Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
We can't expect TV news to have standards, but it should have limits. Not many, but a few. At least one limit. When a guest on Good Morning America urges the murder of one of our leading presidential candidates, somebody has exceeded the limit. A person who does that needs to be, should be, ought to be, must be kicked off the air permanently. Please look at this:
On another occasion, this time on CSPAN, Ms. Coulter had suggested her targeted politician is a "faggot."
Such epithets are tasteless but they fall short of deserving banishment from the airwaves. Making sport of the death of one of the Edwards' children tends toward cruelty, but it still falls short of meriting exclusion from the TV cameras.
Urging murder does not fall short. It is one thing for Ms. Coulter, a notorious opponent of gun control, to argue that everyone ought to be able to own one, but it is a different kettle of fish when she says on national television which of her political enemies the gun should be aimed at.
We live in the 007 age. A time of termination with extreme prejudice, of targeted assassination, the surgical strike, men and women suicide bombers, hit men, button men, killers for hire, killers for religion, killers for politics. The air is heavy with menace. Every entrance and exit from the ABC network building in which Ms. Coulter urged the murder of John Edwards, is heavily guarded.
If confronted, Coulter will probably say that she was joking. A joke like that at the airport ticket counter would get her arrested. A joke like that should get her kicked off network broadcasting once and for all.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
To supprt terrorism, as in recommending someone for assassination by terrorists, appears prima facie to be a felony crime under the USA Patriot Act. Somewhat questionable, but not entirely out of the question, is whether the Disney Co.'s ABC network also committed a crime in airing Ms. Coulter's assassination recommendation. A bare breast aroused miles of newspaper columns & endless hours of TV coverage, with the FCC Commissioner himself, son of Colin Powell, bemoaning the fast flash of flesh. Will the FCC &/or the Justice Dept investigate ABC & Ms. Coulter for urging a terrorist act of murder against an American presidential candidate? Should we hold our breaths?
Posted by sloper at 06/27/2007 @ 4:37pm
One might also ask why The Nation is giving her time as well. Is featuring her here really that much different than featuring her on ABC?
Posted by srjenkins at 06/27/2007 @ 4:50pm
Hey Mask, Maasch, etc...Where are you on this one? Care to defend the right-wing spokesperson here?
Posted by jmusolino at 06/27/2007 @ 5:14pm
As is to be expected, the leftist Nation writers have completed distorted the Coulter statement. By playing only a portion of the clip, it takes out the context in which she says that she has learned her lesson as in Bill Mahr's statement that he wished Cheney would have died in a terrorist attack. She said then the same about Edwards.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3312795
And did you upstanding leftists protest loudly about Bill Mahr's statement? No, you were silent, as you hypocrites always are.
And since you libs love homosexuals so much, why would it be upsetting to call a leftist polician one of the group you love so much?
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:16pm
They keep having her on these things because people keep talking about the crazy things she says.
She's just a troll.
Posted by Mandaliet at 06/27/2007 @ 5:16pm
SR...It depends on the extent to which she's given a free rein in the particular venue. The Nation's not giving her a forum, but exposing her instead for that which she really is, and suggesting an appropriate remedy for her actions. Perhaps it's time that we let the sponsors of these shows know that we can find whatever they're selling elsewhere.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/27/2007 @ 5:18pm
She is a female Rush Limbaugh, so ignore her just like we ignore Rush!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/27/2007 @ 5:21pm
Anti...And you righties went absolutely bonkers over Bill Maher's statement, didn't you? I've seen the show, and Maher never said he wished Cheney were dead. He may have shown Cheney little or no respect, but that's really not the same thing. Even though you righties demand that the rest of us worship you.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/27/2007 @ 5:28pm
Anti...What the hell problem do with gays anyway? Grow up.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/27/2007 @ 5:30pm
Anne Coulter is a serious political commentator just like Triple H is a professional wrestler. Who the hell gives an interview wearing a halter dress and shades, anyway?
Posted by habiba at 06/27/2007 @ 5:33pm
Wish I could get rich just acting like a complete reckless fool.
She has made numerous terroristic statements, and I am completely in favor of sending her bony ugly ass to Gitmo. She could service her fellow inmates.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/27/2007 @ 5:40pm
Edwards with sycophant Chris Matthews practically worshipping him has just bragged about his fund raising by putting the Coulter video on the front page of his website. Coulter was right to call out Edwards and his wife for their hypocrisy.
Just another lib hypocrite. "I'm so offended, please send money".
http://johnedwards.com/rightwing/
Here is hypocrite Elizabeth Edwards
Elizabeth Edwards penned a fundraising letter that hit email in-boxes Wednesday morning with a link to a video of her exchange with Coulter.
"Where I am from, when someone does something that displeases you, you politely ask them to stop," she wrote.
Elizabeth Edwards also asked potential donors to "Please give what you can right now to help raise the dialogue and show that Ann Coulter-style politics will never carry the day."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:41pm
"And since you libs love homosexuals so much, why would it be upsetting to call a leftist polician one of the group you love so much?" - Antiliberal
Wow. Just...wow. You almost tangled us all in that clever web of words. Gee, I wonder if there are other words that have been created or distorted over the years to carry a connotative meaning of hate, bigotry or visceral abhorrence. Let me test the recesses of my mind...
Ann Coulter's comments weren't meant to be a compliment, her being of the ideology that loves freedom and the Bill of Rights, unless you are a homosexual, are non-white, a woman, or, most egregious, a non-white homosexual woman. But please don't try and regulate this gun I have strapped to my leg, for that would be a Constitutional violation. That's why it is offensive, because it was said in hatred, much the same as Dred Scott and those who came before and after him were and are called "negro" and its one key derivation. I can't imagine, being anti-liberal, that you wouldn't be offended if called a homosexual slur, as we can deduce from your highly reasoned comments that you are not a lover of homosexuals. So tell me, would you please: what possible reason would you have to get upset about if being called a "faggot" is such a harmless thing?
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 5:43pm
tell me, would you please: what possible reason would you have to get upset about if being called a "faggot" is such a harmless thing?
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 5:43pm
WJ,
I'm not the one upset about Edwards being called a faggot, you lefties are.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:45pm
No, but you are upset that anybody would wish to take Ann Coulter out to the woodshed. So First Amendment freedoms are only for conservatives?
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 5:47pm
Also, you didn't answer my question.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 5:48pm
Anti...What the hell problem do with gays anyway? Grow up.
Posted by JMUSOLINO 06/27/2007 @ 5:30pm
In this country we have legitimized many types of immorality including the perversion of homosexuality. So people have a legal right to be perverted in this kind of behavior and I'm not arguing that. But along with their freedom to practice the perversion, I'm free by my first amendment rights to call it perversion.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:56pm
Also, you didn't answer my question.
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 5:48pm
What else would you like me to say? You asked why I'm upset about Edwards being called a faggot and I said I'm not, you lefties are.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:58pm
And I still see you "political purists" don't see any hypocrisy in the Edwards trying to make money off of Coulter's comments.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 5:59pm
Perversion, huh? Perhaps you are perverting the text that is the basis of your categorization? So Jesus is about loving-kindness and accepting us all, because we are all his father's children, unless a man falls in love with a man (etc.) or your skin isn't alabaster, making you impure and unworthy? Please tell me how "Thou shalt not kill" and stoning a woman to death for adultery are concepts that mesh well with one another, would you please?
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:02pm
Also, my question, Anti, was what reason you would have to be upset if you were called a faggot, not about Edwards being called a faggot. Nice try. Answer the question.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:04pm
Edwards is running for President and is entitled to raise as much money as he can off the stupid whore. Coulter's stupid book got a huge bump off this fiasco. Why shouldn't Edwards make money for his campaigne off the slut's idiotic comments?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2007 @ 6:02pm
Frank, Ann isn't a whore. Now you appear to be a real whore for the Clinton's. You're just upset because a goodlooking woman is also intelligent, educated, and conservative.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:07pm
Also, my question, Anti, was what reason you would have to be upset if you were called a faggot, not about Edwards being called a faggot. Nice try. Answer the question.
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:04pm
I wouldn't be upset because it isn't true. Knowing yourself is the first step to self-esteem.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:08pm
Wow. You almost got me again. Are you going to evade the real answer again, or are you going to admit that you'd probably get into a verbal shouting match with anybody who called into question your sexuality? It's not about self-esteem, and it's not about somebody thinking you are a homosexual. It's about demonizing homosexuality, and distorting my question will never remove the shroud of ignorance you hide beneath, sitting beside Ann Coulter. I will not go so far as to call her a whore in the sexual sense of the term, and, indeed, she has to be at least brilliant enough to have been admitted to, attended and graduated from Michigan's Law School. That being said, she was compared above to Paris Hilton, and I think that is an accurate juxtaposition. She is a whore for the limelight, and there is no refuting that.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:15pm
Perversion, huh? Perhaps you are perverting the text that is the basis of your categorization? So Jesus is about loving-kindness and accepting us all, because we are all his father's children, unless a man falls in love with a man (etc.) or your skin isn't alabaster, making you impure and unworthy? Please tell me how "Thou shalt not kill" and stoning a woman to death for adultery are concepts that mesh well with one another, would you please?
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:02pm
Yes Jesus is about loving kindness. But He also is about righteousness. Just as He doesn't turn away from our sins of murder, lying, adultery, or any other moral failing. In His love He is always ready to forgive us if we repent and turn from these behaviors. But there is no forgiveness for those who justify their sins.
The example often cited by those who only cite Jesus on love but not righteousness is the adulterous woman that the Pharisees wanted to stone.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
She said, "No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." John 8:7-11
Notice Jesus said go and sin no more
Homosexuals in general today are not interested in repentance for their lifestyle. Therefore they remain under judgment the same as all other people who do not ask forgive and stop their sins.
And there is no place with God for your racist remarks about alabaster skin. There is nothing in the New Testament to justify the sin of racism.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:20pm
I'm racist for my remark about alabaster skin? Did you even read the post?
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:23pm
I'm racist for my remark about alabaster skin? Did you even read the post?
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:23pm
I didn't call you a racist, I called the remark racist.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:26pm
Also, while you're at it, tell me which commandment has been broken when a man sleeps with a man and a woman sleeps with a woman. While you're at it, could you remember, please, that the Bible was written by human beings about one hundred billion years ago and that it contains so many contradictions as to be laughable. Lastly, we are a country based upon the rule of law, not the rule of the Bible. You have every right to dislike homosexuals, but you've no right, nor does anybody else, for that matter, to codify that hatred into law. Your disdain is something only you have a right to, you and others like you. It cannot be law as it doesn't violate anybody else's freedom. You've no Constitutional freedom from a man sleeping with another man.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:29pm
She is a whore for the limelight, and there is no refuting that.
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:15pm
Using that criteria, then all of the politicians, pundits and political media commentators are also whores for the limelight. I guess that includes Katrina who regularly appears on the cable news programs the way Coulter does. Or is your standard only applicable to conservatives?
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:29pm
No. You said "your racist remark." The clear implication was that I am racist. I just don't understand your connection of my remark and me being racist.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:30pm
There is a difference between doing your job and getting credit and publicity for it and actively seeking publicity for your own gain. There are plenty of people on both sides of the Congressional aisle who are whores for the limelight. The discussion here was about Ann Coulter. You're not going to get anywhere trying to twist my comments into something they're not.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 6:33pm
but you've no right, nor does anybody else, for that matter, to codify that hatred into law. Your disdain is something only you have a right to, you and others like you. It cannot be law as it doesn't violate anybody else's freedom. You've no Constitutional freedom from a man sleeping with another man.
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:29pm
Do you always ignore what people say in order instead respond to what you believe they think?
I clearly stated that there is a legal right to practice certain forms of moral perversion such as homosexuality and adultery. I made no suggestion nor have I ever that these should be codified as illegal by law.
So people have a legal right to be perverted in this kind of behavior and I'm not arguing that. But along with their freedom to practice the perversion, I'm free by my first amendment rights to call it perversion.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 5:56pm
As to violating God's laws:
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? Matthew 19:4,5
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [fn1] homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:8-11
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8 the words of Christ
The greek for sexually immoral is pornos from which we get the word pornography. It was always understood as sex apart from the marriage relationship between a man and a woman.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:53pm
Please don't use Katrina and Ann coulter in the same sentence. That's just not right.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2007 @ 6:47pm
Your right, I shouldn't insult Ann that way.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:55pm
No. You said "your racist remark." The clear implication was that I am racist. I just don't understand your connection of my remark and me being racist.
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:30pm
Nonsense. People sometimes make insensitive and racist remarks. It does not necessarily follow then that they are always insensitive nor that they are a racist based upon one remark.
I know this subject quite well. I have an interacial family. We deal with racists all the time.
Posted by antiliberal at 06/27/2007 @ 6:57pm
I'm not denying your credentials on racist remarks, I only wonder why my remark, which has historical accuracy as practice in the Antebellum South and elsewhere, is deemed racist.
By the way, you've ignored me several times during the course of this discussion. I only assumed, then, that it was okay for me to ignore you. It's called teaching you a lesson. In addition, you've no response whatsoever to Ann Coulter being an opportunist whose only out for fame and money? If she truly wished to be a part of an intelligent debate, she'd refrain from inflammatory remarks and stick to facts and issues.
And another thing: all of these quotes are by men, not divine beings, and were often second-hand accounts or accounts by observation of a situaiton. Therefore, their accuracy is suspect, not to mention their attributions. This was an age of little scientific reason, and also the Bible you're likely familiar with is a translation, and is, at best, poorly edited. I'd like for you to think before you give me the argument that the writers of the Bible were acting as elements for and of the divine, please. I've already had occasion to hear it and am not impressed.
One final word before I call it a night: I deeply regret any racism you and your family have had to endure, though I have never done so personally to you or anyone else, including my comment about alabaster skin.
Posted by WillJeff at 06/27/2007 @ 7:18pm
I'm not a Coulter devotee/defender but to purposely misrepresent the point of the GMA comment is shameful for a journalist or blogger. In case it wasn't obvious it was that since Maher got a free pass on his comment about Cheney (yes I know he did not literally call for Cheney's death, he just grew warm at the thought:P) then that is the route she would take. Of course she said it to rankle as Maher did and any other "professional commentator" does. But you can't on one hand complain that Maher was purposely taken out of context and then turn around and do the same exact thing. Obviously, lLaziness and dishonesty aren't exclusive to any party.
Posted by zmster at 06/27/2007 @ 7:48pm
Please tell me how "Thou shalt not kill" and stoning a woman to death for adultery are concepts that mesh well with one another, would you please?
Posted by WILLJEFF 06/27/2007 @ 6:02pm | ignore this person
the christian bible is quite clear on this matter. Jesus forbade it. "let he who is free from sin cast the first stone." Jesus himself, presumably free from sin, did NOT cast the first stone.
Posted by johannesrolf at 06/27/2007 @ 8:22pm
hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmm?????
"bong hits for jesus" or "kill the faggot"-- which one is more grievous as to warrant a suspension (from school? tv?) or even a supreme court decision?
wishing malace upon people is something we can all do without
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/27/2007 @ 8:52pm
Posted by JMUSOLINO 06/27/2007 @ 5:14pm
Sorry, I'm late.....Ann Coulter either is or acts like (for a great deal of money)...an idiot.
Here's the deal. Leggy blonde DECENT-looking, she's the old antithesis of what a "conservative Republican" should look like (it "should" be Reagan, Wm. F. Buckley, Grover Norquist). And so, for the past 10 years or so, she's made her bones on being the "babe right-winger"....same as (to a lesser degree) Michelle Malkin or Laura Ingraham.
But the bloom is falling off the rose, she's hitting her 40s and to stay on top, she has to come up with more and more outrageousness so that....
liberals go nutty about her, make right-wingers smile at liberals going nutty about her, and buy more of her books.
Every time "The Nation" or HuffPost or some other "progressive" outlets screams, cries, and rends their garments over some inanity that Ms Coulter spouts....she loves it, cuz it means guys like RIO, PONTI, ANTILIB, etc.....buy more of her crap.
Course it's always possible she'll have a "Road to Damascus" moment (as Arianna Huffington had..."coincidentally" as she entered her mid-40s) and become a liberal....seriously.
She repudiate, apologize, and wear sackcloth for her "previous bigotry and crassness"...."have her eyes opened"...and become a "progressive" and say all the mean shit she says now about the Left....about the Right.
And you know what, I'll bet that if she does...she'll get away with it, because there are as many on the Left that are just as stupid and manipulatable as there are on the Right....and they'll love "new Ann" as a confirmation of their own moral superiority.
Posted by Mask at 06/27/2007 @ 8:57pm
and she get smeared for wishing death on Edwards. Nicholas von Hoffman, this is nothing short of shameful.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/27/2007 @ 9:27pm
SHE DOESN'T GET SMEARED, SHE GETS CHEERED...
For saying this kind of thing in front of conservative groups. What does this say about her AUDIENCE???
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/27/2007 @ 9:50pm
SO MARYBRETBRAD, HOW MUCH DO YOU GET PAID...
For posting your neocon crap on "The Nation"? There must be better ways to earn a living....
Posted by w_m_bear at 06/27/2007 @ 9:53pm
By giving this hateful ugly woman a national platform to spew her hatred, both MSNBC and ABC have shown themselves to be hateful right wing media outlets and people who make these decisions are nothing but scums of the earth.
Posted by kevin99999 at 06/27/2007 @ 10:01pm
On Ann Coulter, how about them Yankees. You think they'll ever overtake the Sox?
Scooter Libby lied and now he's going to prison. Prison, hummm, why isn't Cheney in prison? That's right, he has Executive privilege, no wait, he isn't in the Executive branch, so how can he have Executive privilege?
The "Surge" isn't working and the Repub's are getting nervous. Tell everyone that the war and the failed occupation is all the fault of the republicans and they have failed our country and to remember that on election day. The republicans have screwed up our country too much. Make them pay by voting them all out.
Bush and Rove stole two elections. Al Gore should be President now, not the deserting preppy cheerleader that was selected.
Dick Cheney is a war profiteer and the shrub's puppetmaster.
Bush/Cheney gamed the simple minded Christian right by pretending to have "family values" then starting a stupid war for oil after all those good people were fooled into voting for him.
Hey Bush, got bin Laden?
Is Bush's support down to Laura and his dog yet?
I could go on, but I know you neo-nut bootlicks like LoatheLiberty/Antiintelligence, Rio Pollo and the rest want to get back on Man Coulter. She's a man, baby.
One final thought on Coulter....
"Ordinarily (s)he was insane, but (s)he had lucid moments when (s)he was merely stupid." - Heinrich Heine
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/27/2007 @ 10:14pm
If (s)he's on television all the time you'd think (s)he could buy another dress, and one that fit.
"Though this be madness, yet there is method in't." William Shakespeare
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/27/2007 @ 10:18pm
To tell the truth, I'm pained and ashamed to live in a country full of the likes of Ann Coulter, a semi-literate harful bring-'em-on, kill-'em-all lowsy mouthed type.
Posted by Helen DAO at 06/27/2007 @ 10:22pm
Here is the link for anyone who is interested in the complete quote from the interview...I think you will find she was taken out of context.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html
Posted by john maasch at 06/27/2007 @ 10:47pm
"What the hell is Ann Coulter advertising doing on the Nation website?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2007 @ 10:43pm
It's called freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and pursuit of happiness, Frank...its been in all the papers...you should read up on it.
Posted by john maasch at 06/27/2007 @ 10:48pm
Really getting a kick out of seeing Coulter's ads on The Nation website. I mean what a waste of money. Who the hell is she gonna attract here. She's considered a leper here.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 06/27/2007 @ 11:17pm
Somebody tell Frank for me...
Limbaugh got you.
Posted by john maasch at 06/27/2007 @ 11:23pm
Rummy's gona write a book! Hey, granpa, ask yourselves whay you can do besides tortures and misinformation. Read this.
Publishers Abuzz Over Possible Rumsfeld Book GARY SHAPIRO June 27, 2007 The publishing world is abuzz over the news that a former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, may write a memoir justifying the military strategy for the war in Iraq. While a deal has not yet been struck, Mr. Rumsfeld has toured New York publishing houses with an outline of his book in an effort to gauge how much information he would have to disclose in the memoir in order to justify a large cash advance.
Posted by Helen DAO at 06/27/2007 @ 11:23pm
I understand why ABC gives Coulter airtime: because ABC is trash tv, and the people in charge have no morals. What I can't understand is why The Nation's website features an Ann Coulter ad prominently on the front page. If Ads by Google can't deliver anything better than that, maybe The Nation ought to consider other options.
Posted by MIdnightBlue at 06/28/2007 @ 12:47am
"She suggests on Good Morning, America that John Edwards should be killed. Why do the networks continue to give this woman airtime?"
because she says things like that on network tv? ah...
regardless, thank god they haven't found some left wing nutcase to parade in front of everyone, because everytime she lets that crap plop out she turns more people off to right wing bullshit. the ship is sinking and the rat is screeching, folks, let all see and hear...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/28/2007 @ 01:05am
it was all kinda scary and infuriating back when people appeared to be going along with the likes of her, and disconcerting to think that she struck a chord with many, but...
the student will find the teacher, and that kind of crass anger and cold insulting cynicism attracts the same. at least most of america has some understanding of the nature of the rightwing bullshit machine now. her days of relevence ended in 06, and i suppose she will go on to assume a pat robertson roll for easily insulted progressives.
let her blab til her jaw unhinges. get it all on tape and let the wacko rightwing hang itself with its own rope.
huzzah for the scary rightwing skeleton bitch! may her ugly outbursts continue!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/28/2007 @ 01:21am
Posted by MASK 06/27/2007 @ 8:57pm
Insightful comment.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 06/27/2007 @ 10:48pm
I think a charitable reading is that Frank is saying it is a bad media buy - a correct observation. There may be a certain satisfaction for some in seeing her ads on the Nation, but it isn't effective advertising.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/28/2007 @ 01:43am
Why do they give her airtime? Dunno, Nicholas, but I imagine its for the same reason they still give Bill Maher airtime. Frankly someone should lock them both in a room and after they kill EACH OTHER then re-open the door.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/28/2007 @ 08:03am
Ms. Coulter is beyond the pale. Her cruel comments will come back to haunt her. One day perhaps she'll look back and feel shame at her bizarre penchant for wounding others. Or is that too much to hope for?
Jeannie Williams
Posted by MJWTX at 06/28/2007 @ 08:58am
Ann Coulter isnt a Conservative - she's a Liberal. And she preaches to a non-Conservative, Liberal audience.
Whatever, Conservatives.
By the way, remember earlier this year, when the GDP was revised down 30%? Today 1st quarter inflation was "revised up" 10%. The GDP was revised down from 1.8 to 1.2, and then revised down even lower. Inflation was just revised up from 22 to 24%. This is a fucking obvious trend.
Posted by conshame at 06/28/2007 @ 09:26am
BTW, Mr von Hoffman, as someone else noted....
You notice that Ann Coulter isn't SO bad that...
"The Nation" won't take her money for ad space!
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 09:29am
Had to stop halfway through the masterbatory comments. Just couldn't get it up.
As always it stinks from the the top down, folks.
Posted by hsuBfools at 06/28/2007 @ 09:33am
I have discontinued book clubs that sell her books;I refuse to listen to her on any TV program. I was listening to Chris Matthews and am disappointed that nbc would have her as she is racist and reprehensible in her attacks on people. If Imus was booted off, so should she be. Free speech only goes so far, as far as I am concerned and suggesting, by "joke" or otherwise that someone should be murdered, is not acceptable. We live in a supposedly civilized nation, though some of our actions, with regard to politics and war might suggest otherwise. Ann Coulter is not civilized if she continues to make the kinds of statements and is certainly "out of control".....Mary Newlon
Posted by Mary Newlon at 06/28/2007 @ 09:39am
AntiLib -
And I suppose you have no problem with Rudy Guiliani making around $20M in speaking fees after 9/11?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/28/2007 @ 09:55am
Another thing Ann Coulter said on that show, she said, America hasnt really, really, really, really, started slaughtering Iraqis yet. She said that America has been slaughtering Iraqis with one hand tied behind our back
General Petraeus "says" that we need to win the hearts and minds. However Petraeus is 100 miles from the Conservative Republican mindsent, and Ann Coulter's statement exactly reflects what all remaining Conservative Republican Dupes actually believe.
Yes, Ann Coulter said America should slaughter more civillians. She said that Dresden is an example of how we should win. She said that America has been "too concerned" about the innocent Iraqi people that have hit by our bullets and bombs.
Conservative Republicans, during the Vietnam war, said we should use nuclear weapons.
So you have Coulter, Limbaugh, OReilly, Savage/Weiner, speaking for the Conservatives. Conservatives are dirty, disgusting people.
Posted by conshame at 06/28/2007 @ 10:04am
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 5:16pm
Antisanity - if you'd watch the Maher clip you'll note it was a "what if" scenario along the lines of "If Cheney died, how many would be alive now" Totally different concept at the base level...not just a "I wish he was dead" as stated by the bulemic bimbo poster child of the right.
Posted by leftofcenter at 06/28/2007 @ 10:16am
Posted by MASK 06/28/2007 @ 09:29am
Yo MASK,
I know that you are a dishonest and unprincipalled putz who invents quotes and controversies while seldom presenting a more than wikipedia deep grasp of topics on which he issues self-important pieties ... but, geez louise ...
Could you at least have to deceny to denounce Coulter's celebration of terrorist methods on national television?
Or, let me guess: You are going to tell us that, somewhere in a parallel universe to which you have unique auger-like access, you envision the raving madman Michael Kinsley saying something that is similarly disgusting about Shitt Romney; similar, in your assertion that is, if one reads the message inscribed in the special ink and then played backwards while decoding from the original arameic ...
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 10:18am
And I suppose you have no problem with Rudy Guiliani making around $20M in speaking fees after 9/11?
Posted by HMAN23 06/28/2007 @ 09:55am
HMAN,
Like his mentor Jerry FalFailure, ANTI loooooveeess 9/11 and believes that the US had the terrorist slaughter coming to it.
I invite you to ask ANTI about it since he was quite unashamed in his views earlier. Go ahead, ask him to step up to the plate.
In ANTI's sickness, he believes that 9/11 was a blow against gayness and feminism (authored by fundy Islamicists who presumably share the same lock-jawed, steely rightwing rage at these same forms of social "detritus").
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 10:25am
I, Conshame am tired of hearing about William F Buckley. Coulter isnt a Conservative. Savage isnt a Conservative. Hannity isnt a Conservative. OReilly isnt a Conservative. Limbaugh isnt a Conservative. Bush and Cheney arent Conservative.
Only William F Buckley is a Conservative. William F Buckley is to politics what Mr Spock is to tennis.
Posted by conshame at 06/28/2007 @ 10:28am
And I'm ashamed to live in a country full of Charles Mansons. Oh that's right. There's only one of each.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/28/2007 @ 10:17am
MBB,
Chuck Manson writes bestsellers pitched to republicans, appears regularly on television under the mantle of being a "pundit", was hired by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr to forment a (failed) procedural coup, and is the darling of College Republicans?
Dude, what channel did you say you are tuned in to?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 10:29am
CONSHAME: Conservatives are dirty disgusting people? WELLL!!! Just for THAT I'm taking my bar of Dial and going home!
Conshame, please try to make the distinction between those currently labeled conservative, who happen to be on the same side of the fence as we are (whether we like it or not) and those who still believe in a Constitutional Republic, Private Property, The Basic Rights of Man as established in 1776, Equality before the Law, the Inherent Goodness of Man, and the belief that man (& woman) and NOT Government are the best arbiters of their own destiny. The Coulters (and Bushes) of the world don't believe any of these things except perhaps the Private Property part. I reject them as true conservatives (or intellectual decendents of the Founding Fathers) The latter is a stubborn dictator now no better than the people he purports to defend us against, the latter a cheap sensationalist, with a mouth that should have been stuffed with soap long ago. Justice being done in the end, she will one day be rendered irrelevant by her own venom.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/28/2007 @ 10:38am
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/28/2007 @ 10:18am
Glenn, apparently you missed...Posted by MASK 06/27/2007 @ 8:57pm, where I call Ms Coulter EITHER a self-serving phoney or an IDIOT.
Not good enough for you?
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 10:41am
Coorection: Second "latter" should read "former"
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/28/2007 @ 10:41am
BTW, GLENN, always love being lectured to by a person who praises the "human rights" of Cuba (like "free" health care) and "knows" everything about the smear of the Wellstone Memorial...except who Rick Kahn was.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 10:43am
CHIP,
I will give you credit here for a right-on description of Coulter, one that your cowardly and contemptable fellow travellers here cannot bring themselves to utter as they mainly defend and float decoys for her.
But I am wondering how, in a country of 300,000,000 people, the conservative party is unable to find a "real" conservative to lead it and instead has rolled out a false figurehead for two successive federal election cycles? How could this happen? How could conservatives have been so badly duped for so long by someone who has held high office continuously now since January 1995? Why is it only now that the Cheerleader's true colors have become visable to people who flaunt the fact that they wear conservative spectacles to see the external world?
Please explain.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 10:47am
MASK,
Again, just who the fuck is this Rick Kahn? Izaat the name or is it ... Rick Zahn? Help us out here, since it seems that you have an awful close relation to this person whomever he may be, perhaps you are his agent or treasuer for the local fan club.
So, once gain: I have no fucking idea who Rick Kuhn is, could not care less really, despite the fact that this person occupies the center of MASK's universe in a way more usually reserved for the "significant other".
What I have said is that I suspect that the Wellstone funeral was misrepresented by the right wing echo chamber when they went as fasr as calling it a Nazi rally. Wasn't present at that event in 2002, so I did use the word suspect.
If MASK wants to put his ... what's the name again? If he wants to put his admiration for the Dick Barnes pin-up poster up aside for a moment, perhaps he can weigh in on that question: Was Paul Wellstone, Jewish-American Senatorial/professorial liberal, subject to a Nazi rally at his funeral, as rightwing commentators asserted?
What do you think, MASK? Tuff question, yeah?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 10:57am
Larry Cudlow on CNBC covered a segment last night regarding Coulter's antics in which she appeared and cried about how she is being personnaly attacked... Well there is an ole saying where I come from and that's "If you can't handle the heat, then stay out of the kitchen" Or how about another one..."What's good for the goose is good for the gander"
In her case though, I would have to say "buzzard" rather than "goose"
Posted by djmarch at 06/28/2007 @ 11:02am
I think that Ann has the hots for Edwards,but she knows he wouldn't hang with her so she lashes out at him.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/28/2007 @ 11:02am
Not good enough for you?
Posted by MASK 06/28/2007 @ 10:41am
MASK,
I in fact missed it, my mistake, only saw the later post.
But that is not the issue. The issue is ... what about Michael Kinsley? Avail us of the benefits of your prognosticating talents and unmatched capacity to summon false equivalances out of thin air! In other words, lend us your insights into Michael Kinsley's incipient outburst about Shitt Romney that (in your m ind, somehow) "mirrors" the Coulter fatwah ...
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:04am
MASK,
Got Rick Kahn?
(Err, or wuzit ... Rick Kuhn? No, no, that's Bowie Kuhn ... no, wait ... one sec' ...)
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:13am
Michael Moore said 9/11 was an inside job planned and executed by Bush.
MBB,
It was awhile since I saw F911 as I saw it in the cinema when it was released. So you will have to remind me about when, during the 2 hour documentary, "Michael Moore said 9/11 was an inside job planned and executed by Bush." What words was it was couched in? What experts and evidence did he entertain? Or was it in a single frame, like the ones that say, "Drink Coke!". Explain.
It's your example - so, please, by all means, take all the space you need to explain it.
I harbor my doubts about aspects of the official story about 911 (novice pilots did that manuever???), but I am more interested in seeing how much command you have over your own chosen example.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:22am
MBB,
Did she work for Ken Starr after she, umm, finished high school?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:32am
I'm afraid I can't answer that, Glen. I can only tell you what I and people like me mean when we talk about tradition beliefs, as I expoused earlier. What are we supposed to do when we get the choices we get? I personally would love to see another Theodore Roosevelt, or even Franklin Roosevelt, out there to vote for. Both had admirable attributes and were true leaders, innovators and "drivers", even though they disagreed on method somewhat.
But there are none, and won't be while my generation holds the reins. Bush, I guess, is a good manifestation of the Peter Principle, that one shall be elevated to the level of his own incompetence. But with the only other choice a semi socialist like Al Gore, (originally), what do ya do? (In 04 I voted for Kerry for a quite spontaneous reason, if you can believe that!)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/28/2007 @ 11:43am
Inside job isn't a direct quote, but he's promoting an irresponsible, fringe conspiracy theory.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/28/2007 @ 11:42am
Translating from the crow that you are eating, Moore said nothing remotely in this universe like what you intially attributed to him which was WH direction of the 911 plot. Your words were: Michael Moore said 9/11 was an inside job planned and executed by Bush.
Thanks for conceding that point, albeit with gritted teeth and straining against yourself.
As for McKinney, did not hear that one, assuming it's not another boo-hooing rightwing hoax like the (snicker) "War" on Christmas. But I am wondering about the awesome size of these audiences that you conjure up for this women who has even lost her safe Dem seat. 8 people? 17? The whole family at the dinner table? Somewhat less than have seen The 700 Club or have Focus on the Family piped into their skulls, I do suspect.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:56am
skinny evil cheerleader? right on target, MBB.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/28/2007 @ 11:56am
Do you disagree that if Liberals ignored her she'd go away?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/28/2007 @ 11:44am
No.
More likley she will use her Michigan law degree to suceed Gonzo.
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 11:57am
and you know it.
Puppyshit.
Last post and I gotta' roll:
1. Moore claims to cite personal on the scene. On your entirely post-hoc calculus, are they acting out their "fringe" "agenda" to (let's see) take over the US under the pink flag of union drives (as public employees, they are likely in unions) that is merely a more effeminate and lighter shade of the RED flag?
2. What did the 9/11 Commission have to say about the work conditions with respect to the public services response to the 9/11 slaughter -- and preparedness in the future for disasters, attacks, or other mass catastrophes?
3. Here is one to smoke the stony ideologue who is obseqious before his totem out of his cave: Do YOU seriously believe that the full story of 9/11 is substantially known and that the Cheerleader tirelessly facilitated its full discovery and dissemination?
Posted by Glenn Lemon at 06/28/2007 @ 12:36pm
Posted by ZMSTER 06/27/2007 @ 7:48pm
I cannot stand Coulter, but completely agree with you. I think it was quite obvious that the context of her comment was Bill Maher's comment on Cheney's trip/alleged plot.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/28/2007 @ 1:07pm
"Alright. I've got some free time this weekend. I'll watch it and report back."
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/28/2007 @ 12:47pm
This is open-mindedness at work, folks.
And while I will not go as far as Frank in guaranteeing MBB's conversion, I will respect MBB's subsequent informed opinions on the matter.
There is no question that Michael Moore is a polarizing figure, but too many of the people I talk with who flame him have never seen his work. Trying to have a rational discussion under those circumstances is as big a waste of time as crying about that vile, obnoxious twat Ann Coulter.
Change the fucking channel, already.
Posted by drhammer at 06/28/2007 @ 1:27pm
Posted by GLENN LEMON 06/28/2007 @ 10:57am
First GLENN, nice of you to give me all of "my mistake" for attacking me for NOT attacking Coulter and then finding it. Such apologies are accepted in the manner by which they were given....reluctantly.
Second, I have no idea what Michael Kinsley has said. Please tell me. I won't comment on something without knowing about it....
to whit, Third, you said ""I am also not convinced that they pass muster (kind of like rightwing hystericism over Wellstone's "Fascist Rally" funeral, an invention of the right's echoing hype machine."---Posted by GLENN LEMON 05/21/2007 @ 12:40pm Who's Afraid of Jimmy Carter John Nichols
Thereby alluding to the fact that you actually KNEW something about the Wellstone Memorial "controversy"...the PRIMARY element of which was campaign treasure Rick Kahn' speech in which he began urging that the crowd should win the election for Wellstone and that Republicans should stop their opposition in that election....thus turning a memorial into a campaign rally.
Some of the other elements were blown out of proportion or even lied about...such as "Trent Lott was boo'ed"....but the Kahn incident occurred and Jesse the Body walked out due to that. Kahn himself left the campaign over it.
Now it seems if a person is going to CLAIM knowledge about an event....they should know SOMETHING of the particulars of it. It's sort of like saying "I think the Titanic could have slowed to 18 knots and survived the iceberg"...and then "I don't know who the fuck 'Edward Smith' [answers.com] is!"
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 1:44pm
Frank, Ann is a whore.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 6:07pm
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/28/2007 @ 2:18pm
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8 the words of Christ
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 6:53pm
Guess the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murdering, sorcerer, idolater, and all liars like cheney and bush are screwed then, huh?
Hiya, LUVVY, you chickenshit bastard for the anti-Christ.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/28/2007 @ 2:22pm
I know this subject quite well. I have a racist family. We act like racists all the time.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 6:57pm
It shows, LUVVY, it shows.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/28/2007 @ 2:23pm
"A joke like that should get her kicked off network broadcasting once and for all."----Nicholas von Hoffman
But again....NOT so bad as to make "The Nation" stop taking her money for advertising?!??!?!
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 3:28pm
In this country we have legitimized many types of immorality including the perversion of homosexuality. So people have a legal right to be perverted in this kind of behavior and I'm not arguing that. But along with their freedom to practice the perversion, I'm free by my first amendment rights to call it perversion.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person
The only perversion here, pal, is your incredibly base bigotry. I have to say that the brain-dead haters on the right make me glad that you're all "anti-liberal". We must be doing something right. Once again, bigot, grow the hell up.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/28/2007 @ 3:56pm
"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Revelation 21:8 the words of Christ
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 06/27/2007 @ 6:53pm
Not the words of Christ, oh ignorant one. Supposedly the words of John the Evangelist. Or some such author.
Posted by jmusolino at 06/28/2007 @ 3:59pm
Dude, you've got some serious issues you need to address with professional help.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 06/28/2007 @ 3:13pm
Yeah, whatever. I could say the same thing about you. And don't call me "dude". The Dude abides, I don't.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 06/28/2007 @ 4:57pm
Ann Coulter is just a partisan hack. She's an evil clown. No one with any sense takes her seriously. She is the epitome of the new Republican thug mentality. Ann has taken ugly, political hackery to a whole new level. She is exactly the devisive kind of machiavellian fascist that the right wing needs now that their heroe- Rush Limbaugh- has been revealed to be a hollow, drug addict, hypocrytical wind bag!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 06/28/2007 @ 5:05pm
Ann Coulter is just a partisan hack. She's an evil clown. No one with any sense takes her seriously. She is the epitome of the new Republican thug mentality. Ann has taken ugly, political hackery to a whole new level. She is exactly the devisive kind of machiavellian fascist that the right wing needs now that their heroe- Rush Limbaugh- has been revealed to be a hollow, drug addict, hypocrytical wind bag!
Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 06/28/2007 @ 5:07pm
So--how about giving Ann Coulter's spot in the MSM to Paris Hilton? I can tell the way she tosses her locks A.C. thinks she's hotter and smarter. But I think Paris wins on both counts. Off the island, Ann.
Posted by drbatgirl at 06/28/2007 @ 5:47pm
No one with any sense takes her seriously.
Posted by NO-NONSENSE 06/28/2007 @ 5:07pm
Uh, didn't Nicholas von Hoffman?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 06/28/2007 @ 7:45pm
Ann who?
"Be-de-be-de-be-de - that's all, folks!" - Mel Blanc
icf itmfa
Posted by COProgressive at 06/28/2007 @ 11:59pm
The corporate media, who value ratings above all else, are attracted to nut-cases like Coulter in much the same way that flies are attracted to horse----. They find the kind of controversy that she generates simply irresistible.
There can be no denying that Coulter represents a certain segment of public opinion. That segment, in the not so distant past, would have been regarded as the lunatic fringe, and crackpot self-promoters such as she would have been relegated to the very margins of political discourse. Now they are served up to us on so-called mainstream news programs, as though they have something useful and interesting to contribute to our common understanding of the world and politics. We don't need to censor Ann Coulter. We just need to make her invisible to all except her whacked-out acolytes. If she wants to be seen on national TV, let her start her own network. Oh, wait, she already has a regular gig on FOX.
Posted by robgo2 at 06/29/2007 @ 12:56am
You know, I've been trying to sell my internet radio talk show to a mainstream outlet for a few years now.
I think I've figured out how i'm going to do that now. I'll do a demo in which I call someone a racial slur and then advocate their murder. That oughta do it.
Oops...sorry, I forgot that I can do that. You see, I'm black, non-aneorexic and most importantly, sane. I guess that it only works for Ann Coulter.
I keep telling folks that if they ignore her, she'll go away. Everytime she does something outrageous and then ends up being discussed on boards like this, her notoriety continues unabated. Just pretend that her crazy ass doesn't exist. I find that it works for me.
Posted by edwriter at 06/29/2007 @ 5:03pm
"Moore has zero credibility.." "In Moore's movie Sicko, he pull a propaganda stunt..." MaryBretBrad I believe instead you are prejudiced towards liberals. Can we Americans learn of what happens all over the world. Japan, Germany, Canada, France, Italy, U.K., and yes Cuba, have a centralized health insurance system and it works. Yes, there is criticism but the blunt fact is that statistics indicate we are lagging almost all of these countries in amount, opportunity, and cost of these services. And we are not talking plain economics, we are talking human beings. We are still trying to make our sweet HMO system work and the only thing is happening is they are getting richer every year. Rate of increase of health insurance in the last eight years or so has been I guess in the level of more than 10% annual. It is interesting to see what conservatives have to say about the issue, or will they still pretend the 50 million Americans without health insurance are invisible?
I am glad he made a movie like that because the issue is literally "life and death" for many Americans. If not, tell me why Cuba with probably an average personal income 100 times lower than America has about the same life expectancy and more actual medical services per capita/yr? Something has to be really rotten, isn't it?
Posted by Frank42 at 07/01/2007 @ 05:10am