I stopped listening to her remarks on talk shows and reading her columns about 2 years ago when I found her schtick to be just as despicable as that of extreme Left nutjobs. Coulter’s remarks on the Today Show with Matt Lauer were so over-the-top that I cannot understand why anyone even pays attention to her anymore:
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:
[quoting from Coulter’s new book] “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”
And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about:
“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out?
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die–
LAUER: But aren’t they in the middle of the story?…
COULTER: …Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity. No, the story is…
LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly? What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.
COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.
Outside the Beltway has a link to the video excerpt from this interview.
She seems to have a desperate need for attention and feeds this by being more outrageous each time she opens her mouth. Why that’s the very thing I despise about the Looney Left. The irony here is that I myself would probably criticize the women Coulter speaks about, but to accuse them of “enjoying their husband’s death”? No, this is just as reprehensible as the blather from the Kossacks and their mentor in lunacy, Michael Moore.
Hat tip: Ace of Spades
UPDATE (from GPW): This is not the first time this blog has taken on Ms. Coulter. Just over a year ago, I noted that even some conservatives find her media persona hard to take.
AGJ,
Your transcript leaves out a significant chunk of interview before the “You are getting testy with me” line, including facial expressions and Lauer talking over her at length – thus quoting Coulter out-of-context.
I’m interested to know what your co-bloggers think of this. I am no Coulter fan. I’ve never bought one of her books. Sometimes she goes too far, yeah. But I have to say, the quote you chose to “nail” her is not the one I would have chosen if I wanted to build a devastating case against her. In fact: it’s pertinent.
We’ve been through this issue over Cindy Sheehan. It is one thing for a person to lose a family member – a great loss for which they deserve our sympathy, yes indeed. It is quite another thing for the person to “milk” their loss in a huge, public and destructive way as if it gives them some special knowledge or authority – which it does NOT – for political, financial, or narcissistic/attention gain.
Some of the 9-11 family members have been restrained and responsible in their public activities. A few of them, on the other hand, have indeed been as practically bad as Cindy Sheehan. My reaction in seeing the Coulter interview clip was “Whew… somebody said it!”
P.S. You said, “[for Coulter] to call them “griefparrazies”…”
Coulter didn’t call them that. She said they are STALKED BY “griefparrazzis”. In other words, they are celebrities, and the worst of them seem to revel in it. Whether her point is true or false, I just wanted to clear up the quote.
The jury is still out on Coulter for me. I enjoyed Treason quite a lot. It’s a fun and easy read and I felt like I learned a lot. I’m in the middle of Slander right now. I think she is tactless and bold, sometimes outright mean. But she says a lot of things that need to be said and without fear of what people (well liberal people anyway) will think of her. I think someone needs to do that and I’m glad someoen has to balls to.
I’m particularly leary of numbers she throws out to make a point. I don’t think she’s right all the time, but when she is right, she’s very right and she’s usually right on target about the tactics liberals use in place of sound debate, and that’s true even if she’s wrong on the particular topic being “debated”.
I meant to ask, does anyone have specific instances of her being homophobic? I’ve heard her accused of homophobia, racism, and sexism, but I’m curious what the specific instances were. Liberals frequently misquote her in their attacks. I need to hear it from a source that isn’t so biased against her. I saw the interview on Today and when Matt brought up FMA, she said nothing that was factual- that people are voting overwhelmingly and constently for anti-gay marriage laws in various states. It’s true, and as gay people, we need to accept reality and know how people feel if we hope to broaden their views. I’m sure she has expressed her personal views on the subject before but she didn’t in the interview. She seemed annoyed that Matt was avoiding talking about her book. I’m curious what TRULY homophobic statements she has made in the past. The TODAY interview didn’t have any, though liberals will mischaracterize it as so. My impression is she despises liberals, and I suspect what she hates is when liberal gays use the issue to promote leftism in general. But then, I can relate to that.
Correction: She said nothing that WASN’T factual on the TODAY show. That was just a typo that completely reversed the intended meaning. =\
Reminds me of Fred phelps. It’s also utterly random, the last time we saw any of these women was two yeas ago, when one of the made an ad for Kerry based on her belief that Bush wasn’t carrying out the suggestions of the 9/11 commision. Is anyone honestly tired of hearing from 9/11 widows? i can’t remember hearing from many of them at all. certainly not recently.
I have to also say, I am not offended by much, it’s a point of pride for me. But I was really mad about this. I’m sure she has had inciteful comments about things like liberal hypocricy and whatnot in the past, but weighing this particular statement on it’s own merits, I can say serious things have happened over less than this. that’s not any kind of threat, just a statement of fact
“I suspect what she hates is when liberal gays use the issue to promote leftism in general.”
My impression also. So I’d also love to hear from someone with more than “impressions” 🙂
I’ve heard she’s personally gay-accepting; even a fag hag. (Or was that Laura Ingraham? or both?) I don’t seem to hear her discuss gay issues often, except to skewer tone-deaf liberals.
I’d like to believe that she will finally sink into obscurity, but I’ve thought that many times before. The fact is: the right does not consider her “just as bad as Michael Moore.” She’s considered a serious member of the Republican movement — invited to speak as a representative of not just conservatives but Republicans. In terms of acceptance by the movement she’s more like Franken than Moore. Maybe you here think Franken is as bad as Coulter, but I’d say you’d have to comb over a few months of Franken’s show to find as much venom as a 10-minute Coulter appearance.
As long as its considered fun to watch someone repeatedly call large portions of the country inferior citizens and evil traitors, she will have a job.
(Kos and the liberals do that all time, you say? Well that makes it ok then. Carry on.)
As for the 9/11 families: well, I suppose we could not make such a big deal about that event. Maybe those widows are just like any other widow whose husbands demise was not part of a national tragedy. That’s a compelling case, but I don’t think we can have it both ways. Their views are given such a special status because 9/11 is given a special status. I assume Coulter supports the latter, so she’ll just have to tolerate the former (plus she literally gets paid to whine about it)
Your transcript leaves out a significant chunk of interview before the “You are getting testy with me” line, including facial expressions and Lauer talking over her at length – thus quoting Coulter out-of-context.
It’s not “my” transcript but one linked to Ace of Spades. Actually her remarking that Lauer was “getting testy” I didn’t even care about. Her comments about the 9/11 widows she disagrees with, which ironically I do as well, are another matter entirely.
I’m interested to know what your co-bloggers think of this.
I do not know but imagine they might let their views be known…
I am no Coulter fan. I’ve never bought one of her books. Sometimes she goes too far, yeah. But I have to say, the quote you chose to “nail” her is not the one I would have chosen if I wanted to build a devastating case against her. In fact: it’s pertinent.
I disagree. It’s the same kind of rhetoric I despise from Cindy Sheehan and nutjobs on the Left. I have no problem if Coulter or anyone else wants to criticize the public statements of leftists, I certainly enjoy doing it myself, but her characterization of these women was beyond the pale.
We’ve been through this issue over Cindy Sheehan. It is one thing for a person to lose a family member – a great loss for which they deserve our sympathy, yes indeed. It is quite another thing for the person to “milk” their loss in a huge, public and destructive way as if it gives them some special knowledge or authority – which it does NOT – for political, financial, or narcissistic/attention gain.
Charging them with exploiting the deaths of their loved ones, whether true or not in this case, is not the same as saying they are “happy” with their deaths. There is such a thing as tempering one’s rhetoric out of respect for the loss of those loved ones, not to mention the basic human dignity we all have. Btw, saying that they are just as mean isn’t a valid excuse.
Coulter didn’t call them that. She said they are STALKED BY “griefparrazzis”. In other words, they are celebrities, and the worst of them seem to revel in it. Whether her point is true or false, I just wanted to clear up the quote.
You’re right, my mistake in commenting incorectly on what the transcript and video clearly state. Mea culpa. I’ll change that.
#4 & 5: Just to be clear, I didn’t accuse her of “homophobia”. There may be some remarks she has made in the past that could be considered as such, but off the top of my head I cannot think of any.
Coulter exists in the world of “say it enough times and that will make it true, no matter how false it is”. over and over she makes bizarre statements about liberals that have no basis in fact and are constantly refuted. My favorite was her statement on Bill Maher’s show a while back saying that poverty has never been linked to crime: for decades, studies from liberal, conservative and non-partisan institutions find over and over again that poverty plays a huge part in crime.
I’ve heard she’s personally gay-accepting; even a fag hag. (Or was that Laura Ingraham? or both?) I don’t seem to hear her discuss gay issues often, except to skewer tone-deaf liberals.
Which I’d probably join in, but not to the extreme Coulter takes things in her criticism. I have no idea if Coulter or Ingraham are “fag hags” (a term I do not care for), but Ingraham does have a gay brother who has helped her moderate her views on the matter. I listen to her show when I can, it’s one of my favorite radio talk-shows, and she seems to be okay on gays though not agreeable to same-sex marriage. At least she isn’t like Coulter which is a good thing.
I’d say you’d have to comb over a few months of Franken’s show to find as much venom as a 10-minute Coulter appearance.
Perhaps. I wouldn’t know since Franken is the ultimate bore and his radio show, in a word, sucks. Liberals need better radio personalities if they ever want Air America to turn a profit let alone become any kind of real success.
Ann Coulter is an out of control crazy woman who entertains conservatives with her nasty, heartless and meaningless cheap shots. She’s a total homophobe, and I’ve heard her make nasty comments about us on the radio several times, a couple of times on Laura Ingraham’s show, and at least once on Sean Hannity’s (radio show, not TV). She hates us, our orientation, and everything about us. So go ahead, glbt repugs, keep the love flame burning for Ann. Make sure to spend your hard earned money on all of her books/paraphenalia she peddles (I understand she has an Ann Coulter doll for sale), so she can keep bashing us as the darling of conservative hate media. Btw, when will she finally come out as a mtf trannie??
#9 – I took the charge that the widows were “enjoying their husband’s death” as metaphorical. “It may as well be AS IF these women enjoy their husband’s death; don’t they have more shame?” That type of idea.
Coulter is a provocateur; that’s both her problem and her excuse. I don’t expect her to clip her metaphors. On the other hand, she often leaves too much doubt that, umm, maybe they aren’t metaphors. “Does she really mean that?”, we ask.
I took the charge that the widows were “enjoying their husband’s death” as metaphorical. “It may as well be AS IF these women enjoy their husband’s death; don’t they have more shame?” That type of idea.
No doubt that was the meaning she intended, but it is irrelevant. Words mean things and to use them in such a venomous fashion as this is not acceptable, particularly from someone who seems to relish in upping the bar on how outrageous she can be with every appearance.
Coulter is a provocateur; that’s both her problem and her excuse. I don’t expect her to clip her metaphors. On the other hand, she often leaves too much doubt that, umm, maybe they aren’t metaphors. “Does she really mean that?”, we ask.
Yep: that’s her problem. This is also why I consider her to be a nutjob and not someone worthy of the attention she gets. I myself would prefer to ignore her but unfortunately she gets responses because she keeps getting put on TV.
I can’t name one the 9/11 widows. I’m sorry, they aren’t celebrities. Her point I take it is that if cindy sheeha nor a 9/11 widow says something we don’ have to just take it as fact. does anyone take cindy sheehans leftist criticisms of Bush as unimpeacheable because her son died in iraq? obviously not, we are still there! and the 9/11 widows are millionaires because people gave them money. because they wanted too and because there husbands had died and could obviously no longer provide for them.
Also, people are conflating past good points coulter has made with this remark. I don’t think that’s right. Her calling it as she saw it on bill clinton doesn’t mean she’s right here. and the idea that 9/11 wasn’t any kind of personal loss for people who lost loved ones is ridiculous on it’s face
“but to accuse them of “enjoying their husband’s death”? No, this is just as reprehensible as the blather from the Kossacks and their mentor in lunacy, Michael Moore.”
Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, I can’t listen to them. They are the loony extreme on the right. The difference is that our former president Jimmy Carter, invited Michael Moore as his honored guest to the convention.
Ann gets invited to talk shows. She is not the face of the Republican Party.
she is not involved in official Republican events.
btw, National Review fired her years ago for a comment she made about muslims. So even NR, a very recognizable mouthpiece of the right won’t have anything to do with her any more.
Good point, Leah.
I forgot about Savage. I listened to a couple of his radio shows awhile ago and found them to be repugnant.
She said nothing that WASN’T factual on the TODAY show.
Well, she said this:
And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .
Remarks like that are beyond disgusting. There’s clearly something wrong there. That lack of feeling for others is sociopathic. That’s not political debate, it’s cruelty.
It’s not the points Ann Coulter tries to make, it’s the way she tries to make them.
Actually, I think that’s from the book, not from the Today Show. My mistake.
Ingraham does have a gay brother who has helped her moderate her views on the matter.
An off-topic question out of curiosity: does anyone know of an example of a prominent Republican/conservative who is a) strictly “socially conservative” on all issues, yet b) notably moderate on issues related to homosexuality but c) does not have a gay family member or similar “personal” reason used to explain b).
The topic arose during Bill Bennett’s Daily Show appearance and this Laura Ingram trivia reminded me of it.
Don’t you republicans think the Michael Moore comparison is a little out dated? farenheit 9/11 came out in mid 04 and he has doesn’t have a regular column or anything other than his website that I know of. I think it’s just a throwback to when the republican party was in better shape. He’s not really that radical either. Being against the Iraq war is entirely mainstream. whether you are or aren’t for it.
The difference is that our former president Jimmy Carter, invited Michael Moore as his honored guest to the convention. Ann gets invited to talk shows. She is not the face of the Republican Party. she is not involved in official Republican events.
Do fundraisers and College Republicans not count?
(speaking, not sitting in the audience as an obligatory invitee’s guest)
If not, certainly Carter’s unilateral action is not very a good example of an endorsement by the party organization.
#19 and #20 — Interesting that you bring up Michael Savage. I listen to his radio show some (not a whole lot) because a like to hear what kind of propaganda ‘the enemy’ is putting out there (I use that term cautiously — I’m smart enough to know that he doesn’t speak for the entire conservative population). Ironically, he does bring up some good points, a few of which I agree with sometimes (God help me). But yes, he’s another nutcase, allbeit entertaining in small doses–the male Ann Coulter counterpart.
Do fundraisers and College Republicans not count?
(speaking, not sitting in the audience as an obligatory invitee’s guest)
I’m not saying that the Republican party shuns Ann Coulter, (though I”m glad to say they do shun Michael Savage). Inviting someone to talk at a fund raiser or college is a political action. But it is not like having Michael Moore out there campaigning. Or being honored at the convention.
Every side has its’ loonies, the problem is that the left is much more inclusive of their loonies into mainstream serious politics.
John is not alone in critisizing Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt (he of the wonderful interview with Mary Cheney) just said the exact same thing an hour ago on the radio. That is political maturity, he is a great supporter of the Republican party, and he would like to distance himself and conservatives from her inflamatory rhetoric.
Ann Coulter’s positions on issues are irrelevant. If she wishes to be critical of some of the positions of 9/11 widows – go ahead.
But she can be critical without being disgusting, venomous, cruelly insulting and, in the vast majority of cases, wrong.
Can’t everyone IGNORE Coulter, and hope (pray?) that she simply slinks away?
For all of you who are so intent on criticizing Ann Coulter about her “9/11 widows” comment before even understanding the metaphor, let me enlighten you:
Ann is referring to the self-described “Jersey Girls,” four women who were widowed on 9/11 who have since bonded. These four are basically the 9/11 version of Cindy Sheehan – they were liberal voters who, after the shock of 9/11 had worn off, went after the Bush Administration for “failing to stop” 9/11 and declared to a voice that “it happened on his watch.”
These women conveniently ignored the fact that (a) Clinton had 8 years to catch Osama bin Laden and didn’t and (b) Bush had only been in office for less than 9 months and the Clinton Administration had not provided adequate briefing or history files of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists.
Ever since the shock of 9/11 wore off, these women were relentless in their pursuit of the Bush Administration and even endorsed Kerry in 2004. Other 9/11 victims’ families have shunned these four, because of their demand to be in the spotlight and the actual political agenda that they are following. One survivor, in fact the sister of the pilot of United 93, has specifically denounced the “Jersey Girls” as nothing more than attention-seeking harpies. (But of course, you wouldn’t hear this in the MSM.)
In studying these four women and the controversy surrounding them, Ann has every right to question these women’s ulterior motives and demand to know why they are intent on milking their private grief a la Mother Moonbat Cindy Sheehan = who incidentally finally got a headstone for her son Casey’s grave. Ironically, Mama Sheehan was doing an anti-war tour in Australia and thus could not be bothered with returning to the USA to view the headstone.
And I will say this as a proud gay man – you go Ann! I have always appreciated her candor and her wit.
And has anyone else noticed on this board that the usual disgruntled lefties – raj, ian and gryph – have not commented on this thread? I would have thought that they would have been chomping at the bit to get their digs in.
Regards,
Peter H.
I’m not saying that the Republican party shuns Ann Coulter, (though I”m glad to say they do shun Michael Savage). Inviting someone to talk at a fund raiser or college is a political action. But it is not like having Michael Moore out there campaigning. Or being honored at the convention.
I fail to see this distinction (or that the DNC particularly wanted Moore in the audience. Could Ann not get a seat at RNC conventions?). Coulter is invited by local party organizations for the benefit of their membership (I mean engagements hosted by a party organization or elected officials). That gives me the impression they find association with her valuable and profitable. I’m sure it is — the point of my previous post was that Coulter is considered a normal republican leader, suitable for a keynote address at an event with other Republican speakers
Every side has its’ loonies, the problem is that the left is much more inclusive of their loonies into mainstream serious politics.
For the sake of argument let’s assume that’s correct. Am I the only one that believes that the particular instance of Coulter vs Moore is backward on this count in terms of degree?
In contrast to Coulter, it truly is my impression that any Democrat interested in winning elections stays as far away from Moore as possible (so, for example, McKinney or McDermot would be of the “not interested” variety). Certainly they seem to have done so since the DC premier of his F911 film. And Moore himself does not even openly support Democrats as far as I see, (they’re part of a corporate conspiracy of some sort, etc..) with the exception Wesley Clark.
I just think Moore as been obvious political poison for a long time and Coulter is just beginning to seem that way to to conservatives.
Yes, the extreme right can be as loud and nutty as the extreme left.
Well, maybe not as nutty as the extreme left, but sometimes both sides really need to be told about themselves.
However, the left makes no hesitation about telling us how nutty we solely because we consider ourselves conservative.
I am looking forward to reading her book and will let any of my liberal friends barrow it after so we can discuss it properly, face to face.
I will in turn read any book they wish me to read too.
For all of you who are so intent on criticizing Ann Coulter about her “9/11 widows” comment before even understanding the metaphor, let me enlighten you:
Ann is referring to the self-described “Jersey Girls,” four women who were widowed on 9/11 who have since bonded.
Yes, I figured these were the women Coulter was critiquing. I’ve heard them before and they are fair game as far as I’m concerned for criticism. Yet there is legit criticism and then there is venomous rhetoric.
And I will say this as a proud gay man – you go Ann! I have always appreciated her candor and her wit.
I see. So let me see if I understand your reasoning here: they are bitches so we are justified in being bitches right back? I don’t think so. When you bring yourself down into the muck to respond to such nonsense you make yourself no better than the one you are angry at. By speaking as she does, Coulter is no better than these “Jersey Girls”, Sheehan, or any of the other leftist nutjobs.
However, the left makes no hesitation about telling us how nutty we solely because we consider ourselves conservative.
Indeed, which is one reason that I loathe their party.
Bravo, AverageGayJoe, for this great post. I’m surprised Bruce didn’t delete it. As I read the post I could almost guess who would make comments defending Coulter.
Just minutes ago I watched Coulter being interviewed by Sean Hannity and almost wanted to vomit. Of course, Hannity, who’s as outrageous as she is, egged her on.
Bravo, AverageGayJoe, for this great post. I’m surprised Bruce didn’t delete it. As I read the post I could almost guess who would make comments defending Coulter.
Thank you, but for the life of me I cannot understand why Bruce gets this reputation. I saw a similar claim a few days ago over on Boi From Troy. This isn’t the first post of mine that doesn’t toe some perceived Republican or conservative line. I’ve never had my posts deleted, never has Bruce harshly castigated me in public or private for them, etc. Have we disagreed, even publicly? Yes. Yet he has always been a gentleman. If it were otherwise I assure you I wouldn’t hesitate to withdraw from guest-blogging here. I have to wonder how much of this stems from political disagreement or perhaps past disputes rather than anything I have seen.
Just minutes ago I watched Coulter being interviewed by Sean Hannity and almost wanted to vomit. Of course, Hannity, who’s as outrageous as she is, egged her on.
I used to listen to Hannity and never got that impression of him. If anything I find him to be a bit too smug and kind of like a hyperactive kid just a tad outside of his league. Having said that occasionally I have enjoyed his program and have nothing but praise for his support of the Freedom Alliance. Yet I prefer Ingraham and her funny producers.
Yeah but these widow’s are no Cindy Sheehan. Coulter’s out of line on this. Their only crime was that they criticized the President.
If you hear people speak about the GOP attack-dog mentality, its those such as Coulter they are referring too.
Incidentally, I have actually found myself agreeing with Ann on occasion, when she actually bothered to make a point instead of just doing random drive-by outrage. She is very intelligent, but I can’t stand her shrillness.
In reply to Dale in L.A. – Is Coulter homophobic? I do know of one incident where Coulter lashed out at a male student at Indiana University who was questioning her, and apparently had an effeminate voice:
During her question-and-answer session, Coulter responded to both fans and protesters. One comment that drew strong audience reactions came from a young man who asked her if she didn’t like Democrats, wouldn’t it just be better to have a dictatorship? Coulter responded with a jab at the way the student talked.
“You don’t want the Republicans in power, does that mean you want a dictatorship, gay boy?” she said.
IU College Republicans President Shane Kennedy defended Coulter’s comments by stressing that the speech was for entertainment and attendees should have expected Coulter to say controversial comments.
“I think the guy could have been more respectful to her,” he said. “I mean, we already know that she was going to be controversial and she was just saying what people were thinking. If you are going to talk like you are gay, then Ann Coulter is going to call you gay. Of course, she said it in a spiteful tone, but it was expected.”
February 24, 2006
http://www.idsnews.com/news/story.php?id=34257&adid=news
And Coulter makes money off this stuff; in this case, the death of other women’s husbands. Crass and hateful.
#1. Can you tell me why the President puts the wife of a Flight 93 victim next to the First Lady for the State of the Union speech if they are not to make a public statement of their loss? Is it okay for the President to milk a widow?
“Look, you are getting testy with me.”
What a wuss, she can dish it out but can’t take it. BTW, is there any truth to the rumor that she’s had a chondrolaryngoplasty? I recall once someone suggesting that a group of drag queens decked out as Coulter look-alikes follow her around to her campus speaking engagements. Now that would be a hoot!
how does one criticize a victim of 9/11 or war and sleep at night.
AC will live long and prosper b/c the there are a great number of people that love her and probably an equal if not greater number who hate and they all listen and read for one reason – to find out what she will say next
but to be consersative and fired from NR – you really had to piss someone off
I used to enjoy Savage until I heard him start saying crazy things. Then I thought, “oh boy, this can’t be good for us.” Likewise, I have always adored Coulter (though she’s about a hundred times smarter than Savage), but fear she is going in the same direction. I respect anyone who is hard-hitting and no-nonsense, who is not afraid to say what needs to be said, who slices through the PC crap. I understand perfectly well her disgust at and disdain for the 9/11 widows. She is right on, as she is about so many things.
However, one has to use good judgement when addressing the public. Perhaps if she had merely inserted “exploiting” for “enjoying,” that would have made a world of difference. But she really needs to temper herself a lot more. She has become unhinged, and I worry that people like her and Savage are becoming liabilities for us.
On the other hand . . . perhaps our Rightwing Nutjobs serve a critically important function. We know that what passes for Moderate these days is often Loonie Leftist in actuality (witness the MSM, which thinks of itself as objective and mainstream). On the political ideology spectrum, our Rightwing Nutjobs moves that bar out to the right just a tad, providing a bit more balance, so that what lies in the middle can truly be said to be “Moderate.” Just a thought.
I think she was being polite, actually. I have a theory that the folks that believe that 9/11 was all Bush’s fault, and not what it really was, were molested by their fathers. That’s just me, however.
how does one criticize a victim of 9/11 or war and sleep at night.
That would be just about anybody on the left. Do you suppose that the Jersey GALS believed their husbands were “little Eichmans”? Do they think that we “deserved it”? We see the liberal left slander and smear the military every chance they get. Do they lose any sleep?
#42. “We know that what passes for Moderate these days is often Loonie Leftist in actuality”
Always get my morning funnies here… Moderate is Loonie Leftist? Now that is very, very funny.
In my above post, I misidentified the 9/11 victim as being the sister of the United 93 pilot. She is actually Debra Burlingame–lifelong Democrat, sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. I regret the error.
Also, just as FYI – Burlingame did manage to land an interview after Condollezza Rice’s appearance with the Jersey Girls on an ABC interview. When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, “This is the first time I’ve heard this point of view.”
And they say there is no bias in the drive-by media. Scribes, Pharisees and Hypocrites all!
Regards,
Peter H.
Ann Coulter. Groan. She always seems to just halfway believe what she says & is simply trying to get under people’s skin. I consider her to be the female counterpart to Michael Savage. The loony left has plenty of nutjobs, the right has just 2-Ms. Coulter & Mr. Savage. What Ann said about the 9/11 widows was partly true; but puhleeze! She always has to be over the top & arrogant. I just hope that during her book tour nobody physically attacks her.
#47 – jimbo, it will probably be with a creme-filled pie, like the last time nutjobs on the left side of the aisle went after her, Pat Buchanan and other conservatives who tell the truth. And like last time, it will miss the target. Libs throw like girls.
Regards,
Peter H.
#40 – As I said Ian, the posted transcript states the “You are getting testy with me” quote out-of-context. Let me guess: You haven’t actually watched the interview?
On video, the context is:
(1) Coulter trying to explain her pet peeve of “liberal infallibility” where, in her view (right or wrong), conservatives are not socially ‘permitted’ to respond to certain liberal speakers or points.
(2) Lauer talking over Coulter, more and more insistently, before she can get it out.
(3) Coulter saying in effect (and a reasonably good-humored way), ‘Isn’t my theory illustrated by the fact that you are getting a little upset with me this minute, as we speak?’
I can only hope some of you (who defend Coulter) listen for a moment to what you are saying before it is too late. Case in point:
That would be just about anybody on the left. Do you suppose that the Jersey GALS believed their husbands were “little Eichmans”? Do they think that we “deserved it”? We see the liberal left slander and smear the military every chance they get. Do they lose any sleep?
in this one sentence you imply “just about anybody on the left” believes 9/11 victims were “little Eichmanns” who “deserved it”. So every person (or “just about”) in the US that doesn’t vote Republican believes these things? That’s news to me.
Ok … then I hereby declare that “just about anybody” on the right believes that “God hates Fags”. I dare you to find a flaw with that blanket accusation (I preemptively declare that all who do are atheist traitors).
olaskym, are you familiar with the Ward Churchill case? He is the far lefty who tried to call the 9-11 victims “little Eichmanns”. Now, I’ve personally had conversations with liberals where they defended him, so I know his viewpoint is hardly small / isolated.
As for the far lefties who put down the military or slam it every chance they get – often with false information – there are too many cases for me to count. Discussing it would make this post too long.
Finally, are you aware that Fred Phelps, the originator of “God Hates Fags” who tries to disrupt military funerals, is a Democrat? (Look up his Wikipedia entry.) Trying to pin him on the Right doesn’t work.
olaskym, I also typed in an answer to #30 last night, but the comment system didn’t take it for some reason. I will make another try.
You said, “it truly is my impression that any Democrat interested in winning elections stays as far away from Moore as possible…” Consider this:
– Moore had a prominent seat of honor at the 2004 Democratic Convention, next to Jimmy Carter.
– John Kerry was recently – perhaps still is?? – a contributor at Daily Kos.
– Howard Dean gave his imprimatur to some of the most twisted and hateful 9-11 speculation out there – and he is now chair of the DNC.
So no, I don’t think you can argue that the Dems keep their nutjobs at arms’ length.
Coulter, on the other hand, is being roundly slammed by a great many conservatives as we speak. Even I – although I don’t really count as a conservative, except on foreign policy maybe – DON’T support her and acknowledge her language went too far. Peace!
was anoyone talking about the 9/11 widows last week? or the week before? or last year? So now they are being dragged up apropos of nothing for being a part of the 9/11 commision 2 years ago. what is going on
Ann Coulter is an exciting breathe of fresh air. For years all you could hear were the left wing on radio and tv. Then along came Rush and soon we had more like Ann and Sean and Laura. I have read some of her books and she can be very scholarly in her writings and has facts and as has been mentioned before statistics in them. i personally do not like statistics cause like polls they are useless except to estimate things. it is entertaining to see her go head to head with someone and yes I do believe most of it is done for publicity and to get under the skin of confirmed liberals. Sort of some payback for their years of calling us john birchers and neo cons and let us not forget the great right wing conspiracy. Liberals try to make out that all we want is our way all the time but anyone with any brains knows that the exchange of ideas is neccesary for significent acheivement. Being 54 years old, as I am, I realize that sometimes people need a little shake up to get their attention and if it gets someone to read and think of what she has to say in her books. But if you really want to see what is going on with Ann check out the attack on her by hillary or any of the left wing blogs. And as far as the today show they always try to put non liberals in a bad light. mike
I didn’t see Coulter’s performance on NBC’s (the government contractor General Electric’s) Today Show, but I have seen her on the Faux News Channel (whose slogan is “We Report, You Deride”). The main thing that I found interesting about her appearances on the Faux News Channel was that she was always sitting, wearing a very short skirt, on a stool that was sufficiently high up that her legs were prominently displayed for the camera. Something of a RuPaul experience.
It made me wonder whether her success–such as it is–at book selling was due more to her exposed legs than to her supposed erudition.
Ann is tactless and downright mean and definately goes too far sometimes. She is getting criticised by many on the right. Larry Elder was discussing her comment on the widows yesterday and I agree with him. What she said was true but she should have found a better way to say it. To say she hasn’t seen ppl enjoy their husbands deaths so much doesn’t mean they’re glad they’re dead or that they wouldn’t have their husbands back if they could. It’s just a very rude way of saying they’re exploting their deaths for politics. They’re certainly entitled to do so. It just seems distasteful. Although I think the blame is more on the media for exploiting their victim status. The left lost the debate against the war. Now all they can do is resort to their standard emotional tactics- drawing as much attention to possible to losses, failures, deaths, mistakes, and selectively avoiding and downplaying any successes or gains.
There’s no comparing her to Michael Moore. He’s an outright liar. The NRA article picking apart his tactics on Bowling for Columbine was an eye-opener. What she says is true, though tactlessly presented.
Ann has her purpose. She calls the left out on their bullshit. I’m glad someone is saying the things she’s saying and is then willing to take the heat for it. She deserves all the criticism she’s getting, but meanwhile, now the truth is out there and has to be dealt with. There is a running theme in her books and articles about leftist tactics- villianizing and discrediting their oponents, revising history, repititive soundbites, emotional rather than logical arguments – all sorts of tactics to avoid an actual debate on a subject because they’d soundly lose. I think pissing ppl off is her way of getting their goat so that they can prove her point in a very visible way.
I just ready the article David linked to. I found it fascinating how much the liberal audience completely missed her point. She was mocking them, i.e. she was implying that liberals think “liberal brown boys” can’t handle Democracy. She clearly is accusing liberals of being racist for their condescending attitude about Iraqis. She clearly disagrees with them.
Typical. I experienced the exact same thing in a debate when I was using Native Americans as an example of a culture that had exhibited the excellent quality of managing their resources well and the liberals in the audience gasped. It was an analogy about not strangling the businesses we rely on for goods and severices with taxation and regulation. Afterward a lady came up and started chastising me about how it was the white man that killed off the buffalo. I started to say that was exactly my point when several conservatives nearby said it for me. THEY understood me perfectly, presumably because they were actually listening to what I was saying instead of immediately jumping to the conclusion that I was racist and tuning out my words.
Right on, Dale. Another reason why I like Ann Coulter.
Maybe it’s because she reminds me of a lot of gay men – we’re definitely the ones who kiss-and-tell, who say the snide and coarse remarks through a smile, and who are the first to point out hypocrisy.
I mean, admit it…we can all be a bunch of whiny bitches at times. Just look at some of these posters on this board! I rest my case.
Regards,
Peter H.
actually, TGC, I, the son of a vet, am on the on the left and most people I know are on the left (I like to keep a diverse group of friends ranging from the extreme left to the middle of the road types and GP). none of us think that any of the 9/11 and war deaths were deserved. I have heard that there is some nutjob conservative showing up at military funerals saying that these deaths are some sort of payback.
#58 – That nutjob is Fred Phelps, a registered demoncRAT.
Regards,
Peter H.
#59 Peter Hughes — June 9, 2006 @ 7:13 pm – June 9, 2006
Fred Phelps is also a Baptist minister and a lawyer. I notice that you don’t mention any of that.
It appears to have escaped your notice that anyone can register him- or her-self with any political party he or she wants.
BTW, have you read the US Constitution yet regarding amendments? Didn’t expect that you had.
#60 – Actually, Herr raj, I have…and something that may have escaped your snotty little kopf is that the US Constitution does not mention political parties at all. And as far as Phelps being a Baptist minister, I could care less. He’s more of a Pharisee than anything else.
PS – I can send you a copy of the Bible so that you can look up “Pharisee.” I don’t suspect that you have that book in your collection of German literature, like “Mein Kampf” and “Communist Manifesto.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Raj, he was only drawing attention to the one quality that you chose to point out (incorrectly), that Fred Phelps is a conservative. You ASSUMED he was conservative because he’s an evangelical and hates gay people. That’s called “prejudice”. About 2/3 of Evangelical Christians are Republican. Guess what most of the rest are? And not all Evangelical Christians think homosexuality is a sin.
Excuse me Ann Coulter, you are a bigot and a hater as well.
You are cutting on 911 families which to me is a crime and you have your nerve to say Bush is a Godsend! Where is Bush a Godsend? Now Ann if you want to debate lets go! I will win and unfortunately for you, you will lose guaranteed!
Ann, do you not understand that you cannot change the mindset in most of the middle east or are you in dreamland???
Ann Coulter is sick so dont listen to her! She has a one track mind and I will debate her on any republican issue she has to bring up!
Ann, what about Iran??? What is your plan Ann?