They're all Ann Coulter

[BobcatJH]

Unless you've been hiding in a spider hole or an otherwise undisclosed location, you've been treated to a nice display by our friend Ann Coulter. Coulter, who published her latest bird-cage liner "Godless: The Church of Liberalism" Tuesday, has set her sights on, among others, the widows of those who died in the September 11 attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies," Coulter writes. "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." While criticism of Coulter came fast and furious from the likes of the widows themselves and Keith Olbermann, there's been a noticeable silence coming from the right.

The overwhelming right-wing response has come in the form of coming to the defense of Coulter. And, by doing so, agreeing with the pundit and taking what she said several steps further into the gutter. Try as some Republicans might to halfheartedly distance themselves from Coulter, her cancer has completely overtaken their party. They're all Ann Coulter.

Think about what Coulter and her defenders are really saying. First, that if you're in some way attached to a tragedy like September 11 or the war in Iraq, it's fine that you speak your mind - if, and only if, we agree with what you say. Second, that if what you say dissents from our views, not only do you not have the right to say it, but it's unfair for you to say it because for us to personally attack you makes us look like assholes. Well, if it looks like an asshole, sounds like and asshole and smells like an asshole, it's probably an asshole. And assholes they are.

What Coulter and her Republican friends seem unable to do is disagree with someone simply on the merits of their arguments. Instead, they feel it necessary to call these widows "broads", "witches" and "harpies" and say things like, "I have never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much." Then, when pressed on the sheer audacity of such statements, they bemoan the fact that they can't make personal attacks on the victims of tragedy - while they're making personal attacks on the victims of tragedy.

When Republican partisans aren't defending Coulter's remarks by agreeing with them and needlessly piling on, they're excusing them as the absolute eventuality of a brilliant marketer and author trying to sell books. Let's for one moment play a thought game and assume that Coulter wasn't selling a book at the moment. Given her proven track record of ridiculously vile statements, do they really expect us to believe that Coulter would otherwise not be saying these things if she weren't selling a book? I can tolerate quite a bit of bullshit, but that assertion shatters my bullshit detector.

What's more, those defending Coulter do so primarily not by distancing themselves or the Republican Party from the things she says, but by seeking out "balance". Every time public outrage over Coulter being Coulter reaches a peak, the Bill O'Reillys of the world tell us that there are far worse examples to be found on the "far left". Then, he places Coulter's remarks against those by, say, Ward Churchill or, as ABC did, Harry Belafonte. Subsequent liberal guests are forced into a trap by which Churchill or others like him are artificially given the same status as Coulter. But that couldn't be further from the truth.

Tell me, in what alternate universe is Churchill given the same prominence within the Democratic Party as Coulter is within the Republican Party? Belafonte, too. But that's how it works. Someone like me says something outrageous and, all of a sudden, I speak for the entire party. And I know, because it happened to me. I criticized Joe Lieberman last year for sharing a hug and a kiss with the president following his State of the Union address. Hardly outrageous, but that's beside the point.

No sooner had I written about Lieberman than Michelle Malkin, herself no stranger to Coulter Territory, cited my critique as as evidence Democrats were "livid about the public display of bipartisan affection between the two men." One thing: Malkin only cited me. No one else. Never mind that countless others felt the same way I did. I was the voice of the entire Democratic Party. So where's my check, Democratic National Committee? But seriously, folks, this is what they do.

Distancing themselves from Coulter won't cut it, either. The Republican Party is Ann Coulter's party. It's the party of O'Reilly calling the victims of Hurricane Katrina "drug-addicted" and "thugs". It's the party of Glenn Beck calling them "scumbags" and talking about "choking the life out" of Michael Moore. It's the party of Bill Bennett talking about "you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down". It's the party of Pat Robertson calling for Hugo Chavez's assassination. Want some more? Fine.

It's the party of Michael Reagan saying Howard Dean should be "hung for treason". It's the party of Brit Hume saying his first thought upon learning about the London terror attacks was, "Hmmm, time to buy". It's the party of John Gibson wishing those attacks on France. It's the party of Neal Boortz calling Rep. Cynthia McKinney a "ghetto slut". Get the picture?

Republicans, if you want to challenge my party to a tit-for-tat battle of outrageous statements, go right ahead. To paraphrase your president, bring it on. Because I know the final outcome before we even begin. Why? Because there's a little bit of Ann Coulter in every Republican. Because every conservative that defends her or even looks the other way while she spews her garbage is forgiving her for poisoning the debate. For lowering the bar. For appealing to the lowest-common denominator. And for that, they're all Ann Coulter.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. Best Coulter Commentary I have read so far anywhere! nt.

[Dora]

2. A+++++++++++

Right on, brother!
:yourock:

[BobcatJH]

3. That's a lot of plusses

[Dora]

94. And every single one of them was earned!

:*

[blondeatlast]

4. BRING IT ON. Amen, my brother. In unison on the count of three.

We can easily take them on because good but heretofore uninformed people everywhere will not only support us, they'll join us.

They are bullies, pure and simple--but that can't beat us for sheer numbers--and intellect.

[gator_in_Ontario]

5. Great post!

I sure hope you are planning on posting more often !

[BobcatJH]

10. As often as is humanly possible

If you need a real fix, head to my blog, Hughes for America

/shameless plug

[Supersedeas]

67. Seconded and recommended

[Felinity]

6. Democratic Strategy

Guilty by association. Make her the poster child for Republican position. Keep her out in front, holding one great big petard, and let the rest of them pile on just by not choosing to distance themselves.

If you're not agin her, you're with her.

As long as the MSM is giving her air time, let her speak for her party.

Wouldn't she and Ken Mehlman make a great couple?

:hug:

[adigal]

18. Last night on Scarborough, the Dem pundit from Air America

did just that: he repeatedly said to Joe and the Republican strategist (the same one who, the other day, said that Gay Marriage is 5 times more dangerous to our nation than terrorism and the war in Iraq) that Ann Coulter IS TODAY'S REPUBLICAN PARTY. This needs to be repeated, over and over. She, and her apologists, like Tucker Carlson, and Sean Hannity, and the 300 good Germans who were at the book signing yesterday, ARE today's Republicans.

I just said that and sent the story of what Coulter said to every Republican I know.

[Lib Grrrrl]

7. I Dunno About 9/11 Widows Enjoying Their Husband's Deaths, But

I know if any man was ever dumb enough to marry Anne Coulter, he'd be fucking DANCING ON HER GRAVE when that miserable cunt-bitch-twat dies!!

Now, I might use the F-bomb a bit, but when I bring out the CBT words, you KNOW I'm serious!! Those are words I just don't use much...but, in coulter's case...they really fit!

[The Wizard]

36. Coulter

It's the new C word. Can you say Coultergeist?

[Usrename]

41. get a grip..

uhhh.. no.. get a brick..

[AuntiBush]

84. Trust me. No Widow Enjoys Their Husband's Death...

Only the few you see all over our wonderful MSN-BS tube-shows.

[Dhalgren]

8. K&R!

Great commentary! You have framed this with an admiral precision! Good!

[Ganja Ninja]

9. Why is it when a left winger makes a comment the right ...

considers outrageous the media will go out of it's way to broadcast the indignation of the right and the calls for an apology? Then the left winger is almost always banned from ever appearing again.
But if a right wing blowhard nut bag makes an outrageous comment it's called "controversial" and their invited back on to repeat it.

[erknm]

20. She conveniently forgets when the right does the same thing.

Forget all the childish name-calling that I see on this blog. Likewise forget the intentionally provocative language from her book and interviews. This is little more than marketing to sell a book. What we really have here is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Coulter correctly calls out the dems for exploiting the suffering of these people for political purposes. She criticized the dems for putting people out there to push the message of the left who are supposed to be untouchable due to political correctness. It is not so much that the widows should not speak, rather it is that their critics should be able to. So she, being politically incorrect, speaks.

She is correct, the dems should not do this. However, she conveniently forgets when the right does this. The republicans put war heroes, many injured, on the campaign trail and then tell us that criticizing these people is unpatriotic. They foolishly try to get the youth vote with W's kids, then criticize us when we point out their foibles. God forbid that a dem should look at those girls and talk about W's character!

I see this all as the same thing, exploiting sympathetic, politically unimpeachable characters for political purposes and expecting them to be treated with kid gloves.

The hypocrisy is palpable. What we really have here is an author being provocative to sell a book. A neo-con forgetting her own party's culpability to her very own accusations. The republicans wrote the book on exploitation of political sacred cows. Now that the dems are unfortunately borrowing the republican methods, she cries foul.

We should all cry foul that the political debate has been reduced to a discussion of this sort. Yet we can come out of this healthier and wiser if we dismiss the ridiculous statements and focus on what Ann herself is too blind to see. The democratic party is selling itself trying to win. I grew up in an age where we judged the republicans badly because of their methods. I do not subscribe to the theory that instructs us to do anything to win.

Perhaps it is easier for me to feel this way, as I tend more toward independent candidates who usually do not win. And yes, I realize this means that I essentially support the republicans. However I am not willing to sell my principles to win.

FH

[Ganja Ninja]

26. Explain to me how the Democrats have exploited the 9/11 families.

Please feel free to give some examples.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

30. Ditto for Sentinel Chicken - cite examples of Dems exploiting

9/11 families. Come on, don't just post and run - do something Mann Coulter never does - BACK UP YOUR STATEMENT.

Methinks this poster has done a Coulter.

[erknm]

43. Go to a rally and you can see

Exploit: To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor. See Synonyms at manipulate.


A little criticism of the dems is not necessarily a bad thing. The obvious goal is to put forward a sympathetic image that cannot be criticized. This itself is absolute exploitation. The party uses these images (people) to forward an agenda (in this case one with which most of us agree)without inviting genuine debate. The hope is that our sympathy and outrage generated by their appearances will transfer to opposition and righteous ingination toward the republicans. Were these particular women to whom Coulter refers not to have lost family members in 9/11, were their husbands to have taken a lunch break and not been in the buildings, you can bet that the democrats would not be leading them, following them, or paying attention to them. That they lost family members makes them somewhat of an expert, if you will, on the costs of terrorism. Yet no one is supposed to "cross examine" them. I think this is wrong.

Having said this, such political action has long been the method of the right. The right has traditionally been shameless, willing to do anything to win and Coulter conveniently ignores this.

I do not like seeing the democrats using this method. As a relative independent, I find alot of agreement with the dems and have no patience for W. However, it seems to me that over the recent 10-20 years, the democrats have steadily moved toward using the less savory methods of winning traditionally used by republicans. Perhaps I am being blind, perhaps we have always done this and I just never saw it before. However, I do not think so. I think that what has happened is that traditional democratic leadership is getting tired of being beaten by weaker candidates from the republicans and has decided to use more questionable methods, what I consider traditional republican methods, of gaining election.

To me it is obvious, but I find the strongest democratic party is one made up of members who recognize its failings. I do think it is wrong to parade 9/11 widows in front of the public in an effort to promote rage against the republicans. It appears tasteless to me.

I could be wrong, the ends may justify the means. And I know many here have been critical of the dems for being too meek, and not playing political hardball.

However, all this ignores the main point of my original post, that being that Coulter is being a hypocrit, she does not see the thematic similarities between traditional republican political manuevering and the democrats using what she labels "women enjoying their husbands' deaths".

And the right wing talk hosts are critical of her. Surprised? Don't be. They are critical, not because she has used unnecessarily provocative language, but because they anticipate that her comments will further incite and offer fuel to the democrats and the left. They cannot make a judgement on anything they see in any way other than how it will impact the republicans.

In the final analysis, she is acting in an intentionally provocative manner to elicit support for her book sales.

FH

[Ganja Ninja]

90. What in the fuck are you babbling about?

"Were these particular women to whom Coulter refers not to have lost family members in 9/11, were their husbands to have taken a lunch break and not been in the buildings, you can bet that the democrats would not be leading them, following them, or paying attention to them."


If George W Bush had been paying attention to the warnings he was receiving about al-Qaida they wouldn't have lost their loved ones in the first place.

"That they lost family members makes them somewhat of an expert, if you will, on the costs of terrorism. Yet no one is supposed to "cross examine" them. I think this is wrong."


When a person loses a family member to a terrorist attack they have a right to grieve. When a President ignores repeated warnings about that attack and spends most of his time campaigning and vacationing then the victims have a right to be angry. The fact that they chose to be critical of the failure in leadership rather than be a backdrop at a Bush rally is perfectly understandable. What's to cross examine?

"As a relative independent, I find alot of agreement with the dems and have no patience for W. However, it seems to me that over the recent 10-20 years, the democrats have steadily moved toward using the less savory methods of winning traditionally used by republicans. Perhaps I am being blind,"


Perhaps you're not as independent as you claim to be.

'Blah blah blah'

Whatever.:eyes:

[Demeter]

79. And How Have These Widows Laid Themselves Open For Criticism?

by surviving? Not committing suttee? Wondering what the Liar-in-Chief is hiding?

[Felinity]

35. I beg to differ with you

If there is a group of people or organization that espouses the same views as you do, it is not automatically exploitation to support them, or reference them in your argument.

As above, examples please. Give me something like the Republicans interest in Terry Shiavo.

[erknm]

47. The Terry Shiavo example is excellent

This is something that Coulter conveniently ignored. Yet if we criticize the republicans and Jeb Bush on this, we are branded as people who do not value life.

Thus my point exactly, the republicans have been doing this for years, yet Coulter finds recent democratic action tasteless. I find them both questionable. The republicans used Terry Shiavo as an instrument to raise money. I am sure that donations to the democrats have also risen as a result of these rallies.

I agree with what you have said above, however it becomes exploitation when we do so expecting that the benefit of their participation in the debate is largely because they will not be countered.

FH

[PATRICK]

91. The comment was well meaning

and the reactions are justified. The extreme GOP and the moderate Dems(the flame throwing commies that the GOP likes to think they are righteously and bravely up against are truly mythical beasts) respond to causes and persons with instant zealous passion and political calculation. There the resemblance truly ends. Is there moral equivalence between an abuser of human institutions and emotions and one who makes them work to serve as they should with more selfless compassion?

WEe have gone amazingly far down the road of accommodation and disillusion with the necessary art of politics and civil government, social responsibility and service. Guess who is moving into the vacuum? Not Dems who cleverly play the ruined gameboard. Not Dems at a loss why their higher values and better service only makes them representationally weaker. Not isolated heroes or the vast majority lorded over and shouted down from the ramparts of seized institutions.

The point is well taken that self criticism, with LOTS of help from the dark mirror image from the abusers of politics, should enlighten the naivete and unjustified self-righteousness of Democrats and other normal humans. To become part of the defeat of civil society by engaging in ghetto like intramural sniping or fleeing to the desert of political exile is caving in to OUR worst instincts. The corrupting influence of infectious political diseases like fascism is great and those going the other way have also failed politically from an excess of virtue even as they take corporate funds and absurd philosophy as pragmatic wisdom. The other side we don't want to be like plunges into their successful vice as we plunge into our losing virtues, politically speaking. Reminds me of that Captain Kirk split personality episode but without chance of bipartisan redemption.

You wouldn't take a medical opinion from Dr. Mengele to heart if you were a Jew nor should a decent human take social commentary from Coulter or O'Reilly. Other doctors deserve scrutiny in the decent world. In the world of monsters they have to be confronted, not taken as peers, not to turn your back on while trying to make them go away by mimetic reenactment of their power. These monsters love to set people off.

The real comment might have been more wisely stated that the Dems in trying to respond to RW games are set to be imitative reactionaries as power defines politics. They are spun around in mediocrity and civility into self-defeating sucker mode. From the outset they should have been seizing the initiative on behalf of a public abandoned to victimhood and putting the unfit abusers under their respective rocks. But many decades of weakness, innocence, presumption, easy power derived from B or C or occasional D levels of public service with the creeping vices more than well represented, made even the dumbest ruthless RW cancer grow into something even more darkly self-deluded but cunningly aggressive.

Augustine of Hippo, his city besieged by Vandals, turned to his general to do his duty. Just war and all that. THAT was the moment the general decided to flee to the desert and become a monk. He was hardly praised or respected for his untimely sanctity.

The better posters more correctly tried to find insights into the peculiar madness of Coulter instead of taking her seriously and rightly putting the onus of attack on people who try to promote genuine rational points in her pathology. Meanwhile, behind these smoking political curtains, the violence of Bush supported terror and criminality continues. Maybe both sides are deluded into thinking that the polarized and diseased politics of ruined democracy matters compared to the raw power entrenched above them all. The Democrats are not being more wrong or politically abusive than any other political animal in history, nor is this abnormal or criminal. What it is, besides being just plain human, is so far too weak, sidetracked and ineffective to shake off tyranny- a tyranny still not truly faced up to for what it is and is not. The "Right" has no legitimate right to set the "democratic" rules of civil debate so that impossible purity and silence chains the pathetic pure and holy losers. Losers who are isolated as the little hope we have for leadership and criticized or mocked from all sides.

Standing up for widows is not the same as crooks hiding behind the mouth of a harpy, no matter how Coulter is trying to recast reality.

[Bridget Burke]

40. So--you agree with Coulter.

And you admit that "I essentially support the republicans."

Enjoy your stay.

[erknm]

46. Not agreement, disbelief

If you think this is what I truly believe, then I invite you to read again my original post. Your interpretation of my political ideals is incorrect.

I feel that neither party should be exploiting such images for political gain. Such campaigning causes us to ignore practical policy issues and is boorish. If this is what is required to win a campaign then it is time for true revolution.

I feel that Coulter has ignored the fact that the republicans have taken such an approach to winning campaigns for years and as such have no room to make any such criticism.

I feel that if Coulter does not represent the republicans on this issue, then she should quiet her rhetoric and address the problems on both sides of the aisle.

I feel that we must maintain a higher level of debate and not fall to such levels. While no one would remove their rights to speak, they should be accepted as political tools in their current use.

I do enjoy being here, I tend to read mostly on environmental issues. As such, it was probably Mark White's handshake with polluters as a dem governor in Texas that caused me to re-register independent. Yet I donate and fundraise each year for both dems and environmental issues, and not a penny goes to republicans.

FH

[Bridget Burke]

50. The 9/11 widows came out on their own, with no political axe to grind.

Later, they did support Kerry. Should he have shunned them?

Why did the actions of a Texas governor cause you to "re-register independent"? Since we don't register by party here, it's odd that he was so influential in another state.

[erknm]

51. I was a U Texas undergrad at the time

I am now in LA. I was still a democrat, listed and polled.

White had an opportunity to promote renewable energy in Texas, but the oil men would not have it and he caved in. I do not know what it is like now, but back in the 1980s you could literally not walk out of the water at the beach without tiny little beads of oil on your shorts.

Now of course, after the oil crisis, wind energy is growing rapidly in Texas, but White could have promoted it further in his day by not bending over for the oil industry. This is likely the area in which I am most aligned with the traditional democratic party. We are killing our planet and only now that we have expensive natural gas do we see politicians walking in front of the environmental parade.

But this is a story for another time.

Regarding the topic of the day, I do not expect Kerry to shun them, perse. However, he should have not used them as a central point in his campaign against terrorism and W's actions. Yet out they came, on stage over and over again.

I do disagree with the original author, political debate requires a back and forth discussion, and it should be on merits. Valiance issues are traditionally used in politics, but of course this does not in this case make it right.

But the post on Shiavo was right on, and one Coulter should read.



FH

[Bridget Burke]

54. I still live in Texas.

And the governorships of Bush & Perry have convinced me to remain a proud Democrat. Gosh, you've got a great governor out in California, don't you?

Kerry's actions do not in any way excuse Coulter's attack.

[Felinity]

70. Poor exploited females!!

"Regarding the topic of the day, I do not expect Kerry to shun them, perse. However, he should have not used them as a central point in his campaign against terrorism and W's actions. Yet out they came, on stage over and over again."

GMAB First of all "per se" is two words (not being picky, did not get it till the third reading).

Secondly (to respond to another of your comments above), people not understanding your writing is not necessarily derived from their lack of reading skills.

And thirdly and most importantly, isn't it a little patronizing to assume that this group was somehow dragged out on stage, unaware of being pawns in a malevolent scheme to unseat the worst "President" this country has ever seen? I would have danced naked with monkeys in front of the whole Democratic Convention if I thought it would have gotten Kerry elected. Yo! Please! Exploit me! Save another 5,000+ American lives, please, use me!

Compare Kerry's "using" the 911 widows with the Republican Party trotting out more blacks on the entertainment roster of their convention than they had as delegates. That's what I call exploitation. Sing! Dance! But please don't vote.

[treestar]

89. 911 has been exploited by Bush to invalidate as many of our

freedoms as possible. That is what should be under discussion.

[ladym55]

71. I have been wondering the same thing

Can you IMAGINE what would happen if Michael Moore or Al Franken said one tiny fraction of what she spewed on the airways yesterday??? The screaming would have been heard for days!! Indignation!! Demands for apologies!!! Calls for book burning!

[Canuckistanian]

11. A big K&R here

you bring up a good point. Where's O'Lielly on this? Or Scarborough? Or Rush?

Hannity, to his credit has put up some meek, non-specific defenses of her, but quickly moves on the the next liberal-bashing point.

WE should bring this up, every chance we get. Again and again and again. Make them own Coulter like we "own" Ward Churchill.

[ptolle]

17. RIGHT

Blowhardbillowlielly, at least according to the little I could stomach to see of the gasbag was right where you'd expect him to be basically saying that she's rich and famous already and only trying to become more of both.It was a sort of tepid defense of her statements buttressed by him saying "no doubt, some far-left blog has said as bad or worse" but as usual providing no instance of any such entity doing so and of course his mostly brain dead viewers will acclaim his every word gospel truth.

[Gman]

12. Excellent article

but I just think its a lot of effort wasted on someone that should be ignored. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen which is why your article is important.

[BrklynLiberal]

13. Eloquent! Eloquent! Eloquent!

Your commentary, and that of Olbermann are examples of what we need to hear as responses to what these hate-mongers keep spouting. It is called "THE TRUTH"!!! :thumbsup: :headbang: :yourock: :applause:

[Virginian]

14. She has accomplished what she wanted -- Publicity to sell her book. n/t

[thoughttheater]

15. Fighting The New War On Terror: Afgh-Ann-A-Skank

See a visual depicting "The New War On Terror: Afgh-Ann-A-Skank" here:

www.thoughttheater.com

[LibDemAlways]

16. My first thought upon hearing Coulter's latest screed was

"I wonder how the repukes are going to deal with this? Surely, bashing terror victims is beneath even the likes of Limpballs and O'Reilly." Then I remembered the young man whose father had perished on 9/11 who came on O'Reilly's show in opposition to the Bush Crime family and was screamed at and told to "shut up." These lowlifes know no shame. And the worst part is they say this shit not because they believe it like some stupid, ignorant freeper, but because it allows them to live in luxury and have a big, fat bank account.

Bashing terror victims, hurricane victims, poor people, immigrants --it's all the same to them as long as the paycheck keeps coming.

[creeksneakers2]

29. Bashing 9/11 widows is not below Rash

Rash broadcast lies about the 9/11 widows being secretly funded by Teresa Heniz Kerry. Limbaugh said everything the widows had to say came from talking points given to them by the Democratic party, who Rash said the widows were working for the whole time. Rash said other terrible things about the widows.

[SIMPLYB1980]

19. Nice job.

Thanks for showing what a uppity bitch Ann "MAN HANDS" Colter is as well as the rest of her ilk. Thanks for helping to raise a whole new generation of fascists Ann. :sarcasm: If I had the chance I would do more than through a pie at you. I would hawk up the biggest lugie I could and spit it directly in your face. I would be well worth the Jail time.

[The Wizard]

37. If you're willing to go to jail

Make the offense count, something the Nazi whore will see every time he/she looks in the mirror for the rest of his/her life.

[SIMPLYB1980]

63. Not a bad Idea.

While it would be tempting to do real physical damage to the "MAN-BEAST" I am not willing to go to jail for an extended period of time. I think an overnight stay would be well worth spitting in the face of the UBER NAZI SUPER BITCH.

[The Wizard]

69. Pretend to be

Drunk and/or disoriented and fall into her. Or, deliberately turn your head and run into her full speed. I seriously doubt if she can walk in the street outside of the most reddest of areas. I see her future in the Idaho hills playing Idaho bagpipes (aka blowing mountain goats).

[SIMPLYB1980]

92. LOL

Idaho Bagpipes!!!!:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[opihimoimoi]

21. Shut that ATTENTION WHORE DOWN ALREADY

Coulter brings Shame to the Name and Tradition of the COULTER FAMILIES throughout America/Canada/France/etc.

And the Poster is correct...All of the Pubs have been infected with Coulteritis

[JunkYardAngel]

22. Spot on!

"What Coulter and her Republican friends seem unable to do is disagree with someone simply on the merits of their arguments"
Exactly!!
All this rubbish about how they're "not allowed to respond" to victims of terrorism or the war, just means that launching personal attacks against such individuals isn't really acceptable. It goes to prove that for Coulter and her ilk "responding to" their political opponents means nothing more than launching vitriolic diatribes against them while steadfastly refusing to engage with them based on the issues.
Great post, you totally nailed it!

[jrw14125]

23. great post - I think what is not really being discussed enough...

...is the fact that this is not just an issue of how despicable someone's words are, but the fact that these right-wingers are compelled to come out and personally smear administration critics, time and time and time again. Anne is maybe just the least tactful about it.

This appears to be a concerted, organized effort among many (most?) in the RW echo chamber to silence adminstration critics by smearing them personally. You've seen it with Wilson. Sheehan. Cleland. Kerry. Gore. Dean. The 9-11 families. These are just a few examples.

Ann is not alone. Remember Glenn Beck saying he "hated" the 9-11 families? No one's really mentioned that, and this guy has a show on CNN now! (though probably not for long...)

Why do they hate these critics? Surely not because their family memebrs died. Suerly not because of their political affiliation (several were Republican). No, it's because they dared criticize the emperor, which no one is allowed to do. No one. And if they do, they will face the full wrath of the wingnuts and their ditto-head base, as their personal lives, ambitions, goals, families, motives, methods in mounring their dead, and any questionable statement they've ever made is dragged through the gutter.

This is the point I was screaming at the Air America guy last night on Scarborough to make, rather than just say over and over that Ann echos most of the Republican party. Good point, true, but it's this tactic among the Republican media that's the issue. The tactic of smearing anyone and everyone that dares to speak up.

Simple solution, Ann. Attack the issue, not the person.

[Catherine Vincent]

24. Damn you're good.

And so right on!

[DeepModem Mom]

25. Wow!

[Uncle Joe]

27. You hit the nail on the head Bobcat.

Kicked and recommended!

:kick:

[Totally Committed]

28. Truer words were never spoken!

Great post!!!!

TC

[rman]

31. Coulter is an extreme case, but not a-typical of the RW

Kudos for the article and the sourcing.

[Divine Discontent]

32. amen...

they all are (not act, but are) Ann Coulters.


"I am emboldened by my looks to say things Republican men wouldn't."
--Ann Coulter, TV Guide, August 1997

Which is a great thing for Republican men in general, but obviously the men are catching up.

Because Ann Coulter has some important (read incredibly scary) things to say and so does her party:

"I think should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote <...> The problem with women voting--and your Communists will back me up on this--is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned."
--Politically Incorrect, Feb. 26, 2001

"I'd build a wall. In fact, I'd hire illegal immigrants to build the wall. And then throw out the illegals who are here <...> It's cheap labor."
--The O'Reilly Factor, Apr. 14, 2006

"Anorexics never have boyfriends <...> That's one way to know you don't have anorexia: if you have a boyfriend."
--Politically Incorrect, July 21, 1997

"Liberals hate both God and America."
--Feb. 2006 speech at Indiana University

"Kwanzaa itself is a lunatic blend of schmaltzy '60s rhetoric, black racism, and Marxism. Indeed, the seven 'principles' of Kwanzaa praise collectivism in every possible arena of life--economics, work, personality, even litter removal."
--TownHall.com, Dec. 26, 2003

"A cruise missile is more important than Head Start."
--Nov. 2001 speech rebroadcast by C-Span in Jan. 2002

"The presumption of innocence only means you don't go right to jail."
--Hannity & Colmes, Aug. 24, 2001

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it! It's yours."
--Hannity & Colmes, June 20, 2001

"Let's say I go out every night, I meet a guy and have sex with him. Good for me. I'm not married."
--Rivera Live, June 7, 2000

"I think there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote."
--Hannity & Colmes, Aug. 17, 1997

"If they have the one innocent person who has ever to be put to death this century out of over 7,000, you probably will get a good movie deal out of it."
--MSNBC, July 27, 1997

"Don't pray. Learn to use guns."
--Politically Incorrect, Dec. 18, 1997

But what hurts me more is this:

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
--Godless, 2006

It hurts me almost as much as this:

Robert McCain: Has Christianity played a role all along in shaping your political beliefs, or have you become more religious in recent years?
Ann Coulter: I've always been a Christian.
--The Washington Times, June 7, 2006

www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <<<--- Check it out!!! Top Anti-Rep and Pro-Dem stickers/shirts

[indigo32]

33. But But But...

the Dems are the party of hate. EVERYTHING we do is motivated by our irrational hatred of the Chimp
/sarcasm

Excellent piece that nails them. Every time I hear them try and compare her to Michael Moore I just laugh. Michael Moore doesn't come close to approaching this loathesome creature.

[The Wizard]

38. And

Michael Moore is talented.

[indigo32]

39. Yes he is

:)

[ladym55]

73. Michael Moore also has a sense of humor

and some compassion for others ... and when someone disagrees with him, he actually LISTENS. I watched him do that when he appeared near us a few years back. Somebody disagreed--the crowd started to heckle--and Moore told them to stop because we needed to listen to each other.

I can see why Glenn Beck thinks he needs to be choked. Couldn't have a discussion now, could we??? :sarcasm:

[Jesterstear]

34. Countering Repub counters

The problem mentioned, that Repubs counter criticism of Coulter by bringing up examples of the left that they find offensive is easily countered.

What needs to be pointed out, and consistently, is that this is exactly like catching your child doing something wrong, and the child says "but (whomever) did this and it was OK!" That excuse doesn't work with children, and it shouldn't work with adults. It must be pointed out that in bringing up someone from the "evil other side," all one does is say "yes, you're right, that person is very wrong and I can't defend them. So instead, I will try to distract and change the course of the discussion." Then force them to stick with the topic at hand, and ruthlessly point out every deviation from the topic as their admission that you are right.

[RedEarth]

42. Great post..... I feel the same way....

I really think a few of the common traits for a large portion of republicans are greed and mean-spiritedness.

[wizstars]

44. They're all Ann Coulter

She's just Rush Limbaugh with tits and PPMS (that's permanent PMS).

[sutz12]

56. When did she get tits? nt

[sellitman]

65. I think Rush's tits are bigger.

:sarcasm:

[SeveneightyWhoa]

96. Why the sarcasm tag?

His tits definitely ARE bigger. Well, at least they were back in the fat days.

Especially when you consider the immense amount of Photoshopping done on Ann's latest book cover..

[sellitman]

97. I think her adams apple is

bigger than both tits combined!

[SeveneightyWhoa]

98. What? You haven't heard?

It's referred to as an "Ann's apple" now..

[AJE]

45. VERY WELL SAID commentary! Ann Coulter is a Sick & VULGAR mouthpiece

VERY WELL SAID commentary! :toast:
Ann Coulter is a Sick & VULGAR mouthpiece of the GOP--TRULY a pathetic individual--and the perfect symbol for all they stand for. She uses her knack of being vulgar and her OVERWHELMING LACK of class to line her NASTY pockets! What a surprise there--these ineffective, dishonest, and most of all CROOKED cronies of Bush and gang are totally grasping at straws now...it is just too obvious!!

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BobcatJH]

49. Wrong

Criticism of the arguments they were making? Sure. Criticism of themselves as people. Never.

[Bridget Burke]

53. Coulter did not "Criticize" them.....

She attacked them in a low & vulgar way.

The widows think that Bush & Co did not do all they could have done to prevent the deaths on 9/11. That is the reason they spoke out. Many of us agree with them.

(Gosh, they're coming out of the woodwork today!)

[nxylas]

57. I agree, except...

...the attacks on Coulter on this site and elsewhere are also low and vulgar, and extremely personal. The saddest thing about people like Coulter and the Freepers is that they inevitably drag our side down to their level. I guess people just get tired of trying to counter ad hominem abuse with reasoned argument which they know will go straight over the 'pukes heads.

[Bridget Burke]

58. Alas, DU is not the Today Show.

I haven't heard (or read) any Democratic spokesperson sink to Coulter's level. Michael Moore has been called her counterpart on the Left, but that's absurd.

You WILL read some low cracks about Coulter around here. (Speaking of Low Cracks....)

[Scriptor Ignotus]

52. spot on analysis

I frequent the right-wing sites and they have done exactly as you say. They defend Coulter and insult the widows of the very event that was the catalyst for their beloved war in Iraq. It's one of the most appalling things I have ever seen and I reached "outrage fatigue" many, many moons ago.

[Joe Chi Minh]

55. Notice that Coulter's first criticism of the 9/11 victims' widows is

about money. It would be difficult to over-emphasise how characteristic this mania for money of Mammon-worshipping worldings is. Your first thought would be to ascribe it to an intention to "divide and rule". However, at bottom, it really isn't primarily about "divide and rule", rather arises from a deep-seated personal monomania about money.

There's a female columnist, probably not much worse than most others, except for those of the traditional far-right rags, who writes for one of the UK's popular Sunday papers, and who regularly expresses the same "hang-up" about money, nearly always prefacing her criticisms of individuals in public life with a comment on their obscene earnings - which, of course, coming from a journalist, of all kites and crows, is rather rich.

But who caould fail to take immense satisfaction in seeing one of today's Republicans exhibiting the Republican soul, in its all its depravity, to a stunned world, with her comments about the widows glorying in their husbands' deaths. You go, girl! Let it all hang out!

[wizdum]

59. Great post. I especially like this line...

"Coulter, who published her latest bird-cage liner "Godless: The Church of Liberalism"

psycho scribe annie is the personification of one who projects her inner state on others. And she never met a fact she liked. Thinking is not an option for this godless slut. She is going to live to regret the day she crossed this line.

[MrPatrioticDissenter]

60. Look what the "Right" thinks of this and D.U.

These people cannot possibly look in the mirror, can they? If they do, I bet it breaks.

Look what these people think of Coulter and read the second blog on this page (about Zarkawi). They like blasting D.U. and figure they can get away with it.

You can post annonymously there. Let them know what you think!

http://www.joeuser.com

[The Wizard]

68. Oh they can look in a mirror

But they won't see a reflection. I'm really surprised they come out during the daytime. Actually, Annie isn't healthy. Soon she will die screaming from a dreadful disease. And she deserves it. The Server of Just Desserts will exact a heavy toll on Annie and her ilk. What's the life expectancy of chain smoking crack heads?

[Stockholm]

61. Sweet!

K&R

[Totally Committed]

62. Well, I have to thank AND Ann Coulter...

I sent my Republican son your fine post this morning, and he called me to tell me that he had already gone out and changed his Party affiliation to "Independent" this morning. He said that Coulter's attack on those women was "the very last straw" and he could no longer belong to a Party that had moved so far away from not only the things he believed in (smaller gov't., fiscal responsibilty), but "from decency itself".

So, I thank you and I thank Ann Coulter for what I'm hoping will be a complete return from the darkside by my kid!


TC

[ZanZaBar]

64. The only people who use the word "Broads" are men.

I rest my case.

[Vogon_Glory]

66. No More Excuses For Right-Wing Pundits. Gutter Polemicists All

The mainstream media and its presstitutes should be served notice. There should be no apologetics, no more cover-ups, no more phony "balance," no more excuses for the filth and vituperation from the likes of Coulter and her ilk. The time is past when propagandists like Coulter and her fellows deserved the minimal courtesy of being assumed to be people of honor, decency, and integrity. Their behavior shows what--ahem--"values" they REALLY practice. There may have once been a time when the odd Murchison or Kilpatrick showed honor and decency, but these days such behavior is the very rare exception to today's right wing commentators' penchant for gutter polemics.

The corporate media's news-critters and their owners should be served notice that the rest of us have had a bellyful of playing up to these creeps.

[Generator]

72. This last five years has taught me to understand

HOW Nazi Germany happened. Forced silence. The rising of bullies to hero status. People like Coulter would be shunned, bankrupt or much worse in any DECENT society. We no longer have a decent society. The bullies, the gay haters, the death lovers have gotten control. They would let you die if it furthered their agenda. They have no morality. They scare the shit out of me and the only thing that comforts me is I am NOT a pacifist. And I will never bow down to thugs, bullies and those that DEFEND them. WHAT THE FUCK is she DOING on television? Where is the decency? She is TRASH. She is a forty something unmarried woman that thinks women that have sex are criminals. She's not a virgin. That's the first question I would ask that trash bag-how many children do you have? Are you a virgin? For her to trash people that actually know what love is-that have children and had husbands and wives like those that lost love ones on 9/11 is a travesty. This country sickens me. Where is the decency? I think America has lost it's very soul.

She is actually the thing she claims to hate the most-a godless soul.

[MrPatrioticDissenter]

Spot on my friend

Everything you said is true.

The comparison to Hitler is one I continually think about also. I too believed that it couldn't happen again...now I'm beginning to wonder. I've never seen such a complete lack of competence in the White House be paralleled with such a hateful split in society as a whole.

I'm not going to back down either.

[txwhitedove]

74. Best article on Ann Coulter yet! Just listened to her interview...

on CNN with Lou Dobbs.  What is wrong with these
"news" anchors?  Why aren't they armed with research
and quotes like I've read right here on this single DU post? 
Sadly, her book is already #1.

[SIMPLYB1980]

76. Her book is only #1 because

all the Neo-Cons buy it in bulk and hand them out at there "SS" meetings.:puke:

[ismnotwasm]

75. Excellent

I'm always trying to decide to ignore Coulter threads, or jump in with the bashing. I tend to ignore them because they're counter-productive in a way--she gets a lot of undeserved attention, but once in a while I jump right in.

I want her to go away. But since that's not happening, sometimes I feel like a puppet on a string, forced to respond to her publicity and her disgusting presentation of issues. I actually read some of her stuff, even though I wouldn't read a whole book,(I'd never buy one, but they're all over second hand stores) mostly because she's has a schizophrenic style of writing that's very painful to read and try to understand. An old movie Tarzan bottom line-- Liberal bad, Conservative good, with all this VERBAGE to slog through to get to that point.

So you've brought me some comfort. If I think of them all as Coulter, and I can reframe the battle in a different way, I can tolerate her presence as representative as republican/conservative thought. Not good for the right since she's a cold blooded opportunist, but thinking this way opens some interesting doors. I thank you, and will be visiting your blog, for sure.

[Quantess]

77. The photo of Lieberman & Bush together

nearly made me lose my lunch. :puke: They looked like were making out.

[Demeter]

78. Elegantly Reasoned, and Competently Argued, But

way too subtle and intellectual and moral for the putative GOP audience you are addressing. They can only handle 4 letter words and others of that kind.

[Phrogman]

80. Colter is a real life internet troll....

Says the most outragous things possible for attention. But in her case she makes money off of it.

[AX10]

81. K and R! Here's something to read!

Ann Coulter IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY!

[proud patriot]

82. Yeah Baby ,, bring it on

:patriot:

[AuntiBush]

83. As a Widow Colter Really Hit Home this Time Around!

She makes me absolutely sick! She's a disgrace to humanity and makes big money spewing her "hate!" Anyone that buys into her BS, well, I'm too much a lady to repeat what I really think about that, but here's betting it's less then 3 out of 10, but that would be a probable number in this over-crowded world.

How she sleeps at night is beyond this widow who's husband died of a very, very, tragic death - one that lingered in unspeakable pain. She's got to be on someone's payroll to make Liberals/Democrats/Christians a bad word w/elections coming.

Now, who's profiting on the widows of 9/11 I ask? Why, self-conscious-able, self-centered, self-righteous, death, war and destruction profiteers like Coulter. Just typing her name makes me want to :puke: She does not deserve out attention -- she's counting on it to sell books equating to money in her pocket and the Repukes!

:rant:

Edited: So mad I can't type/see straight!

[iconoclastNYC]

85. Bravo! And a warm welcome to DU!

You NAILED it Republican pundits poison the debate. To end it. And then evil wins.

:patriot:

[brazil]

86. From amazon.com

Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Hardcover)
by Ann Coulter

Product Details

* Hardcover: 320 pages
* Publisher: Crown Forum (June 6, 2006)
* Language: English
* ISBN: 1400054206
* Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.5 x 1.0 inches
* Shipping Weight: 1.21 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
* Average Customer Review: based on 754 reviews. (Write a review.)
* Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1 in Books (See Top Sellers in Books)
Yesterday: #1 in Books
(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)
* In-Print Editions: Audio CD (Abridged,Audiobook) | All Editions

Anybody else happen to notice the date and the title? How ironic.

And don't forget to notice who's publishing this shite. They're profiled at http://www.randomhouse.com/crown/forum.html. Note who the parent company is. Hell, we've boycotted Wal Mart for less.

[Prophet 451]

87. She's scum

Let's be honest, no-one on the Right is going to care about this because in their twisted world, Michael Moore saying some unkind things about Bush the Messiah is equivelent to Ann Coulter's repeated wishes of death on liberals, etc, etc.

If there was ever a good arguement for social cleansing, Ann Coulter is it. Some monsters should not be allowed to walk on the earth.

[Voltaire99]

88. Well done, BobcatJH!

[Mad_Dem_X]

93. Brilliant! n/t

[deaniac21]

95. I just hope this doesn't mean that we are all Joe Lieberman!

:evilgrin: