill Maher said -- and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word.
CUOMO: You say you were joking.
COULTER: About the same -- oh yeah. I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.
People really do know what they are getting when they listen to Coulter and buy her books. She obviously appeals to some kind of vindictive psychotic mania in the underbelly of America.
I am glad that Elizabeth Edwards spoke with her and asked her to stop personal attacks. This was certainly taking the high ground...my favorite tactic would be pie in her face wherever she appears.
glad to see that you endorse and encourage assault...of course, this is what liberals resort to when they can't actually beat someone in an argument on facts & logic...
You got any?
If GRHINO had any facts or logic, he/she'd be a liberal.
:-)
when you hear the deafening sound of mass sucking, it is because all right wingers will have pulled their heads out of their buts at the same time. It has been quiet for years.
How would you know? You wouldnt recognize facts OR logic if they mugged you and took your wallet. It is the liberals here who most consistantly use facts and logic in their arguments. And why not reality has a liberal bias
That's pretty funny, considering it was Coulter who wrote that the best way to address a liberal is with a baseball bat. Unless you're Roger Rabbit (from the book, not the movie!), you don't have to worry about being killed by a pie.
Or was Coulter joking when she wrote that? Maybe so, but then maybe Mary's joking when she talks about hitting her with a pie.
You Cons have no sense of humor, I swear.
A pie in the face is an assault? Yes, I was joking....sort of. Actually she did get a pie in her face once, in New Mexico I think it was...the pranksters who did it said they were with "Al Pieda".
Of course, Coulter tried to say that she had been assaulted and play up the incident, but it only made her look even more ridiculous.
How about this? I wish she would shut her pie hole until she has something decent to say.
She said it was a terrorist attack. From the looks of her she would be terrorized by dessert heading her way.
Yes, nanny-state conservatives who are so eager to prosecute anyone for ANYTHING just to seek their apparent goal of prosecuting the most number of Americans possible have indeed made pies in the face eligible for an "assault" charge. In addition to this, spitting upon a person is now considered "assault" in many states.
It always was.
Question for Ms. Coulter: Hey, why the Anne-imosity???
Between Laurel and Hardy and these guys the War on Pie Throwers will never be done.
LOL...too funny.
Here's another shovel, Annie. I don't think the hole's deep enough yet ...
I hope all you conservatives out there are comfortable with her becoming the public face of your movement.
As amusing as it is for you to claim that a columnist is the face of the GOP, I'm far more comfortable having Ann Coulter in the conservative camp that I would be if Edwards were a conservative.
Edwards is the maggot who said in 2004:
"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again,"
How nice. Just elect Kerry/Edwards and those of you in wheelchairs will walk again!
Sickening.
It's not as bad as Edwards using his son's death for votes while claiming he never uses his son's death for votes, but it's pretty sick.
It reminds me of the time Al Gore used his sister's death from tobacco-related cancer while failing to disclose the fact that he had accepted big tobacco donations until as late as 1990.
That's quite a party you have there, lefties.
I'm sure you're very proud.
Max, since you're sooooo proud to call skinny Annie your own here are a few of her thoughts to comfort you:
Coulter on Muslims:
"I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.'" (This declaration prompted a boisterous ovation.)
or
Coulter on moderate Republicans:
"There is more dissent on a slave plantation then amongst moderates in the Republican party."
or
"These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever - and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest."
You sleep tight you hear.
Pearl,
You have a loooooong way to go before you get to something from Coulter as vile and vulgar as Edwards using his son's death for votes, or Kerry using his sister's death for votes with his sob story at the convention.
That was a fine effort though. : )
Max41, You may have missed some of the pols saying they would not mention [insert here] and that is exactually what they are doing when they say they would not. A plain and simple falsehood.
It's on the other Coulter thread but I've made that point as well, politicos on both sides do it, and it's routine.
What can I say, we have the worst political system on earth, aside from all the other ones.
Oh, the "everybody does it" defense, huh?
Cute, Max.
But lame.
"You have a loooooong way to go before you get to something from Coulter as vile and vulgar as Edwards using his son's death for votes, or Kerry using his sister's death for votes with his sob story at the convention."
How exactly did they use their dead relatives for votes?
Why do I waste time on you...
Edwards wears his son's Outward Bounds pin every day, and is therefore asked about it a lot. It's a handy way to tell the story again while pretending he doesn't really want to discuss it.
If you really don't want to talk about it Senator, take off the damn pin.
Then tell your wife to stop calling shows like Hardball so she can get the girls to quit being mean to you. No wonder his campaign is falling apart.
At the Dem convention in '96, Gore gaving a heartfelt, deeply moving and unfathomably hypocritical speech about his only sister's death from lung cancer. He made a cynical nation weep, and it was beautiful to behold as he swore he would "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the big tobacco industry.
Aww, what a moving tribute. From hell's heart I stab at thee you big tobacco bastards!
Unfortunately Gore left out the following while he made all the sheeple on the left cry along with him and his phony tears: he accepted big tobacco money until as late as 1990, he was raised on a tobacco farm and he himself used to be a smoker.
But it was nice of him to vow to take on the very same tobacco industry from which he and his family had profited and accepted campaign donations.
You call the media conservative and yet you don't know any of this? You'd think conservative media types would've mentioned that a few thousand times.
Maybe ABC, NBC and CBS will get to it tomorrow night.
"and is therefore asked about it a lot. It's a handy way to tell the story again while pretending he doesn't really want to discuss it".
How do you know this?
"He made a cynical nation weep, and it was beautiful to behold as he swore he would "pour his heart and soul" into taking on the big tobacco industry."
How do you know this?
"he made all the sheeple on the left cry along with him and his phony tears"
How do you know this?
"You call the media conservative and yet you don't know any of this? You'd think conservative media types would've mentioned that a few thousand times."
I've called the media corporate whores. And I don't need to know any of what you posted.
All you've given so far are your far right opinions. No one knows what Gore and Edwards' intentions were but Gore and Edwards.
How do you know this?
I looked it up on something called "the internet". I believe Al Gore created it himself. If you can't google "gore, convention, sister, cancer", then you've bigger problems than anything you read on MM.
I don't need to know any of what you posted.
Great, then we're done, and you won't ask me any other moronic questions.
You seem to be confused. I want to know how you know that Edwards wears the pin for the purpose you laid out. I want to know how you know that Gore’s tears were phony and not heartfelt? I’m saying you couldn’t possibly know these things and it’s just your far right opinion.
And I have no problem with a candidate taking money from an industry they’ve vowed to take on. The politicians could use that money to help them take on that industry.
Are you expecting logic from max? Ask him about the support the troops magnetic sticker on his car. It's like showing you love america one chinese product at a time...
I ride a scooter, paying $3 a week for gas while you pollute the crap outta the planet and whine that no one cares about earth from the comfort of your gas-guzzling car.
You're Libby's cellmate? Mindreading at its best, I love it!
I must confess, that one made me snort !
Max the topic is Annie, not Edwards or Kerry.
Your opinions, while free speech allowed, have nothing to do with the topic soooo I guess you can't defend skinny Annie. Got any comment on her triad on the 9/11 widows? Calling people of Muslin faith "ragheads"?
Thanks for noticing, Pearl.
You can tell Loony to stop pestering me about Edwards then.
Don't bother though, he has yet to ask one incisive question in all the time I've been here.
You're just dying to hit the flag button aren't ya? You live for it, lol.
Coulter falsely claimed Elizabeth Edwards "lied about" her column
(p.s. when the MM article has the name "Edwards" in it, I'm pretty sure the topic has something, however tangential it may seem to you sweetheart, to do with...Sen. Edwards.
If the Jersey Girls, as they are known, want to become part of the debate publicly and try to trash only one party for 9/11, they are fair game.
Muslims who are not terrorists are usually secure enough in their faith, you know, the religion of peace, lol, to not care about terms like raghead. Coulter uses it to get a rise out of white liberals (just a guess) like you, who are almost always offended far more than the target of the offensive word.)
"If the Jersey Girls, as they are known, want to become part of the debate publicly and try to trash only one party for 9/11, they are fair game."
They were trashing the Bush administration.
>>Muslims who are not terrorists are usually secure enough in their faith, you know, the religion of peace, lol, to not care about terms like raghead. Coulter uses it to get a rise out of white liberals (just a guess) like you, who are almost always offended far more than the target of the offensive word.) <<<
Gee Max, I know you are prescient and all, but ...
None of the Sikhs or Muslims I know are terrorists, but every single one of them is offended by the term. Far more than any of the white liberals I know, as a matter of fact.
So, the Muslim kid asking her to take the insult back at the CPAC was just insecure like a "white liberal," right?
I'll tell you what, why don't you use the slurs Coulter does, since they don't bother people, to their intended targets. See how that goes.
Max seems to think that only Muslims who are terrorists are bothered by the term. Logic not being his strong point.
What Max doesn't tell you is what Gore actually said. He said his sister started smoking at age 13, before the connection between smoking and cancer had been proven. He then described the toll it took on her health over the years, until she died. Then he said:
Tomorrow morning another 13-year-old girl will start smoking. I love her, too. Three thousand young people in America will start smoking tomorrow. One thousand of them will die a death not unlike my sister's, and that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.
[link to www.pbs.org] little different from what was implied, eh? Maybe Maxie likes to keep to his claimed Michael Moore 4.3 second rule for making silly implications.
Did Gore take money from tobacco companies at the time he made this speech? Nope.
Did Gore ever support the advertising of tobacco products to kids? No evidence from Maxie on that score.
No, it's enough that Gore made a speech 12 years after his sister died, and 6 years after he took his last donation. Because you see, logical connections just aren't the strong point of wingnutters' insinuations.
My prior was cut off.
Read the link. The crux of Gore's speech was about advertising tobacco products to kids and keeping kids from smoking. Period.
My gosh, you are right--How dare anyone use the death of a loved one to form the basis of an opinion, or to in anyway shape who they are as a human, and how dare they share any of that with other people. Personal death is something that is to be ignored--it is better to just repeat the numbers 9-1-1 over and over again as a justification for anything. Abstract death is more heroic and less bloody--heck, they have bumper stickers now for abstract heroic death that won't even ruin the paint on your SUV.
"If you really don't want to talk about it Senator, take off the damn pin."
Translation: Mr. Edwards, your dead son makes it hard for people like our ball-of-ichor Coulter to attack you without appearing to be the heartless monstrosities they are. Stop remembering your dead son as you get dressed in the morning, because it's inconvenient for conservatives.
I think I got that right.
So Max, care to explain why being raised on a tobacco farm makes Mr. Gore's subsequent views on tobacco somehow hypocritical?
Care to put that bit about "accepting donations" from the tobacco lobby into context? Like, for instance, the fact that those donations totalled a full $16,690 over a ten year period? How much of that amount is represented by donations made after 1984, do you know?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C02E4DE1638F933A0575BC0A960958260
By the way, do you happen to know whether the donations were specifically related to tobacco advocacy or simply made by corporations that include tobacco products in their array of interests?
Care to explain Gore's support of tobacco warning labels at the time, if he was in the pocket of the industry?
Be sure to get back to us with some useful details, 'kay?
He made people cry with the touching, well-rehearsed story of his sister's death, while failing to disclose his big tobacco donation cash, which he accepted until 1990.
I don't really care that he was raised on a tobacco farm, I just thought it was interesting, and wanted to give MM posters like you something to whine about since I knew damn well you wouldn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of taking money from tobacco companies after she died.
I really don't care if Gore took four billion dollars or thirty-five cents. He took their money, he took their money after she died, and your rationalization that he didn't take very much is pathetic.
Why did he keep taking their money? Only the most naive people on earth would buy this explanation. Apparently you bought it hook, line and sinker:
Mr. Gore said today that he ''felt a numbness'' after his sister's death that made it hard to translate her illness into personal and policy decisions.
"Numbness" lead his brain to not know what an astounding level of hypocrisy is I guess.
In the future while sitting at the coffee shop, try not to admit that you bought Gore's "numbness" explanation. You will be laughed at immediately.
I really don't care if Gore took four billion dollars or thirty-five cents. He took their money, he took their money after she died, and your rationalization that he didn't take very much is pathetic.
Gore needed the money to help take down the tobacco industry.
On another note, Bush wished death upon Fidel Castro.
On another note, Bush wished death upon Fidel Castro.
So have all the Cubans who risked their lives crossing the ocean on homemade rafts to get here.
So have I, incidentally.
If you've wished death upon people, why are you bringing up Maher?
>>>I don't really care that he was raised on a tobacco farm, I just thought it was interesting, and wanted to give MM posters like you something to whine about since I knew damn well you wouldn't want to talk about the hypocrisy of taking money from tobacco companies after she died.<<<<
And yet, there I was, talking about it. Your nonsequitur notwithstanding.
Oh, I forgot. CarMax the Magnificient knows what everyone else is thinking.
>>I really don't care if Gore took four billion dollars or thirty-five cents. He took their money, he took their money after she died, and your rationalization that he didn't take very much is pathetic. <<<
No, of course you don't care, and you don't care exactly when it was given, either. And I made no rationalization at all; I pointed out your failure to give complete information as to exactly who gave how much, when, and for what purpose. Which you still haven't given.
>>>Why did he keep taking their money? Only the most naive people on earth would buy this explanation. Apparently you bought it hook, line and sinker:
[. . .}
In the future while sitting at the coffee shop, try not to admit that you bought Gore's "numbness" explanation. You will be laughed at immediately. <<<
And in the future while fallingl off your barstool, try not to make up crap about what people are thinking. While it helps you fill up space in Internet chatrooms, it makes you look foolish.
And you would be laughed at more than you are now.
Yes, Max, why DO you waste time on us? You're clearly not changing any minds here, so why do you keep posting? Why don't you go post on O'Reilly's or Limbaugh's or Hannity's website where people will suck up your nonsense? No one here is buying your fiction any more than we buy Coulter's.
You've used the word 'fiction', so tell me which fact I've invented so we know you aren't lying.
Thanks.
Oh...as I've said before, talking only to people who agree with me politically is rather boring, and I'm not sure why anyone who isn't insanely closed-minded would want to. If you're one of the insanely closed-minded types who usually refuses to debate conservatives, good luck with that.
Gosh, mostly all you write is either fiction or dishonest. We could start with your snide comment concerning Al Gore and the internet. Or we could look at your claim concerning your ability to read Muslims' minds (that must be how you know what they are thinking and not thinking). We could continue with your false assertions concerning John Edwards and John Kerry. Again your bogus ability to mind read. Or perhaps you merely feel the right to assert what other people are thinking? In fact, your posts are a series of lies and distortions and insults. Fiction is too generous for what you have been posting. You make stuff up and then claim it as true. That makes you what?
We could start with your snide comment concerning Al Gore and the internet.
That's called sarcasm, and I was making fun of Gore for lying about creating the internet. From a Washington Post article, link to follow:
"Asked to cite accomplishments that separate him from another Democratic presidential hopeful, former Sen. Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore said: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.""
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/apgoreinternet031299.htm
Or we could look at your claim concerning your ability to read Muslims' minds
I never said I could, but feel free to lie about what I've said while claiming I'm the liar, lol.
We could continue with your false assertions concerning John Edwards and John Kerry
Sorry dude, but Edwards does talk about his son a lot, and Kerry used his sister's death for votes.
You're 0 for 3, but try again if you want to.
That's called sarcasm, and I was making fun of Gore for lying about creating the internet.
No, it is called being dishonest.
I never said I could, but feel free to lie about what I've said while claiming I'm the liar, lol.
Really? Are you sure about that? Or are you being dishonest. I will also note that you are being dishonest when you claim that I said you were a "liar." I said you were dishonest and prone to fiction. But the irony of your assertion is a bit too much.
Sorry dude, but Edwards does talk about his son a lot, and Kerry used his sister's death for votes.
I love the way you merely assert things and then pretend they are facts. Not really much on logic are you?
You're 0 for 3, but try again if you want to.
You do not get to keep score.
Max, once again, try to get your facts straight.
John Kerry's sisters are both alive and well.
Try something else.
Calm down lil fella,
I typed the wrong name, which was obvious to everyone else since they read my other posts on the topic.
You, alone, couldn't figure that out, lol.
Well, except that you kept repeating it. Not so good with the memory, eh?
It is curious that Max continues to repeat the same falsehoods over and over. What might we learn from that?
Doesn't learn from his mistakes?
While you are 0 for every post you have yet made Gore DOES deserve credit for the creation of the internet as even Newt Gringrich admitted on a panel discussion in 96
"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet
So did he take the initiative to push for creation of the internet? Yes he did. And of course you claimed to read the minds of arabs what was that remark about most Muslims not caing about the raghead comment? Besides pure racist stupidity? How would you know this without amazing mind reading powers? Oh yeah you couldnt.
so he should not honour his son lest he be judged by morons like you thats pretty disgusting i truely hope nobody close to you dies but if god forbid they do youcant ever talk about because thats self serving
VULGAR is twisting John Edwards loss of his son. VULGAR is using John Kerry's losses to somehow excuse Coulter's vile attacks.
Stem cell research does hold promise for cures on medical conditions and Christopher Reeves clearly articulated his vision for that cure and that he could walk again.
Vulgar and vile are trolls who post here and have nothing to offer but parrotting attacks that are simply meant to provoke.
Nothing to do with any substance or response to the article that MM posted. Coulter is a lying hypocrite and that fact is clear.
You want vulgar? How about the GOP's shameless exploitation of Terri Schaivo? Max is a perfect example of the intellectual bankruptcy that has infested the Republican party.
Well Max, both of John Kerry's sisters happen to be alive and well.
Perhaps you are thinking of George H.W. Bush exploiting the death of his child during the 1988 campaign.
If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again
Those of you who like to quote that typically do not state why Edwards' statement is untrue. Edwards is a strong proponent of stem cell research and believed then, as many did and still do, that stem cell research has the potential to repair not only debilitating diseases and illnesses, but also to repair injuries that impact a person's quality of life.
If Edwards had suggested that stem cell research would allow amputees to grow back their arms and legs, your scoffing would be merited, but he was suggesting that stem cell research would be able to help repair spinal injuries, which is entirely feasible.
Certainly you can find something to legitimately criticize Edwards for?
BLR,
If you don't think it's incredibly sleazy to suggest, without any scientific evidence to back you up, that voting for Kerry/Edwards will (not "might", dude--"will")make wheelchair-bound people "get up and walk again", then you and I have very different definitions of sleazy.
If you aren't aware that it doesn't matter who is prez, since stem-cell research is being done privately all the time, then you need to learn the basics before you try again. I don't think you knew that, since you made no reference to the private research that goes on every day and made it sound like without federal funds, it just won't happen.
The debate is about federal grant money, not over whether it should be done at all. It already is being done.
If we do the work that we can do in this country...
The work has not yet begun. I find it sleazy to argue against the creativity and dedication of Americans as you do.
I think your claim concerning private industry is another one of your bogus arguments. Clearly, if we do the work that this country can do, we can accomplish great things. The debate is about whether or not we as a country will dedicate ourselves to the work that we can do. Your argument is another hate-filled misdirection. You attack this country with your smears.
Is the Democratic Party the Liberal party? I haven't seen any Dems that I thought were Liberal enough to vote for. When was the last time a Democrat brought any different ideas about the war on drugs or reasonable punishment for drug related "crimes" to the table? I have no idea.
"This happens every time I put a book out, and I'm getting a little bored with it. To use a Smith College word, it's getting a little tiresome."
Oh, dear merciful Lord, please let the end be near.
Yes, it must be very tiresome to deal with Criticism every time you publish a book, Ann.
I wonder if, before she had a publisher who would accept any peice of garbage she wrote and got rejection slips, she called the rejecting publisher and told him "being rejected by your company is getting a bit tiresome."
Coulter shows us her true fascist instincts- she wants to publish books and make money, but she doesnt want any criticism. You KNOW she'd love to just have her critics shot.
sounds like she wants to be baby bush's spokesperson or maybe she was hired sometime ago.
"I've never seen people avoid ideas so much"
This is a woman who has made a career out of being a bomb-thrower and a punching bag. Now that people are actually calling her out and questioning her on why she has to be cruel to make a point, she starts whining about having to explain her poor conduct. What did she expect? If she wanted people to embrace her ideas, she should have behaved like a mature adult instead of a school yard bully. You get what you give.
How many writers, when discussing some column they wrote four years ago would describe it as a "fabulous" column?
Aren't authors supposed to just write and let others assign the adjectives to the work?
King, it's sort of a schtick of hers, to admire her writing, but with just enough sarcasm to allow the "just joking" save - but it's obvious she does actually consider herself talented.
Watch her on Hannity & Colmes- Colmes usually quotes her writing to her to set up his question, and as he's reading the drivel, she just leans back and listens with a big smile, as if she's very impressed with herself.
I was just thinking it was pure anadulterated arrogance. She just told us liberals were too stupid to understand her. She clearly has delusions of granduer, probably fancies herself as the next Albert Einstein of literature.
It's also a way to drive traffic to her site. Which must be sorely hurting, given the unwillingness of sponsors to continue to be associated with her crap.
Comedian Ann Coulter: "I am getting a little fed up with being described as the aggressor in these matters" - Now THAT is funny.
"...I will not be arranging my words so the stupidest person in the liberal blogosphere understands what I'm saying."
Ann. the stoopidest people in the liberal blogosphere post here all the time, many expressing their admiration for you.
But the stupidest liberals in the blogosphere, being a lot smarter than the stoopidest people there, understand what you're saying. They just know it's a load of crap.
Funny, but not surprising.
It's the classic rightwing bobblehead cop out. When you get called out for your BS, make yourself into a victim.
This lying Troglodyte skag is an absolute waste of human DNA.
Her defense of her fa99ot comment about Edwards is laughable. She said it without literally "saying" it, so she can now deny it. Rush Limbaugh does the same crap all the time. Only the idiot GOP base falls for it. All thinking people just roll their eyes because they know she's torturing semantics.
I'll put it this way...if Ann didn't call Edwards a fa99ot, then Bill Maher didn't say that Cheney should have been killed in a terrorist attack. Take your pick.
I've never understood why Coulter has to use the "Well, he said this, so I can say that" logic.
No, wait, she has the mental capacity of a 10 year old, so I guess I do understand.
Nerzog,
You're upset with a tactic used by people on both sides of the aisle, but I doubt you get upset when liberals use it.What Coulter did is no different than what Michael Moore does every 4.3 seconds in every movie he has ever made.
Remember his claim that Bush let bin Laden's family flee the country after 9/11? He didn't bother to mention that binny's family disowned him years ago, but that's only because Moore is dishonest.
About the flight however, Moore never actually said that Bush authorized the flight, but he made so many obvious inferences in the movie that you couldn't possibly come away thinking he meant anything else. Even though Moore never phrased it this way, people to this day think "Bush let bin Laden's family go", as though they're somehow connected to terrorism.
Amusingly, Richard Clarke, the left's hero for roughly 15 minutes, is the person who authorized that flight, lol.
[Ironically by the way, Edwards admits he isn't "comfortable around those people" (gays), according to Shrum's book, which no one on the left will read or trust because he only ran seven Democratic campaigns for president. Had he run eight, I'm sure they'd learn to trust him.]
“What Coulter did is no different than what Michael Moore does every 4.3 seconds in every movie he has ever made.”
What are you talking about? Coulter doesn't tell the truth.
“Remember his claim that Bush let bin Laden's family flee the country after 9/11? He didn't bother to mention that binny's family disowned him years ago, but that's only because Moore is dishonest.”
It doesn't matter. You don't let the family of the prime suspect in the most devastating attack on America leave the country especially when no one else is allowed to fly.
“Amusingly, Richard Clarke, the left's hero for roughly 15 minutes, is the person who authorized that flight, lol.”
Why do you think he's our hero? He should have been talking to the Congress and the American people about the Bush administration not taking the threat of terrorism seriously before 9/11 not afterwards. And why the hėll would our “hero” authorize the trip of the Bush family friends: the bin Ladens.
“[Ironically by the way, Edwards admits he isn't "comfortable around those people" (gays), according to Shrum's book, which no one on the left will read or trust because he only ran seven Democratic campaigns for president. Had he run eight, I'm sure they'd learn to trust him.]”
No one here is going to read his book and no Democrat should trust him. He keeps on losing election after election after election. Every Democrat should treat him like a GOP hack (maybe he is a GOP hack).
Actually, Max, it WAS said that Bin Laden was 'the black sheep of the family' and that he had a falling out with them... BUT THEN was seen at a relatives wedding several years later...- *Prince* Bandar, Fairenheit 9/11, on the Larry King show...
I'm not sure what your point is.
OBL's family has nothing to do with terrorism, they disowned him, and as you can imagine, it's been investigated. They are clean, which is why Richard Clarke authorized their flight outta the country.
THE POINT, Max, is that Bin Laden WAS SEEN with family members CELEBRATING A WEDDING!!! THUS, he HAD CONTACT with HIS FAMILY!! Thus, it would be appropiate to question THE FAMILY immediately after the crime was committed INSTEAD OF FLYING ALL OF THEM OUT OF THE U.S.!!And, even if he was COMPLETELY on the outs with ALL of his family, you still question them... it's called DETECTIVE WORK, because, believe it or not, I don't talk to my cousins BUT I know where they live and what they do BECAUSE FAMILY MEMBERS TALK ABOUT FAMILY!!
You have evidence for your 4.3 number? Or is this another one of your "fictions?"
According to a report released by the bipartisan U.S. Senate Committee on Truth in Film on January 17, 2007, Moore is said to have implied something that was never said directly in his films every 4.341 seconds.
I rounded it down to 4.3 seconds. My apologies for the confusion.
When the report was released, committee chair Dianne Feinstein was asked by Wolf Blitzer what she thought of Moore's film-making techniques, to which she replied "You know Wolf, I think Mr. Moore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize", at which point Wolf asked what making a movie had to do with the Nobel Prize.
Sen. Feinstein was suddenly called away for a senate vote, though to this day no one can find a vote in the senate that took place when the senator claims she needed to end the interview.
You have evidence for your claim concerning 4.3? You do understand what evidence for a claim consists of, do you not?
>>According to a report released by the bipartisan U.S. Senate Committee on Truth in Film on January 17, 2007, Moore is said to have implied something that was never said directly in his films every 4.341 seconds.<<<
Surely you mean the bipartisan Committee on Truth by Chatroom Blowhards? The one that found wingnutters like you just type whatever comes into their little heads? Now, that I believe!
>>>When the report was released, committee chair Dianne Feinstein was asked by Wolf Blitzer what she thought of Moore's film-making techniques, to which she replied "You know Wolf, I think Mr. Moore deserves the Nobel Peace Prize", at which point Wolf asked what making a movie had to do with the Nobel Prize.
Sen. Feinstein was suddenly called away for a senate vote, though to this day no one can find a vote in the senate that took place when the senator claims she needed to end the interview. <<<<
Wow, Diane Feinstein chaired a committee that found out all this nasty stuff about Michael Moore, but she still thinks he deserves a Nobel Prize. To be truly amusing, Max, these sorts of gags should hold together in the sequential logic department.
No, I'm sure such a thing occurred, but amazingly, no one but you can seem to find a single transcript or reliable report that it did occur.
Go ahead and post a link showing such a committee, much less such a report, exists. Then a link to Feinstein's remarks.
We'll wait.
I don't think Coulter has ever gotten a fact straight in her life.
Just like Max. Funny, that
I have a couple more Smith College words that Ann she become familiar with: unhinged and unglued.
Shorter Ann Coulter:
I have to say hateful mean things. Bill Maher does it.
She made a great point, one that you apparently don't like.
Maher is allowed to say, in all seriousness, that he wishes Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack, and the media, amusingly known as "the conservative media" around here, didnt't say a word about it.
But then Coulter joked about it, saying:
"Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished 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 had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."
The "conservative media" flipped out. The left was outraged. All hell broke loose--not over Maher's serious comment that he wished Cheney had been killed, but over Coulter's joke in which she very clearly referenced Maher's remark, a bit of context the media totally ignored.
Maher was serious, Coulter was kidding, but the media lost it over Coulter's joke after they ignored Maher's comment.
Conservative media, rofl.
Max, apparently you didn't see the show where Maher made that comment - I actually did - and it was tongue in cheek - and Maher may have total disdain for this administration, as do I, but he still doesn't come close to Coulter on the hate scale. Nowhere near. This woman is getting a lot of mileage out of this crap she writes and making over the top, outrageous statements to elicit emotional responses from the wingnut far right - and yes, it IS crap. She's been brilliant at getting her face all over the news. My guess? She'll likely burn in that Hell that she so fervently believes exists. I almost wish I believed in Hell - I'd take great comfort in knowing that's where this media whore will end up.
Thanks for the correction. It only helps to make my point.
Maher joked about it, no one on the left/in the media cared.
Coulter made a similar joke and everyone on the left and their media allies flipped out.
How many standards must we endure from the left and their pals in the media?
Maher made a joke. On his own show. A comedy show.
Coulter appears as a commentator, not as a comedian.
Tweety Matthews "Hairball" is not a comedy show. As far as I know, they've never had just one "comedian" on for the entire hour.
I don't think he was making a joke and he wasn't wishing for Cheney's death. He was saying if Cheney had died in the bombing, it really wouldn't have bothered him one bit. The vile Jerry Falwell died a few months ago and his death didn't bother me at all. That's not the same as wishing for his death.
I don't like Bill Maher saying things like that either. Both him and Coulter should apologise. People who have a microphone should not be wishing for someone's death, joking or not.
Max,
Unfortunately, by virtue of your own post you make a liar out of yourself. Bill Maher's comment did get alot of flack, especially from people like you who continually point to it as an excuse for "your side" to continue its lying, "bomb-throwing" ways.
Besides, we are talking about a grown man and Coulter is attacking a dead child's memory, how can you not see the difference? Are you truly that ignorant?
Once again your "facts" are all out of whack. Maybe you checked this "fact" out on the Internets. Well, Drudge's site isn't exactly a reliable source of information.
So if you'd bother to check your facts, you'd find out Maher NEVER said he wished Cheney had died in the terrorist attack in Afghanistan. He was quoting someone else who said that. Maher DID say that many people who are dead today would still be alive if not for Cheney, and that's absolutely true.
You see, we're accustomed to right-wingers trying to lie and distort reality. We'll call you out on it every time you do it (which is every time you post).
Maher is allowed to say, in all seriousness, that he wishes Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack
Of course, as is the case with every wingnut post here, you have it completely wrong. Maher never said anything of the sort, and both you and Coulter know it. He said that if (you do know the meaning of the word "if," don't you) Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack, fewer soldiers would die in the future.
He never wished for it to happen, as Coulter did when referring to John Edwards. He just stated his opinion about what would occur if it did happen.
Please learn the English language and the rules of logic before trying to post again. You are an object of derision every time you prove you have no idea what you are talking about, which is every time you post.
Wow you guys just love to call people liars don't ya? It's very interesting how sensitive you all are to the truth after the political debacle that was the 90's. Ever heard of being wrong and having no problem admitting it as I've already done?
As I made clear several posts ago, since I'm mistaken that Maher was serious, I still don't care. The point I've already made, the one you fruitloops are conveniently ignoring, is this:
Why would Democrats/the media get all upset over one joke (Coulter's) while not caring about another (Maher's)? Because they are biased to the left.
The pitiful excuse that Maher's show is a comedy show is lame, so knock that crap off immediately.
Maher has very serious guests every week, and the kind of show it is doesn't mitigate the effect of a comment at all.
If Hillary made a disparaging remark about Obama on Jon Stewart's show, you wouldn't excuse it because of it happened on Comedy Central. Well, the Hill-worshippers would excuse it if she shot someone on Stewart's show, claiming the gun was probably made in the Reagan yrs so it's all his fault anyway.
I see you continue to post your "fictions." This time you assert that "the media" got upset over Coulter, but not over Maher. That is simply not true. Nor, of course, could it be. Figures of speech, while rhetorically powerful, are not, in reality, true. They are figures of speech. And using figures of speech to rationalize your animosity towards others is to be driven, not by logic and facts, but by emotion. You have posted yet another useless fiction.
As a matter of fact, Maher lost his network show over one of his comments. I'd say that's a pretty good example of the so-called liberal media "getting upset."
The point is you are a liar AND a moron. Your claim about Mahar wishing for Cheneys death is a lie. He did no such thing. If you are too stupid to understand the difference between wishing for someones death and NOT doing so that really isnt our fault beg borrow or steal a couple of brain cells and get back to us you complete idiot. It is amusing to watch you flouder around repeating lies and stupidity and THINKING you are actually making sense.
"that he wishes Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack"
It was more like saying if Cheney had died, he wouldn't have lost any sleep over it.
I saw the show he never said that YOU are a liar
Two things:
1) If Mrs. Edwards really did lie about her column, why didn't Ann "look it up" and read from her own column? Who has a better record of what Ann Coulter wrote than Ann Coulter? (Maybe MMFA)
2) Hopefully BillO will bring this up when he slams NBC next for being "far-left." She has had more time and segments with her either directly involved or mentioned in the past three days than she has on Fox in months! And all this attention was because "Godless" was coming into paperback?!?!
Anyone interested in cutting through MMfA's Bullshiit can read the truth. Or are you all too afraid?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Was No Lady -- That Was My Husband Jun 28 03:11 PM US/Eastern
By Ann Coulter The Edwards campaign is apparently still running low on donations, so this week they went back to their top fundraiser: me.
I doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show on Tuesday by agreeing to go on for a full hour to promote my new paperback version of "Godless" -- a mistake I won't make again. As I was walking to the set, minutes before airtime, it was casually mentioned to me that Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, might call in.
For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest, but let Elizabeth Edwards ramble on and on, allowing her to browbeat me for being mean to her husband. (This delicate flower is very sensitive to rough words, having hired the Edwards' campaign staffer who wrote this: "What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"?)
Say, did any TV host ever surprise Al Franken, Bill Maher or Arianna Huffington with a call by the wife of someone they've made nasty remarks about? How about a call to John Edwards from the wife of a doctor he bankrupted with his junk-science lawsuits? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Manifestly, I was not making fun of their son's death; I was making fun of John Edwards' incredibly creepy habit of invoking his son's tragic death to advance his political career -- a practice so repellant, it even made John Kerry queasy. -Ann Coulter
From Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses":
"(Kerry) was even queasier about Edwards after they met. Edwards had told Kerry he was going to share a story with him that he'd never told anyone else -- that after his son Wade had been killed, he climbed onto the slab at the funeral home, laid there and hugged his body, and promised that he'd do all he could to make life better for people, to live up to Wade's ideals of service. Kerry was stunned, not moved, because, as he told me later, Edwards had recounted the same exact story to him, almost in the exact same words, a year or two before -- and with the same preface, that he'd never shared the memory with anyone else. Kerry said he found it chilling, and he decided he couldn't pick Edwards unless he met with him again."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is my full sentence on "Good Morning America," which the media deceptively truncated, referring to a joke I told about Edwards six months ago that made liberals cry: "But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished 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 had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." -Ann Coulter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read the full column--if you dare:
http://www.breitbart.com/anncoultercolumn.html
Taz,
The column that Mrs. Edwards and Coulter were arguing about could not have been written after her appearance on Hardball, could it? The column you linked was from 2 DAYS AFTER her appearance. The column in question was described by Coulter in her interview with Joe Scarbourough:
Coulter replied: "Needless to say, that is not true. ... You can look it up. It's all over the Web. It's a fabulous column, titled 'The Party of Ideas,' written in 2003.
Tell me you can do better than that!
friedbergboy- I was providing you all with a column written by Ann Coulter today which provided her side of the story.
If you had bothered to read the article I left, you would have found a link to the 2003 column included in it. But since you're either too scared or lazy, here it is:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2003/11/20/the_party_of_ideas
Just read it Taz,
So where did Mrs, Edwards lie? Obviously no one thought that John Edwards literally had a bumper sticker on his car, but Coulter was certainly suggesting that Edwards used his son's death for political gain. She did mention, metaphorically, that Edwards if he was not using his child's death for political gain should take off the bumper sticker, did she not? That's a pretty good cheap shot if you ask me.
As for your quotes about Kerry, can we put you on record as believing all those third-hand accounts about Laura Bush being a drug dealer in the Kitty Kelly books?
As for your quotes about Kerry, can we put you on record as believing all those third-hand accounts about Laura Bush being a drug dealer in the Kitty Kelly books?- friedbergboy1422
The quotes about Kerry are from Bob Shrum's book "No Excuses". Shrum was a democratic political consultant. He was the campaign strategist for John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. He also worked for Gore and Ted Kennedy. But if that's not enough for you to trust him, well his book's been out for about a month now--has John Kerry denied the incident Shrum described? No he hasn't.
"Shrum was a democratic political consultant."
I thought he was a republican strategist the way he kept on losing elections for Democrats.
Guess I read her article right and Mrs. Edwards didn't lie....
So, now everyone has to come out and deny everything written about them that's not true?
Taz,
Has Bush spoken out about Paul O'Neill's book and denied the accusations in them?
"Written by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind, the book says Bush's economic policies were irresponsible, Bush was unquestioning and uncurious, and the war in Iraq was planned from the first National Security Council meeting, soon after the administration took office.
The book was based on extensive interviews with O'Neill and numerous documents O'Neill received during his job as Treasury Secretary.
O'Neill harshly criticizes the President, blasting his economic policies and alleged "detachment" from the cabinet process. He described Bush's behavior at cabinet meetings as being like "a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernable connection."
O'Neill was frustrated about what he perceived to be a lack of vigorous debate between administration officials and the formation of sound, coherent policy on the important issues. He longed for the return of the "Brandeis briefs" that were used in the Nixon and Ford administrations in which he had previously worked.
The book also claims that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was not a reaction to the attacks of September 11, but was instead a campaign in the planning stages ever since Bush took office, with potential oil spoils charted in early documents."
He just attacked O'Neill's credibility, but did not go after the content of the book. By your logic, should he deny the contents?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Price_of_Loyalty
Friedbrain,
If you're going to equate the veracity we can assume to find in works from Kitty Kelly and Bob Shrum, a guy who ran seven Democratic campaigns for president...well, don't do that.
It's asinine.
Max,
I will agree, that was not my best analogy. I had forgotten who Shrum was.
However, remind me of how many editorial pages in newspapers across the country give Bill Maher a weekly column on the news pages.
Are you from the South, Taz? Just curious as to what your take on Coulter's "illiterate juries" comment is...
You're the one stereotyping Southerners, Fried.
She called them illiterate because they bought Edwards' ridiculously phony act when he pretended to channel a now-deceased, unborn baby who was "talking to" the jury. One has to be fairly stupid to buy that routine. The jurors bought it.
You're assuming she made the comment because they were from the South. That's stereotyping.
Max41,
Having followed the posts in this thread, I am astounded by your unique ability to know EXACTLY what people think. It is an amazing talent which shouldn't be wasted on lowly liberals. We are just poor simple folks who listen to what we hear and decide from that point on. We don't have to hear it second hand from the Rush's of the world.
Your defense of Ms. Coulter is admirable but I don't really believe that your heart is in it. You seem to get a jolt out of besting us objectifying liberals.(Although, I think Ms. Coulter is guilty of the same). WAIT....I think I just developed that keen sense of perception that you have spewed upon this thread. I actually wrote that "you don't believe"..I was only guessing, as you have, throughout your defense of Ms. Coulter.
Look, she got beat-up (sans pie) by a caller who is brighter than her and she is pissed. Ms. Coulter was way over the line as a commentator concerning the bumper sticker remark and was finally called on it. It is called freedom of speech--BOTH WAYS...............Hell, when Edwards used his "bumper sticker remark, the Republans (no "ic" as in Democrat) went nuts.
Ms. Coulter should expect feedback of her work if it seems harmful or vile to those of us that care. She is making the cash so what is the big deal. Do you really believe that she cares about America? I doubt that is what you think...OOPS, there I go again, being like you..
Next time, if you're only going to ask one easy question, try not to take 4 paragraphs to do so.
Yes, I believe she cares about America.
Yes, if he or she were really trying to emulate you, it would simply be four paragraphs of inane pronouncements.
No, I am just repeating what she said. She thought the jury was illiterate. She did not elaborate. The only thing every person on that jury had in common was they were from the South.
I am glad you can translate Coulter and give her the benefit of the doubt. Good thing you find opposite motives in everyone on the other side.
I'm guessing a lot of us watched the actual video of the event, so we got our OWN side of the story. Ann had her opportunity to state it right then and there, seems to me. She had to drag her whiny self back to her keyboard and furiously type out a "HE LET HER GO ON AN ON" whine about Edwards where Edwards didn't have a chance to respond.
Poor poor Ann. Always the victim. Poor Regressives. Always the victim of those mean ol' liberals. Poor poor Taz.
You are making a classic liberal mistake, B - assigning more credibility to the evidence of your eyes and ears rather than next day revisionism by the big C.
One might argue that you were the lazy one for pasting the article where she defends herself rather than the article where she actually does in fact make light of the Edwards boy's death.
I've heard people use the "I was only making a joke" defense, but it takes a particularly ballsy (read: screwy) woman to use it as a defense against joking.
No need to read the entire column. You've thoughtfully condensed it down to the most salient points. Please allow me an attempt at further condensing.
1. Smear Edwards.
2. Claim credit for most excellent ratings.
3. Trivialize the prior notification that Mrs. Edwards may call in.
4. Whine that the host didn't stick up for her or provide her cover. (She counts on that from the Fox News hosts, and usually gets it)
5. Smear Edwards again.
6. Whine that no one else ever gets ambushed (in spite of the fact that she just admitted having prior notification).
7. Smear Edwards again.
Does that about wrap it up?
Oh, one more thing. I'm sick and tired of her snide little comments about John Edwards somehow bankrupting doctors. First of all, he didn't bankrupt anyone. If a doctor was bankrupted, it was due to his OWN MALPRACTICE. HIS own ACTIONS. The VICTIMS of that doctor's MALPRACTICE availed themselves of the perfectly reasonable and appropriate services provided by Sen Edwards' law firm. As the plaintiff's legal representative, he presented EVIDENCE, which the defense was given the opportunity to REFUTE. a JURY deliberated the FACTS of the case and rendered a verdict FOR Sen Edwards' client, the plaintiff. Conservatives are always blathering about taking personal responsibility, and not playing the VICTIM card. When THEIR OWN actions land them in trouble they are the FIRST and the LOUDEST to whine about junk science used as evidence, shuyster lawyers, or activist judges. What a bunch of character- flawed, snivelling pu$$ies.
Oh, I forgot. She also managed to get in a plug for the paperback release of her latest "book". Is that a succint summation of the defense that sways you to her side?
I missed this one too.
8. Whine that everybody else does it.
It's "warp and weft" not "woof and a wharf", you bimbo. Ask any Smithie.
What really gets the big C's goat
is that Edwards is using these attacks and his and Elizabeth's response as a very effective fundraising tool. He is completely unapologetic about it and I bet this whole confrontation gives him a boost in the polls.
Sometimes there is a turning point, where revulsion builds and like the bursting of a rotten and overfull dam the landscape changes overnight. It happened in the McCarthy hearings, and I think it may be happening here.
Nice to see a lefty admit that John and Elizabeth Edwards are using a controversy involving comments related to the death of their son to raise money.
How classy!
That's really the only point Coulter has made, aside from the obvious, that she wants to sell books.
Terri Schiavo ring a bell, Max?
Has anyone noticed that Max's only triad is Edwards or Kerry?
He can't comment on the shameless crap the GOP pulled regarding Terri Schiavo. Bill Frist, a doctor making a diagnosis WITHOUT EVER seeing the patient. GOP and the President flying back to vote but the President was somehow unable to return from a campaign fundraising for Katerina victims.
Max you need a new gig.
I didn't know I'd been asked about Ms. Schiavo, but since everything still revolves around you and you need to know, I think Frist acted deplorably in that case.
As best summed up by a show you've never watched:
Democrats were right for the wrong reasons, and the GOP was wrong for the right reasons.
(you sure are off-topic for someone who whines a lot about those who go off-topic)
That was actually a good South Park episode. It was entertaining it was NOT however insightful political commentary the left was right for the RIGHT reasons and the right was wrong PERIOD.
Obviously, Ms. Coulter has never had a loved one pass away.
She does love to dish it out, but when people stand up to her, she can't take it all.
I just don't get why responsible republicans don't blast her. If she were
a liberal and said similar things about conservatives, they'd call for a boycott that would make what they did to the Dixie Chicks seem like a garden party.
The republicans like to talk about civility, but I guess that's all it is-- just talk.
The answer to your question of why responsible Republicans don't blast her is that it's getting harder to find a responsible Republican these days.
If there were as many as were told there are, they'd have distanced themselves from Coulter.
I haven't read of any reports about Republican who've said that talk of dead children and dead brothers should be off limits.
I was out at the store a lttle while ago..walked by the hardware section, saw some rolls of silver duct tape. All of a sudden, a image popped into my head...the image of a strip of that tape sealing her mouth. It would match her eyes and yet contrast with her blonde hair...
Dude, Come on, that is something she would say. You are better than that, I hope.
Exactly. Besides, let her speak. It demonstrates what regressives are really about. Hate, anger, lies, hypocrisy, impotence. It's tragic, really.
Fried,
I'm going to cut him a break on this one. I remember when Annie C got the pie in the face, my initial response and correct response to that incident was that the young man was absolutely wrong for physically assaulting her, and that he should face consequences for his actions. After wiping the cream from her bony face Ann gleefully pondered the possibility that the young man would be raped while incarcerated for assaulting her. You know what my thought was after that? It was a brief and rather scary thought, but my thought was how much I would like to throw a pie in her face with a brick in it. Now as I said it was a fleeting thought because I would never do such a thing to anyone. This just goes to the power of Annie’s infectious hate, for a brief second a peace loving Christian woman like me wanted to give another human being a beat down. What can I say, I'm human and I hope God forgives me for that moment of darkness.Lynn,
You are absolutely right. I was just pointing out what he was saying. When I have said similar or thought similar, I have always been very thankful for someone pointing it out to me. I am not thinking he feels this way, just asking him to notice what he wrote. Trust me, I am not making any type of judgment here.
So John Edwards goes around and tells everyone about the death of his son and how much it meant to him for the rest of his life AND claims (sometimes) that he never told the story to anyone or shared it before and Ann Coulter points this out...much the same Bob Shrum did in his recent book...
Where is the MMFA item on Shrum? Where is the Elizabeth Edwards call in to Shrum?
FYI - the Elizabeth Edwards call-in was planned in advance with the help of MSNBC.....still waiting to see that one on Fox News.
Hey, imagine that, MSNBC didn't sandbag Annie. Both she and Mrs. Edwards were aware that they would be speaking.
That's right. Mrs Edwards SAID she called earlier and asked to call in on the show. The PRODUCER said the next day that Coulter WAS TOLD in advance that Mrs Edwards may call in on the show. Then Mrs Edwards ACTUALLY called in ON THE SHOW. Ooooohhh, BIG SCANDAL. Why would MMFA post a NON-STORY?
Max 41, Taz an GRHINIO are of a piece. That is they are Trolls who should go back under the bridge, never to see the light of day.
Just like their herorine, Mancoulter.
If we wouldn't feed em, they'd go away.
Uneasyone,
You make a very good point. If we would stop replying to their silly posts, maybe they'd go away. I wholeheartedly agree. Henceforth, I will not respond to posts from these alleged conservatives.
Maybe if we ignore them they'll just go back to brainwashing themselves with Fox News and Michelle Malkin.
Good for you Four30 !
Show these people how closed-minded you are!
Attaboy!
Max 41, Taz an GRHINIO are of a piece. That is they are Trolls who should go back under the bridge, never to see the light of day.
Just like their herorine, Mancoulter.
Yeah, but I'm glad they come here. If I ever feel like I don't have the energy to vote , it's good to be reminded that this part of our Fellow Americans has an equal vote to the other part that is paying attention.
Notice that GRHINO is with us again but no one has heard from RINO Hunter since last week?
I notice that AA is also AWOL.
Not that there are similarities, but it's starting to look as if the opposition is using the tag team system.
And is Tommy still in France (Not that Tommy is a troll)?
This is all about the Edwards campaigh getting needed attention and Ms. Coulter selling books. The FACT that both got what they wanted and needed proves, once again, controversal matters works in the media, and gets people talking about whatever the subject covers.
Coulter is irrelevant. She doesn't address the issues; she probably doesn't even know about the issues. She is geting a lot more attention then she deserves. It sells books, I guess. She's less than nothing.
When Coulter isn't sacrificing goats and drinking their blood she is spreading the disease of cynicism. Her sociopathy is total disregard for the humanity of others. She has no empathy for the human frailties of sentiment for lost loved ones. She doesn't give a damn what you have lost, only about how she can screw you to get rich and influence book buyers. They are adding a new circle in hell just for her.
Quite right. I mean, that kind of rhetorical cheap-shot is downright unforgivable. It's so pathetic to attack an opponent from the safety of a conditional or counterfactual statement. It would be like someone saying, "Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'f4ggot,' so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."
Of course, no one with any credibility would dare make such a statement and then criticize someone else for using precisely the same rhetorical strategy.
Two additional things Ann Coulter has said in the current spate of her narcissistic and histrionic rage:
She mentioned that Monica Lewinsky was a “chubby Jewish girl”. She mentioned in the conversation with Scarborough that a candidate (Kerry), had used the fact that he discovered he had a Jewish relative. “What they were talking about was either they're running for president either because they had a dead relative -- "Vote for me!" -- or had suddenly discovered a Jewish heritage.”
In both cases, what does Jewish heritage have to do with the conversation? Coulter, in her histrionic clouded thought process, is clearly on the edge of blurting out ant-Semitic remarks. The slightest push and she will make Mel Gibson look cal and controlled.
Then Coulter insults the intellectual capacity of the heart of Republican America, South Carolina, when she states;”As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries”, (in reference to John Edwards work as a trial lawyer). So South Carolina juries are illiterate Ann? Sounds like Yankee elitism to me Ann.
Give her some credit. Maybe she was including George Allen in that "suddenly discovered Jewish heritage" remark.
Ya think? Me neither.
So, I guess the bottom line here is that Coulter lied about Mrs. Edwards lying about her column. I did look it up with the help of Taz's link and found Mrs. Edwards to be accurate.
Here is the ironic thing to me: If I was to claim someone was lying about my work, I would have my work in front of me and read the inaccuracy on the air especially if I was calling into a national show. That might be just me though. As an attorney, Coulter should know better than to just hurl a baseless accusation when she so easily, if the event happened, back it up.
Ann is just lacking experience.
The experience of a parent making you hold a bar of soap between your teeth for a full two minuets when you say something vile.
Of course Herr Coulter neglects to mention that George H. W. Bush was bringing up his own deceased child at least as early as the 1988 campaign, and probably in the earlier campaigns as well.
And in Poppy's case it wasn't an offhand remark in an interview but a calculated response in a debate.
Of course!
The big C is a professional troll - one that has made the big time.
They distort and lie -then accuse their opponents of the tactics they employ.
They're never exactly on point; when you're wrong, you lose an honest debate. If you can confuse the issue, irritate your opponent, shift ground when your opponent scores a point, get them responding to insults rather than issues you can appear to win even if you haven't won a single point. By the time the discussion is over, nobody remembers the original point.
We have plenty of trolls on this site who do an excellent job of derailing threads. Rarely do they make a valid and relevant point in the discussion at hand, they often succeed in framing the debate however. Good practice for keeping up with the crap in the MSM, really a waste of time to deal with. They aren't going to change their minds - or ours.
Gee Max,
What Elizabeth Edwards was inferring was that if the right people were running this country, we'd funding medical research and stuff like that instead of figuring out how to make all of Bush's friends even richer on the backs of the rest of us.
Nice try, though.