MSNBC's Jansing asked Edwards: "Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?"
On the June 28 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Chris Jansing interviewed Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, about her exchange with right-wing pundit Ann Coulter on the June 26 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, in which Edwards asked Coulter to stop making "personal attacks" against her husband and others. At one point during the interview, Jansing said to Edwards: "There are people who support your opinion, I'm sure you know, who say, 'Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?' "
Jansing followed up her question by asking Elizabeth Edwards: "Was this about fundraising? Was this about provoking an argument to get publicity for your husband's campaign?" Edwards responded: "Well, I think that you can check with the NBC bookers that I had nothing to do with booking Ann Coulter before the end of the fundraising quarter."
Meanwhile, the June 28 broadcast of Today featured National Review White House correspondent Byron York suggesting an equivalence between Coulter's rhetoric and the Edwards campaign's response to it, claiming that people "outside of the political world" would be as upset with the fact that the Edwards campaign highlighted Elizabeth Edwards' confrontation with Coulter in their fundraising effort as they would be with Coulter's remarks. According to York: "As they say in the business world, there was a revenue component for both sides about this. If anybody on the outside of the political world were to look at it, I think they might just look at it and say, you know, a pox on both your houses."
From the June 28 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: Joining me now, the woman who took on Ann Coulter, Elizabeth Edwards. Good morning, Mrs. Edwards.
EDWARDS: Good morning, Chris.
JANSING: Ann Coulter has said so many controversial things about your husband for years, really. Why did you decide to call in? Why now?
EDWARDS: Well, you know, when she said some things back in maybe March about John and a lot of people pulled their -- a lot of newspapers pulled her column from their papers, then we had some silence, and I thought, well, perhaps the economic consequences would make a difference, finally, in this hate speech. And then, apparently, it didn't. She spoke on ABC, I heard about it. And then, when I found out she was going to be on Hardball, on a call-in show, I thought, you know, maybe it's time, finally, for someone simply to do what maybe no one ever asked her to do, which was just to stop and to think about the effect she was having on the political dialogue. Not her alone, mind you --
JANSING: But did you really think she was going to stop?
EDWARDS: Well, I really thought there was a chance, and still hope that there's a chance, that what will happen is that people will be inspired to say, "I agree," and to speak out against it, to have the same kind of impact they had on their newspapers when they wrote in and said, "We're not interested in reading her anymore." If people will call the radio stations, the television stations, the newspapers, and say, "We don't want hate speech," we'll be able to rid ourselves of it. We actually did it in the South, you know, people speaking out against racist language. Decent people taking the time and using -- having the courage to speak out when someone used racist terms made a difference. Racist language is no longer part of the dialogue -- civic dialogue in the South.
JANSING: There are people who support your opinion, I'm sure you know, who say, "Why even dignify it with a response? Why give Ann Coulter more publicity?"
EDWARDS: Well, I completely understand that, but if being quiet about it, if being submissive about it meant that she would eventually stop and go away, that hasn't worked. I actually wrote a letter which I -- the campaign in 2003 said I shouldn't send, and I did not -- I wrote it in November of 2003 about her making fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, of our own son's death, of the murder of Senator Kennedy's brothers, and even of the cancer of Dick and Jane Gephardt's son. This is intolerable, it's been going on a long time. Someone needs to say "stop." I hope that I'm not alone in doing it.
JANSING: Well, skeptics, as you know, also have said that this is nothing more than a fundraising ploy, that after all this happened, an email went up on your website, and, in fact, as I understand, you got one of the best responses so far to any email campaign. Was this about fundraising? Was this about provoking an argument to get publicity for your husband's campaign?
EDWARDS: Well, I think that you can check with the NBC bookers that I had nothing to do with booking Ann Coulter before the end of the fundraising quarter. I was simply listening to what was said, and, I mean, everybody gets to the point where they've had enough. Now, we are asking people to get engaged, you know, honestly in our campaign, or in another campaign, or in an effort to speak out against this kind of language. The point we made in the fundraising campaign -- and if it's been successful, which I don't actually know, but if it's been successful, it's been because people are making a choice between -- about what it is they want. Do they want campaigns if substance where we talk about real policies and real ideas, or do they want this kind of name-calling? And if it's been successful, it's been successful because that's what people want.
From the June 28 broadcast of Today:
DAVID GREGORY (NBC chief White House correspondent): But on Tuesday, Elizabeth Edwards called in to MSNBC's Hardball to say enough is enough. For the Edwards campaign, it was a calculated step to speak out against what it calls hate speech. And it seized on the exchange immediately for a fundraising pitch on its website.
YORK: As they say in the business world, there was a revenue component for both sides about this. If anybody on the outside of the political world were to look at it, I think they might just look at it and say, you know, a pox on both your houses.
Hopefully Ms. Jansing will ask the same of her bosses at NBC.
She should also ask the same question of herself. After all, she did a segment about it. Apparently she doesn't sense the hypocrisy there.
Although, that is true, I believe the questions were fair. I think it is pretty fair to ask questions that have been bouncing around the Right-wing blogosphere as long as Mrs. Edwards is given the opportunity to respond.
Although, I am glad this article is here so it can be discussed and examined, I have to wonder what the "misinformation" is. Mrs. Edwards answered the questions very well. We should be glad Mrs. Edwards had that opportunity. Most of the time TV conservatives just make these statements without an opportunity for a response.
Edwards' responses were terrific, but the way this entire segment was framed was inherently hypocritical. It's not that the questions were unfair; it's that they were ridiculous, particularly when they're coming from the network that gave Coulter the airtime in the first place. They do an entire hour with live callers, and Jansing has the nerve to tell one of those callers that she's only giving Coulter more publicity? That's outrageous.
You make a good point. I can see what you mean.
The reason you can't dignify it by not saying anything is because it doesn't work. Why do you think O'Reilly, Savage, Bork and everyone else keep bringing us up after saying they'll never mention us ever? It only took them a few months to change their minds because they remembered that telling us to turn the channel finally backfired on them.
Now it's time to open up another can of whup @ss, Coulter is going down. And when we are done stomping her hate speach into the ground, Savage is next...
So Ms. Edwards gets involved in the conversation and is described as performing a calclated political act. In this venue any act could be so described. Other motves are freely ignored.
On the whole pretty sad MSNBC.
If you watch the E. Edwards clip on Hardball, you can see that it drives the big C crazy that the Edwards campaign is using this to raise money. In fact, this has given the fading Edwards campaign a big boost. What delicious irony!
Dems are ready for a candidate that will fight back against the wingnut noise machine. I support Edwards because he made his fortune standing up for the little guy against the big corporations. If he failed to stand up to this lying harridan, I'd have to change my mind.
He didn't stand up against Coulter...his wife did.
That's a great move for a milquetoast...but not a presidential wannabe.
Then Bush should resign, after having had Laura and Cheney stick up for him time after time.
Don't forget Barney!
Or his useless mother.
Women may take subordinate roles in conservative families, but loving progressive families share responsibility equally.
Actually, John was interviewed the next day (and you've probably seen the clip) and followed up on what his wife had said the day before. I'm sure that if the first call had been made by John, you'd have accused him of picking on a girl.
Scared, aren't you? Your day is past. The country is waking up to you wingnuts and all you can do is call names.
He didn't stand up against Coulter...his wife did.
That's a great move for a milquetoast...but not a presidential wannabe.
- wesley / Thursday June 28, 2007 08:42:49 PM EST
If you have evidence that he was cowering in the corner while Elizabeth made the call, Wesley, present it.
That's what I thought.
Would you have preferred that she'd muttered to John to "just wave and say we're doing all we can."
If Coulter looked like Phyllis Schaffley, she'd be on TV every bit as often as Phyllis Schaffley. They've got the same bogus, bigoted views. Where's Phyllis?
She's simply the same untruth in better packaging.
Elizabeth gave birth to the child whose death Coulter was cackling about. She was standing up for herself, not her husband and she needs no one's permission to do it. That talking point is going to have no legs at all.
Wesley, if John Edwards had been the one to call in and respond to her, Coulter would start playing the victim card and all of the kool-aid drinkers would be crying from the other side of their mouths about how Edwards was bullying the poor little she-wolf of the SS. When that venomous bone-bag opens her trap, the question of calling her out or letting it lie is a no-win proposition in either direction since her knuckle dragging followers will find some reason to keep gabbing away regardless of the outcome
Disagree, Mrs. Edwards made a mistake by being a invited caller in that Ms. Coulter could cut out what she was saying by talking over her anytime Mrs Edwards tried to make her point. Overall though, both accomplised what they wanted, attention.
Oh, Ann tried that, but failed miserably, because EE would not back down. Did you miss the applause Edwards received?
The alternative you're implying is simply not acceptable. The people Coulter attacks personally, for money, aren't the ones who get to book the TV shows. ignoring the problem makes many people believe there's nothing wrong with personal attacks and lies. Look at what happened when the Swift Boat Liars attacked Kerry and he tried not to dignify the lies with a response. His poll #s dropped significantly. It's time to say NO to these bottom feeders.
The degree to which MSNBC and NBC have been acting as overt Coulter apologists, you'd think she had incriminating photos of persons other than just Tweety in compromising positions.
This is so insane. The press asks Elizabeth Edwards why she might call in to ask this woman to stop attacking her family?!! There is such a disconnect here, the press follows the frame of the right like perfect little lapdogs no matter how vile.
If a Republican running was treated the way that Edwards has been, you can imagine how much blow-back there would be. Not to mention family members...
Even more so is the utter disconnect of that MSNBC talking head to ask that question of Edwards without having asked the same question of ... MSNBC!!!
In fact, when Bush Sr. was running, the press got onto rumors of a longstanding affair. Bush said it was shameful and untrue and that he wouldn't speak of it again. The press then obediently dropped the story!
Contrast that with the treatment that any Democrat gets.
ann coulter is just like a waste treatment plant. If no one in a community exposes the location of it then no one knows where it is. YOU might move down wind from it. Olfactory gland removal surgery is not cheap.
Recent news indicates that some Chinese farmers are feeding their hogs waste water in order to fatten them up for slaughter. I envision a cartoon based on that, with Ann as the farmer and right wing nuts as the hog.
as an artist that theme has many possibilities. I understand coulter tried to donate her living corps to great white shark research as living chum. The researchers declined saying: we don't feed sharks "poop on a stick"
Just ignoring Ann Coulter and her ike allows these people to gain power and visibility. Left unchallenged they go about destroying this country and reducing discourse to name calling and lies. No more. By confronting them with civility, rationality and logically, as Elizabeth Edwards did, it exposes them for the weak-minded cowards they are and gives others the appropriate model, particularly young adults, to emulate. If you noticed, it was Edwards that received the applause while Coulter sounded like a child throwing a tantrum. AND yea, I sent money to the Edwards campaign as positive reinforcement. I'd like to see more of this sort of behavior (standing up to BushCo and their constitutents if they really believe in what they're doing) from our congressional leaders as well.
While it was refreshing to see someone stand up to Ann Coulter and confront her, it did seem to be a politically calculated and desperate move for a failing campaign on the Edwards part. I can't see Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama endorsing their spouses to lend any credibility to Coulter by even acknowledging her. I think they would have been politically savvy enough to arrange to have other surrogates to take Coulter on, preferably no one related to them, or on their payroll.
Ann Coulter is like an annoying mosquito, a columnist with a poison pen, and the world would be a nicer place if someone stuffed a sock in her mouth or sewed her fingers together. But you only give Coulter VIP status when a Presidential campaign, and in this case the wife of the candidate makes a controversial columnist an issue by getting into a verbal joust with her. They should let others do their dirty work while they stay above the fray.
I can't see Obama or Clinton doing this either - mainly because she hasn't attacked them with the same vitriol she used against Edwards.
I don't understand this concern over using the confrontation for fundraising. People donate money because they care about an issue - they are outraged by Coulter, and they should be. Republicans get outraged by things Howard Dean or Michael Moore say, and they use them as part of their fundraising pitch. There's nothing wrong with that. The only difference is that this was an in person confrontation. It isn't unlikely that Clinton or Obama will use a quote from Coulter in a fundraising appeal either.
The fundraising aspect just raises the question of whether Coulter is a net liability for the Republicans. I'm mystified as to why some seem to imply it reflects poorly on Edwards.
"I don't understand this concern over using the confrontation for fundraising."--ann coulter
No doubt ann has any problem with the increased book sales caused by the controversy. Why shouldn't the victim of the situation cash in? Is it only fair for the moronic bully to make money off of her bullying?
It is nice to see ann's attempted tactic backfire in such an ironic way. I don't like Edwards much, but it would be nice to see him gain from the attack on him. The essence of irony.
Oops. Sorry, manjusri. I accidentally attributed your quote to ann. I didn't mean to do that.
it is most sad that it isn't actually the press asking coulter, if and when they do talk to her (which they should do far less than they do), why she won't' stop attacking edwards' family. her response has been "he charges $50,000 to speak to the poor", "he exploits his son's death", and "he bankrupts doctors with trumped up lawsuits preventing them from delivering babies" and the like. all of which is immediately refutable, but never do the pundits have the info on hand to challenge her. refuse to see it coming, won't bother to find out. that said, in purely empirical terms, there can be no question that this gave coulter more publicity. but its not any kind of calculated act meant to generate revenue on elizabeth's part. on the other hand, people are a little too narrow in their definitions of what it means to 'stand up to' someone. doing so can take many forms, not all of them direct.
Ann Coulter puts a knife in Elizabeth Edward's back. Elizabeth Edwards screams out she's bleeding. Chris Jansig then asked Edwards, "you wouldn't tell anyone that you're bleeding from a period why would you tell anyone you're bleeding in the back?"
Eliaabeth Edwards = AMAZING GRACE!
Byron York made the most accurate statement, he repeated almost what I have said earlier in that both got attention. The Edwards campaigh and book sales for Coulter.
Are you temporally challenged? If not, ask yourself this simple question: which came first, MSNBC's booking Ann Coulter and allowing her to spew, or Elizabeth Edwards' very reasonable request that AC no longer spew her well-paid venom?
If you have evidence that ANYONE on the Edwards campaign ever said anything negative about Ann Coulter without her first attacking someone in that family personally (NOT on the issues), please present it. Otherwise, please take your trollish behavior elsewhere.
My complaint is with everyone calling Ann Coulter a pundit. As discredited as the word "pundit" is it does not cover Coulter. I searched Roget's and came up with some suggestions for what to call her. The first thing I thought of is "bomb thrower."
Roget's includes the following:
Take your choice or add more names for Ann Coulter. Just stop calling her a pundit.
You left out the two most important things about her. 1. I don't know and 2. She makes a whole lot of money.
I agree with you. She's no pundit and she's certainly no journalist, even considering that journalism is becoming an increasingly discredited profession (ref. David Gregory, Chris Matthews, Britt Hume, John Stossel, The Washington Post, etc.).
I would suggest some additions to your list of possible terms to describe Coulter: harpy, shrew, fishwife, gorgon, misanthrope, back-biter, and yenta.
Let's stop giving her credibility by calling her a pundit.
Coming next: Elizabeth Edwards is asked why she's so sorry that her son died, since she's gotten a lot of great publicity out of it. "Sure there was a loss side to it, but you gained a lot too, didnt you?"
Let's go back to asking women why they are publicizing the fact that they were raped- "you said you were embarressed because of the rape, but you pressed charges- why did you do that? Nobody would know about the rape if you hadnt brought it to our attention..."
"A Pox on both your houses"- Sure, Ann Coulter may have been wrong to accuse Elizabeth Edwards of using her son's death for political gain, question her husband's sexuality, etc. but Elizabeth Edwards was equally wrong in- demanding an apology? Jesus, Whatever.
Thank you.
A response:
"Why dignify it with a response?"
"Because you did. You dignified her with an entire hour of Hardball. And if we said nothing, you'd continue to dignify her over and over."
What they're asking, over and over, was 'how dare she respond?" And of course, they ask it of Byron York.
Hay MSNBC, It Is Time To Question Your Conduct
The executives over at MSNBC must find their efforts concerning Ann Coulter and John & Elizabeth Edwards an honest attempt to get to the bottom of things. And, as a follow up, try to clarify that all intentions, mostly on the Edwards’ behave, were admirable. After all, they use the “big boys”, Chris Matthews, and now David Gregory, to work this whole affair for everything they could.
How did all this come about anyway. Oh yea, I recall Matthews used Coulter to generate ratings by having her on for a whole hour. To make sure the ratings gained a boost, Matthews went into “Hardball” mode and allowed Edwards to call in and confront Coulter on using her dead son to advance her shock nasty tactic. Matthews, who knew all along Edwards had sent out donation letters to also capitalize on Coulter’s nasty insulting habit, sees a avenue to make the Edwards look like a superficial money hungry politicians, and he proceeds to do so. Now, I want you to take notice to who is driving this “car” so far: MSNBC.
Enter David Gregory, who is Mr Cream of the Crop over at MSNBC, who put his own don’t mess with me logic into the the matter. Gregory, feeling like he was on a role, decides to ask Edwards if she lessen HER standards by addressing Coulter’s slam on her dead child and loving husband. In affect, Gregory is asking Edwards why did you speak up for yourself. He went on to say, after the first slam did not work, underneath Mr Edwards is just another superficial politician bent on 400 dollar haircuts, while all the time pretending to help the poor.
Keep in mind, MSNBC is driving this whole episode, from start to, I hope it’s over, finish. They should be suspected for smelling like the crap they disturbed, the manipulation they used to do this, and the dishonest way they went about it. We should ask the executives to changes seats with Elizabeth Edwards so we can ask them a few questions.
Joseph
Today's column from Ann is titled "THAT WAS NO LADY — THAT WAS MY HUSBAND"
She really let loose today...letting out a stream of attacks on everyone including Matthews....saying that she "doubled the ratings of the lowest-rated cable news show" when she went on to promote the paperback version of her book, and added that it's "a mistake I won't make again".
YEA!...does this mean no more Ann on Hardball or MSNBC?
She attacks the media and "nut web sites" for truncating, and concocting a quote from her quote from Good Morning America. It's interesting that MMFA included the transcript with full quote, as did many other web sites that I found during search results
As expected, she attacks the media and Ms. Edwards claiming again, that they are spreading "bald-faced lies".
Ann claims that her terrorist joke about Edwards made liberals cry......but after this article, and her recent interviews, it looks more like Ann is the one crying.
Ann must not know the difference between crying and getting angry. I'm not rolled up in a corner sucking my thumb because she "joked" about a terrorist attack against Edwards, I'm angry and I'm doing something about it. I hope everyone joins me and writes in to Hardball, MSNBC, and any other source deploring their decision to continue to carry Coulter. Unless I'm mistaken, what you say still does have consequences. It can't continue to be one way - we've seen liberal journalists fired for saying bush was cowering in a bunker, we've seen liberal journalists fired for contributing donations to liberal candidates, but these conservatives can shoot off their mouths with zero fear of repercussions?
Time to make a stand against biased standards of the right.
STOP STOP STOP STOP Calling Coulter a Pundit!!!!!The definition of pundit is "a learned person, expert, or authority."If you continue to describe Ann Coulter as a pundit, then you are helping promote her career, and are showing an inability to discern fiction from reality, and an inability to differentiate someone who is "learned" from someone who is a hate-monger.You have bought into her performance art.Might I suggest you choose from more appropriate terms...i.e.,Harpy: "a scolding, nagging, bad-tempered woman; shrew; a greedy, predatory person."Blowhard: "an exceptionally boastful and talkative person"Gasbag: "a talkative, boastful person; windbag."Ranter: "someone who speaks or declaims extravagantly or violently; talks in a wild or vehement way; raves"Windbag: "an empty, voluble, pretentious talker."Blusterer: "Someone who is noisy, makes empty threats or protests; offers inflated talk"
I'll call her a "conservative pundit" and assume the rest of the definitions you listed are included in those words ;).
When Dan Rather said CBS news had been dumbed down, he was immediately called sexist because the new host was a woman. Because, you see, the only reason a man can ever have a problem with the quality of a woman's work is because he is sexist. John Edwards certainly would have received the same criticism had he gone after Coulter.
But to echo previous points ... yes, Chris Jansing, why give Ann Coulter more publicity? Please ask it of the network that had her on in the first place.
Sociopaths do not feel many normal human emotions like empathy, but they can feel humiliation and embarrassment. Anyone who heard Coulter's pathetic whining on Morning Joe the next morning knows that is what she is feeling over this entire Elizabeth Edwards incident. This should end once and for all the debate about whether she should "just be ignored." Of course she shouldn't. The counter attacks are getting to her and she is starting to beg for sympathy which makes her look weak. She can be as offensive as she wants but looking weak is something the corporate media that endlessly promotes her will not tolerate. The way to get the Coultergeist off of our tv sets therefore is to make her whine in public. Lets get at it.
Well said, as are many other comments in this thread.
Bullies are the biggest whiners when they are called on their cowardly, nasty behavior.
I agree with Edwards, what is with this publicist's hysteria surrounding the witch anyway? www.wikepedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter I'm getting sick of her mug up here on mediamatters, and her record clearly indicates she's another republican rogue who's even been investigated for falsifying precinct and address in another Florida voting fraud fiasco. Soooo'weeee what a former corporate atturkey and pro-fascist pig.
More alarming, her childish estimation of the 9-11 attack and what role the Dept. of Transportation didn't support by way of airline passenger list screening is obviously more flak thrown up to conceal the sabotage that occurred at the FBI Ed Bradley of CBS 60 MINUTES reported. She's a hack operative, disinformation agent of domestic insurgent terrrorism for the wacko-revolutionary republican front. Nowhere in her jingo fantasy can she even go there, the fact the FBI interfered with the Transportation Safety Acts of '93-'94 by assaulting their own Arabic translator (an officer charged with upholding the laws and in the line of duty). She's just prevaricating a whitewash of grey propaganda for the factual derelictions of duty, nonfeasance and collaboration in the whole pyrotechnics, airliner collision false pretense---and should be behind bars with the rest of them under many laws in the USC put there to protect America from her meddling and fellow bedbugs.
I fully support the Edwards' right to respond. It matters not if personal or political - motive does not matter, the facts and strength of argument matter. Their argument was weakened however in that Annie is correct that her remarks were taken out of context by many (with the whole Bill Maher portion of the GMA interview truncated).
What the Edwards should have realized (as should all Dem candidates) is that Annie is already barely hanging on at the margins - the way to respond is to further marginalize. When JOHN Edwards was asked for comment, he should have said: "Who, Ann who? Oh right, that hate-mongering harpy who thinks liberals need to be influenced with baseball bats and all Muslims should be killed. What was it she said about me? . . . Really?, Well isn't she precious. And WALK ON without another word.
Tbone said:
".....When JOHN Edwards was asked for comment, he should have said: "Who, Ann who? Oh right, that hate-mongering harpy who thinks liberals need to be influenced with baseball bats and all Muslims should be killed. What was it she said about me? . . . Really?, Well isn't she precious. And WALK ON without another word......."
Let's imagine what could happen after a fast spin and wash in the right wing media machine ...........
Right wing host: "And at the top of my stories....it appears that the stress of falling numbers may be taking a toll on John Edwards, or maybe Ann Coulter is a little too close to the truth? Today Edwards was asked to comment about Coulter's remarks, but the Breck Boy snapped at them like a woman on her period. Hey John, maybe a trip to the haridresser and spa would loosen you up a little? Lighten up already."
But that's just the first show. It doesn't stop with there....spreading like a virus across radio and TV, others in the right wing media would not criticize the host, but would also ask...has John Edwards has snapped.....is a second campaign and his wife's illness just too much for him...can he handle the presidency if he can't handle questions from the media?
Then, the news reports are documented by MMFA with actual transcripts, links, or video. The various offenders go back on the air or in print, and tell the country that the evil left web sites have attacked them again, and have twisted their words. In the mean time, millions of viewers/readers/listeners have been saturated with the image that John Edwards snapped at the media, or is losing it............just another day in right wing media.
Why is it that someone is thought of as conniving or manipulative just because of the timing of a phone call? Ann Coulter has been spewing this invective for YEARS about so many people. The only thing to be gained from such language was the continuance of Ann Coulter's reputation for having a foul mouth, not to mention that she doesn't use facts, just insults.
Maybe, just maybe, Mrs. Edwards really did feel that she had heard enough, that the country had heard enough. Because she loves her husband and this country, perhaps she simply chose this occasion to ask Coulter to stop.
Not everyone is guilty of masterminding these types of things. Some people just want intelligent discussion without the backbiting and insults. Some people would like to see a clean campaign, for a change. A lot of people want to know about the issues, not the personal goings-on of a candidate, and especially when those goings-on are related to us via the hate-filled, scrambled and slanted descriptions of Coulter.
There is absolutely no reason to think that Elizabeth Edwards timed this phone call for any personal gain. Sadly, we have become a suspicious nation of people, from the most lowly to the upper echelons of reportage, thinking that everyone in the public eye has a personal agenda.
Mrs. Edwards...a mother who had a child die....Ms. Coulter..a MOTHER_ _ _ _ _ _......Defend Ms. Coulter, from what, the truth. She is a USER. There is a price to pay and it seems that people are finally saying.."enough". I certainly hope so. She made her money now she can go away.
Mrs. Edwards, I salute you...you didn't like what she said about YOUR family, you can say what you want...you are also paying a price but reasonable people will say KEEP IT UP.
The beauty of Elizabeth Edwards' call to Ann Coulter was that she began, remained and finished her request in civil, dignified language and tone of voice. The contrast between the two women and their "style" couldn't be missed-Edwards was mature, respectful and articulate, and Coulter was spiteful, pejorative and reduced to dishonest mischaracterizing of the call.
The very subject of the call-to request a restoration of civility and decency in political discussion-is the dagger in the heart of the hate merchants of the right wing. Without the smears and misrepresentations, they must fall back on right wing, neocon ideas, and our 6 and a half year history with those ideas has repelled more than 70% of Americans.
They lose on ideas, and they will lose on "style". Americans are tired of the right wing mediots, and will reject them and their candidates by a huge majority. Coulter has had her day, made her $$, and she now fusses and lashes out, defensive that her hate speech is no longer given a free pass.
I just want to pass on something that I came across today that makes me think of a song years ago my kids used to joke about, when things just kept getting redundant and silly. To the best of my recollection, the title was: "And The Cat Came Back," referring to this cat that had innumerable lives, would be subjected to the most horrendous accidents, and the tag line invariably was; "And The Cat Came Back!!"
It seems that no matter how silly, vain, stupid, shrill......ad nauseum, Ann Coulter becomes, when she is talked down, rebutted, refuted, "The Cat Comes Back!!" Example in point: Today, Jonathan Fallwell sends out this newsletter from the Thomas Road Baptist Church, with the lead article titled; "Defending Ann," in an attempt to validate Ann's message of being taken advantage of, in the televised smackdown Mrs Edwards so eloquently applied to her.
If I were not so concerned about what type of world we are presently living in, and the fear of what future my children and grandchildren have in this world to come, this would have been good fodder for making jokes about how silly and stupid are the rants and comments of those that consider themselves leaders in our society. Sadly, the time for just laughing off these situations has far passed, we must begin to utilize our individual voices, to stand up and declare to the world that we DEMAND the attention and respect that is inherent in the term, "We The People!!"
I ask ALL that are interested, to look up this newsletter, read it, and ask yourself, is this the work of someone that truly believes and practices the faith that is supposedly espoused from the pulpit of this church? I know that all efforts are being made to offset the loss of his father and founder, Jerry Falwell, and the attempts here, are to fan the flames higher and continue in his footsteps.
Will the cat come back again?
I wonder how it sat with Ann's massive ego when she found out that many, many more people turned out in the middle of the night to watch Paris Hilton get out of jail than did for her little prime-time festival of lies on Hardball?
It's time for Ann Coulter to go away, nobody cares what she has to say anymore.