John Edwards' statement on Ann Coulter's comments

[JohnLocke]

John Edwards on Ann Coulter's Comments
3/03/2007 at 5:22 PM EST

John Edwards released the following statement today:

Ann Coulter's use of an anti-gay slur yesterday was un-American and indefensible. In America, we strive for equality and embrace diversity. The kind of hateful language she used has no place in political debate or our society at large.

I believe it is our moral responsibility to speak out against that kind of bigotry and prejudice every time we encounter it.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/3/3/172259/3775

[bobbie]

1. Well played John.

Too bad you voted for the Iraq war. If you hadn't I'd consider you a contender.

[IndyOp]

3. Something quote about glass houses keeps coming to mind when I read posts like yours...

:shrug:

[madmunchie]

6. Please, voting for Iraq is HUGE! It shows a lack of judgment

He co sponsored it as well, He was the ONLY Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee who DIDN'T listen to Clark and voted with the Republicans to bring the IWR out of that committee as well as voting for the Patriot act. John Edwards talks about poverty, but he co-sponsored a massive increase in H-1b Visas. With his SHORT but oh so horrid voting record, it is damn relevant because of his aspiration to be POTUS. It has nothing to do with glass houses...for Christ sake we are being asked to vote for POTUS and we are being asked to do this by making observations and judgments based on FACTS of his past job(s) performance. Just because the facts aren't in JE's favor, doesn't make them irrelevant!

Now we have more proof of his lack of judgment, he should never have even responded to Coulters slime...he gave her and (it) credibility by honoring her slimy remark with a response.

The reason Obama is fast rising in the polls, is because JE isn't the best choice and Hillary isn't either.

[bobbie]

8. Um, IndyOp, are you suggesting I was in congress and voted for the Iraq war?

Otherwise your comment makes no sense.

But you keep having fun with those emoticons.
There are so many of them. And they're so darn cute. They should keep you busy playing for hours.

[IndyOp]

14. I do love the emoticons - they are darned cute!

And I do wonder whether the extent to which some voters have turned the Iraq War Resolution into a litmus test for possible candidates is a function of that voter's sense of guilt about the U.S. attack & occupation. Projection, reaction formation...

I did take action before the occupation - I was lucky enough to hear Scott Ritter speak in Indianapolis about the solid evidence that Iraq did not have WMD's; I participated in MoveOn.org 50 Senators meetings to demand the U.S. wait for the inspectors to finish; I attended protests for months in advance and donated to every group I could find that was working to keep shock & awe from happening.

And then it happened. And now 655,000 irreplaceable lives have been snuffed. And my guilt is immense.

And I wonder whether Edwards' guilt isn't also immense - bigger even than mine.

And I wonder whether Edwards' hasn't, perhaps, made an honest-to-god 180 in his views about the use of the military and the likelihood that the military-industrial complex will lie to you to get you to support war. Whether he hasn't reconsidered the relative benefit of voting for your career rather than your conscience.

My Congressman still hasn't admitted his vote was wrong and he isn't doing a damn thing to stop the escalation and he hasn't spoken out against carpet-bombing Iran.

I am willing to listen to a candidate who acknowledges they are wrong and then makes it very, very clear how they have changed.

Edwards has not yet embraced a bold, alternative view of the role of the U.S. in international affairs.

I am willing to listen if and when Edwards does a Chavez: Make a major speech waving Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" or Chalmers Johnson's “Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" in the air. Or if he takes a similar brave, but not quite as dramatic tack.

And just for you: :hug: :loveya: :hi:

[madmunchie]

19. You are so right and all that the people that disagree with you

can seemingly only resort to childish replies, such as you had just received. We absolutely have to consider his vote, his co sponsorship, his other votes and his actions, if we didn't consider any of it then we would be as stupid as the Bush supporters. Facts are facts and the facts don't lie.

[IndyOp]

21. Thanks madmunchie - I appreciate your reply. We have to

consider everything. I think we also have to expect that we the people must *lead* the pols. As Thom Hartmann says - we don't elect leaders in the U.S., we elect representatives - and when we the people are doing our job, they have no choice but to represent us. When we fail to study up and speak up - en masse - then we get what we've got now.

:hi:

[bobbie]

22. Well that's just so laudible IndyOp

"And I do wonder whether the extent to which some voters have turned the Iraq War Resolution into a litmus test for possible candidates is a function of that voter's sense of guilt about the U.S. attack & occupation. Projection, reaction formation..."

Yet you presume to declare that other people in this thread, who you don't know at all, did nothing and are therefore projecting when they criticize Edwards.

What gives you such psychic powers IndyOp? What makes you so sure that someone in this thread was not at those same events with you, or events like them? What makes you so gosh darn superior? Oh yeah, you already told us.

Now back to the real point.
very member of congress who voted for the Iraq invasion knew exactly what they were voting for and have more blood on their hands than they could wash off in a thousand lifetimes.

So Edwards helped kill tens of thousands of people.
BUT has acknowledged he was wrong?
Gee, has he also restored life to those tens of thousands of people?
If a mass murderer on death row apologized would he be forgiven and released?

There are some offenses that are too serious for apologies to matter.
Edwards is guilty of one.
I won't support him for that reason.
You support anyone you want.

But don't lecture me about glass houses and projecting when you don't know a fuckin' thing about me.
Got that?
Good.

[IndyOp]

30. Yet you presume to declare that other people in this thread -

No. I don't presume to know anything about you.

My original comment was that "comments like yours" make me think of the saying about people who live in glass houses. <b>I recognize that the "glass houses" statement may not apply to you -- it may apply to others, however.</b>

You raise an interesting question: "If a mass murderer on death row apologized would he be forgiven and released?" The challenge, I think, is that we are taught in this society that the morality that applies to our daily lives does not apply to international relations. If my neighbor kills his boss over a disagreement, we call that murder. If national leaders / soldiers kill people in another nation over a disagreement, we call that war and call them heroes for defending our nation.

It is a tragedy that Edwards and Clinton have both made saber-rattling comments about Iran to demonstrate their capacity to make war, be heroes, defend our nation...

I am listening for comments from Obama and Gore about these issues. I hope that Edwards will turn around - because I don't want Clinton, Gore hasn't declared his candidacy, and I haven't heard nearly enough from Obama about international issues.

From a thread posted this morning:

Edwards <i>"in an interview with the Web site Beliefnet.com, said Jesus would be most upset with the selfishness of Americans and the country's willingness to go to war "when it's not necessary."</i>


I am not trying persuade you or anyone else to vote for or against anyone. I hope everyone votes their conscience.

Peace.

[bobbie]

32. Well I agree 100% with everything you said IndyOp -- Thanks

"The challenge, I think, is that we are taught in this society that the morality that applies to our daily lives does not apply to international relations. If my neighbor kills his boss over a disagreement, we call that murder. If national leaders / soldiers kill people in another nation over a disagreement, we call that war and call them heroes for defending our nation."

Just wanted to quote that part of your post 'cause it really shows how gov't doesn't have to live by the same standards as citizens. If gov't sends thousands of 18 year old kids to murder Iraqis and steal their oil that's fine. If the 18 year old gets mangled or traumatized or killed in the process that's fine. But civilians are then told to honor the sanctity of life (unless they run a big corporation wherein they can do almost anything to their employees with impunity).

Also agree about Clinton--the typical two-faced pol. I really hope she goes the hell away.

[hollowdweller]

2. Edwards should have brought up Cheney's dau again!

I loved it when the threw that up in the debates and the peckerwoods were rushing to her and cheney'd defense.

[benny05]

4. JRE Speaking on Civil Rights Tomorrow

Perfect timing:

Speaking about civil rights at Berkeley..http://www.johnedwards.com/events /

He's doing his job fine and has a fine partner, Elizabeth, at home, stoking the fires as great support. If anyone understands hate messages, it is Elizabeth.

From Saving Graces, p 252-3:

Grand Junction, CO

On a bench outside the airport gates sat a man, perhaps in his 60's, his hair thinning, the color of his faded jacket and the color of his weathered skin nearly the same, and on his lap he held a handmade sign, maybe 12 by 18 inches, and on the sign a single word, plainly printed: FATSO (emphasis, EE).

skip a couple of para's to page 253:

The sign I realized, was meant for me. It was a thrust of ugliness and meanness, designed to throw me off. The man had made the sign, driven to the airport, parked and sat on that bench for who knows how long, waiting for me to come by, so that I would read his sign, so I would see that someone, a plain old man, called me Fatso.

If you didn't understand John, or even grasp what Elizabeth said, read further here, again quoting from her book:

--there were 3 Secret Service agents and my little team, more than the usual load. "Did you see that guy?" I could tell 2 things from the way the Secret Service had responded: they had hoped I hadn't seen it, and they were mad."

I think I understand how John and Elizabeth operate. They have to "shrug" this off, but as Elizabeth and John say, this talk has no place in our society at large.

Let's create our own way.




John, One Corps of Scranton, Elizabeth, and kids after winterizing a home in PA, on Energy Conservation Action Day, January 27th, 2007

[Cha]

29. Cuties!

I'm so glad John Edwards is going around America spreading his messages.

[AshevilleGuy]

5. That was sufficient. He does not need to get into a piss fight

with lunatics like her, it would degrade him. When serious players hit him he must fight back, of course, and that is a very different thing.

[madmunchie]

7. His best response would have been no response......

If asked he should have just looked at the questioner and said something to the effect..."I don't even consider those comments worth a response"

[mnhtnbb]

9. I disagree. Silence implies consent and although Coulter

has every right to exercise free speech, we who are offended by her bigotry have every right to call her out.

[Patchuli]

10. You are oh so right

Silence is complicity.

[madmunchie]

20. Why does engaging a moron into a "debate" seem appropriate?

It is just common sense, the more ridiculous or lowly somebody is, the more you don't acknowledge them. The royals have been doing this forever. You don't even address a person of royal blood directly because "you are not worthy", the same goes with insidious people making awful cracks about people that doesn't deserve them. You don't give them acknowledgment by responding, you ignore them, simple and effective. They are like court jesters, they don't deserve to be addressed with any seriousness. It is like a comedienne making a joke about one of the candidates......do the candidates have to answer to every joke that is made about them? Coulter is no better than a comedienne, why act and respond like she is better? Coulter would go away if she got NO attention. BUT she always gets it and then is invited to talk shows because she opens up a dialog with insane remarks. Like Brittney Spears moto there is no such thing as bad publicity.

[bluedawg12]

25. He was not engaing her, he was responding to hate speech

and that was appropriate.

We can have more than one issue can't we?

Sure we can.

This is not about how he voted. We discuss that plenty.

This is about hate speech passing unnoticed slipping back into the vernacular thanks the RW's ridicule of being "PC" every slimy ooze that crawls out from a rock long enough seems to be slamming gays lately. That is a human right issue.
He was not talking to her, he was reminding society that hate speech and divisiveness is not tolerated.

Good for him.

[madmunchie]

27. When you acknowledge a slimy worthless attack, you give it worth

The mere response from JE gave an acknowledgment to Coulter and furthered her comments, now we don't JUST have some crackpot making a useless remark/joke, we have a response which just has turned this into a conversation and extended the life of the "story". What Coulter said was so over the top, so inflammatory, so ridiculous, that JE just gave her credibility by responding.

There are political comediennes all over and yet have I to hear all of the politicians answer to every "jab/joke/dig" yet. Why should they? They understood that by keeping it a stupid "joke/jab/dig", they minimized the importance of the remark and the person. Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. Coulter does not deserve to be acknowledged, but to be ignored, if she were ignored, she wouldn't sell books or get her ugly mug on TV, plain and simple.

I watch Bill Maher and he says plenty about a great many politicians, what I don't hear are the politicians responding to everyone of Maher's comments...because they are smart and professional and won't fall into that trap.

[Clarkie1]

12. Agree 110%. nt

[Clarkie1]

11. Coulter has already posted this on her website front page.

I think it might have been better to just ignore such a dog as Coulter.

Really, why even give her more of the attention she craves?

[rocktivity]

13. Because it encourages Rethugs to call Dems weak and escalate their attacks

I think it's a concession on Ann's part that she put Edward's statement there. I particularly like the use of the word "Un-American": ingenious!

We shouldn't be afraid to "take the high road." But we also shouldn't be afraid to take a detour right up their asses!

:headbang:
rocknation

[bluedawg12]

26. Ignoring the swiftboats was a smart move??

I say hit back swift, hard and smart. as he did.

[citizen snips]

15. its about time someone held these RW demagogue's accountable.

[gulliver]

16. That'll get him the saint vote.

Just pathetic. Sorry. A simple "Wow, that's really pretty sick in this day and age," would have sufficed. Edwards and his camp have rescued Coulter from herself.

[JohnLocke]

17. Wow.

:eyes:

[gulliver]

18. Sorry. I was an Edwards supporter in 2004 ...

... before Clark got in. I still like Edwards a lot. But in this case, he and his campaign really blew it. He could have handed Coulter her ass, dealt a _major_ blow to anti-gay bigotry, and electrified his campaign. Instead his campaign threw out a half-baked, cutesy appeal for "Coulter cash" that just looked like desperate money grubbing. And now it looks like he personally wants to deal with the situation with bromides.

[bobbie]

23. Oh hey, Clark is fantastic.

He's is SO the one.
That man can speak with total authority on practically any subject.
His charisma is unbeatable.
His resume is jaw-dropping.

One of the best prez candidates this country has ever had.
...
In other words, no way he'll be elected.

[Raksha]

24. Personally, I LOVE the appeal for "Coulter cash."

I responded with a small donation (all I could afford) and hope others do the same. It seems to me this is the most effective way to counter the RW slime machine, and if we don't use this or some similar tactic, we really have no effective defense against it. We DON'T have the corporate media on our side and won't for the foreseeable future. The Republican Noise Machine will trumpet the smears and lies 24/7, while burying the truth in the back pages if they publish it at all (or the broadcasting equivalent of same).

But if they KNEW their smears and swiftboating meant more money for OUR candidates--if they actually saw that happen a few times--we might see an end to it. That's why I donated to the Edwards campaign even though I'm basically a Gore supporter.

[Cha]

28. Yip! Ya can't keep

silent. Let America know just who is The face of the republicon party today.

[Sparkly]

31. Snark from the AP

Edwards capitalizes on Coulter slur

Prominently featured on John Edwards' presidential campaign Web site is a video of conservative commentator Ann Coulter insulting him. And with just a mouse click you can hear the invective and get a chance to donate at the same time.

On Friday, Coulter, a writer and columnist known for provocative remarks, told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I -- so kind of an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards."

The Edwards camp is now seeking to capitalize on the slur by soliciting $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" to "show that inflaming prejudice to attack progressive leaders will only backfire."

Meanwhile, conservatives were none too pleased with Coulter, either. Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, said: "Frankly, I would have loved to have heard Ann expose and dissect the radical agenda of Sen. Edwards instead of restoring to cheap name-calling."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/edwardscapitalizesoncoulterslur;

They didn't bother to print his actual statement. Repeating Coulter's words and quoting Mahoney was obviously more important. :eyes: So thanks for posting it here.