Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 12, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Atlases Reveal Climate and Weather Impacts




S Street Rising
Gays in the Military


Truthdig Bazaar

Dark Hope

By David Shulman
$14.69

The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

The China Reader: The Reform Era (Vintage)

By Orville Schell and David Shambaugh

more items

 
A/V Booth

Ann Coulter Still Hates John Edwards

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jun 26, 2007
coulter

What is Ann Coulter’s beef with John Edwards? The human scandal factory who once referred to the candidate as a “faggot” has re-emerged from hate radio silence to suggest that she should have said she hoped Edwards would be killed by terrorists. We already know nothing she says should be taken seriously, so why is “Good Morning America” giving her a soapbox?

Watch it:

(via PoliticsTV)

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By NewsView, July 3, 2007 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Correction: June 26, 2007 clip.

Report this

By NewsView, July 3, 2007 at 6:35 pm Link to this comment

Hi Cyrena,

Sorry for the belated reply. Ms. Coulter only has a “good head on her shoulders” in the academic sense (her education). Obviously, she is socially and morally impaired, which is why her greatest talent is making conservatives look bad (which is sad because there are well-mannered, articulate conservative people who deserve to be heard and are not because they lack the “train wreck attraction” that is Ann).

I just watched the July 26 YouTube clip from “Hardball with Chris Matthews”, the one where John Edward’s wife, Elizabeth, calls the show to confront Ms. Coulter’s classless behavior. In the clip, Mrs. Edwards reminds the “live audience” behind Ms. Coulter that Ann also wrote three years ago that John should put a bumper sticker on his car stating that he is the father of his “dead son”. By the end of the clip the audience was cheering. Mrs. Edwards left Ann a mumbling, squirming mess.

Ann’s weak defense was to deny that she had said anything negative about John Edwards on the Good Morning America show, at which point Chris Matthews called her on the carpet, saying she had done so the day before. In response, Ann, tossing her hair about and squirming in the hot seat like a wannabe Sharon Stone in “Basic Instinct”, said that what she wrote or said six months ago, let alone three years ago, isn’t “relevant”.

Clearly, no amount of intelligence can make up for a lack of social skills. While the rest of the *sane* adult world left behind the bully act in elementary school, Ann’s arguments are no more sophisticated than the average 10-year-old.

No conservative worth their salt will appreciate Ann Coulter’s mockery, let alone her hookeresque clothing. She’s just sick — most likely a textbook case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Ms. Coulter may have always been socially inept, but my perception is that she didn’t start out quite as brazen as she’s become over the past seven or eight years. She’s clearly out there to make a living, and she’s doing so at the expense of the American voter (by dumbing down political discourse to little more than mudslinging, which will only increase voter apathy and political disengagement). Ms. Coulter has apparently found that making a living off of catty, over-the-top behavior pays more than demonstrating any of the intelligence that made her a success in law school. The only good part is that the more she sticks her foot in her mouth, the more people will see her for what she is. So I say, “Go right ahead and let it all hang out!”.

Ann Coulter is her own worst enemy.

Report this

By Skruff, June 30, 2007 at 6:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“niggardly” predates the word “nigger” by almost 1000 years, It means stingy parsimonious, pertaining to tightwad. Both Dickens and Shakespere used it.

Report this

By great_satan, June 29, 2007 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

Channel surfing, i just saw Glenn beck’s interview with her. Even he was absolutely dumbfounded that she refused to admit the term “faggot” is offensive. She then said (paraphrase), “What else is offensive niggardly?” She went on to say that the word meant wussy, wimpy and so forth, and that it is a comedic term.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment

Skruff, I’d like to add one thing concerning Truman. He was president when our industry was turning from war to peace time which had organized labor fuming. That is probably why he did what he did so often. I am not condoning it mind you just pointing out this was an enormous transitional period. When the railroads stopped completely for 80 days shutting down the entire nation, clearly something had to be done. But actually Truman only threatened to do it rather than actually doing it. The unions caved in to his threats. I just think that should be noted and I would guess most of the other labor disputes he stepped into involved similar matters of national importance.

That said, I believe the corporate executives should be pressured just as much as the average worker in clearing up such matters. A forced settlement aimed at those with the most money is a rarety. All the pressures are placed on the workers rather than the root of their grivences.

If you have any more information about Truman and his use of the Taft-Harley Act please send it along.

I’d also like to leave you with another tidbit about big government. Let me know what you think!

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html

Report this
booger's avatar

By booger, June 29, 2007 at 10:00 pm Link to this comment

I appreciate the thoughtful reply, Hondo.

Maher is actually saying that if Cheney were no longer VP, for any reason, not just his death, then the needless loss of American lives would be curtailed. It does not follow that he wishes the VP was murdered, but we can reasonably conclude that he wishes Cheney was no longer in power.

Coulter’s point that liberals exercise a double standard is little more than a strawman argument to defend her own otherwise indefensible statements. It seems to me that Coulter and other conservatives are the ones trying to establish a double standard, because they seem to hold liberals to do a higher standard of self-policing than they do their fellow conservatives.

Report this

By Hondo, June 29, 2007 at 7:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Booger, I’ll give you credit. You didn’t resort to personal attacks. You didn’t stick to the facts, either, so I guess that makes you 1 for 2.

I did go to the You Tube site, and I did watch the clip. Bill Maher and his guests were discussing the comments posted on Diva Huffington’s site saying that it would have been better if Cheney had been killed.

First, Maher defended the “right” of the anonymous blogger to say that. I don’t necessarily agree with Maher on that point, but that’s OK. He’s not a bad guy for thinking that.

Next, Maher criticized Huffington for removing the comment from her blog. That seems somewhat hypocritical to me, as he really doesn’t have the right to tell Huffington what to do with her own blog, but again, that doesn’t necessarily make him a bad guy.

Then, Maher crossed the line. He expressed agreement with the anonymous blogger, and he said that there can be no doubt that if Dick Cheney had been killed, fewer Americans would die.

That is unacceptable. Booger, I don’t know how you can see the actual video of that exchange and think anything other than it is true that Bill Maher thinks America would be a better place if Cheney were dead.

Do you remember when it was learned that Pat Robertson had asked his “followers” to pray for the deaths of liberal Supreme Court justices so that they could be replaced with conservatives? There was a big old media firestorm over that, and rightly so. Compare that to the deafening silence from the media over Maher’s comments.

That’s what Coulter was talking about. She was illustrating the liberal double standards over “appropriate” speech. She did not say that she wished Edwards was dead.

Coulter was right about Maher’s comments. The mainstream media has been wrong, as well as dishonest, about Coulter’s comments.

Report this

By Zena, June 29, 2007 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hmmm….and you wasted article space on her for WHAT reason??

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 5:55 pm Link to this comment

#82474 For sure Skruff! That’s exactly what they are! Thanks for the additional information too. Didn’t realize Truman of all people would invoke this dastardly deed after essentially crticizing it and voting to put it down.

Report this

By DICKERSON3870, June 29, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

GIVING MS. COULTER ‘AIR TIME’ IS LIKE PURGING A FESTERING SORE OF ITS PUTRID PUS. John Lewis-Dickerson, Atlanta

Report this
booger's avatar

By booger, June 29, 2007 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

In response to Coulter (and her lone defender here, Hondo), it seems to me after viewing the Maher segment in question, he simply did not say what he is being accused of saying.

If one “YouTubes” the Maher clip, it is clear that Maher is merely defending the right of someone else to say that they wish Cheney had been killed during the attempt on his life in Afghanistan. This being the case, Coulter loses her own supposed justification for her remark against Edwards, and there is nothing for which liberals should denounce Maher. In fact, it is ironic that Maher himself, if he is consistent, would defend Coulter’s right to say what she says about Edwards. Meanwhile, by getting Maher’s remarks wrong, Coulter fails to live up to her own childish standard.

I hope Hondo is noticing that this liberal is sticking to the facts, the importance of which we can all agree.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

The venom of Ann Coulter simply amazes me. She needs psychiatric assistance. No one can house that much hatred over a long period of time and come out of it unscathed. As for major media giving her air time, no surprises there since most major media is either owned or controlled by defense contractors or they are out and out members of the RNC like FOX News.

Report this

By Skruff, June 29, 2007 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are right. Truman vetoed the taft Hartley bill which became law over his veto, then he went on to invoke it 10 times The most of any president. 7 times by Eisenhower 6 times by Kennedy 6 times by Johnson 2 times by Nixon and 1 last time by Carter to end a coal miner’s strike in Harlan County where the workers were striking for better health care (for black lung) and safer standards.

Clinton did not use it to end the UPS strike at the end of his two terms, but Bush has threatened to use it twice, and both times the unions caved under this threat.

BUT right to work is not only based on Taft Hartley, From their web-page they self identify as a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. They are union busters pure and simple, and Bill Clinton supported their position while governor of Arkansas, and as president he was no friend of labor… BUT Tyson Chicken (for which Bill was a faithful servant (in return for big campaign contributions) was a RTW non-union company   one hand washes…..

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

82234 I don’t know if this helps Geoffrey but I got this from her bio…..

She has described her family as “upper middle class” and has termed her attorney father a “union buster.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 1:43 pm Link to this comment

Skruff, I would like to add that Clinton and Carter didn’t put up much of a fight to repeal the act, but the democrats in congress generally wanted to repeal it and the republican members stopped them on both occasions. So in a sense I suppose you are half right. Clinton and Carter could have and should have put up a better fight. It will be interesting to see what Hillary will do or won’t do after the election if she becomes president.

It seems to me the government likes the idea of slave labor especially now that it has been privatized. If it were truly an honest broker it would repeal this unconstituional act. It would be interesting to see this on the floor again but it is doubtful anyone will bring it up. Too much conservative money in the election process.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, June 29, 2007 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

#82325 Skruff you got it all wrong about “The Right to Work” folks. They are not democrats but republicans. All of their actions are based on the Taft Harley Act which basically disempowers labor unions.

The Labor-Management Relations Act, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that greatly restricts the activities and power of labor unions. The Act, still largely in effect, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and passed over U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s veto on June 23, 1947, establishing the act as a law.

Truman had described the act as a “slave-labor bill”, adding that it would “conflict with important principles of our democratic society”.

The Taft-Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA, also known as the Wagner Act), which Congress had passed in 1935.


President George W. Bush invoked the law most recently in connection with the employer lockout of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union during negotiations with West Coast shipping and stevedoring companies in 2002.

[edit] Opposition to the act
Labor activists have sought the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act since its inception. Organized labor nearly succeeded in pushing Congress to amend the law to increase the protections for strikers and victims of employer retaliation during the Carter and Clinton administrations, but failed on both occasions because of Republican opposition and lukewarm support for reform[citation needed] from the Democratic President in office at the time.

Economist Murray Rothbard opposed the act as a form of involuntary servitude, believing it to be a self-contradictory policy. Said Rothbard:

On October 4, 1971, President Nixon invoked the Taft-Hartley Act to obtain a court injunction forcing the suspension of a dock strike for eighty days; this was the ninth time the federal government had used the Act in a dock strike…the “solution” imposed was forced labor, pure and simple; the workers were coerced, against their will, into going back to work.[1]

[edit] References
Abraham, Steven E. “The Impact of the Taft-Hartley Act on the Balance of Power in Industrial Relations” American Business Law Journal Vol. 33, 1996
Ballam, Deborah A. “The Impact of the National Labor Relations Act on the U.S. Labor Movement” American Business Law Journal, Vol. 32, 1995
Brooks, George W., Milton Derber, David A. McCabe, Philip Taft. Interpreting the Labor Movement (1952)
Cockburn, Alexander. “How Many Democrats Voted for Taft-Hartley?” Counterpunch, September 6, 2004
Faragher, J.M., Buhle, M.J., Czitrom, D., Armitage, S.H. (2006). Out of Many: A History of the American People. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Gilbert J. Gall, The Politics of Right to Work: The Labor Federations as Special Interests, 1943-1979’ ‘(1988)
Fred A. Hartley Jr. and Robert A. Taft. Our New National Labor Policy: The Taft-Hartley Act and the Next Steps (1948)
Lee, R. Alton. Truman and Taft-Hartley: A Question of Mandate (1966)
Irving G. McCann, (1950). Why the Taft-Hartley Law? New York: Committee for Constitutional Government.
Harry A. Millis and Emily Clark Brown. From the Wagner Act to Taft-Hartley: A Study of National Labor Policy and Labor Relations (1950)
Cesar Chavez noted that when the Taft-Hartley bill passed over the veto of President Truman, labor leaders called it the “slave labor act.”

[edit] See also
Organized Labour Portal
Labor unions in the United States
Norris-LaGuardia Act
Wagner Act
jurisdictional strike
Secondary boycott
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taft-Hartley_Act”
Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | 1947 in law | United States federal labor legislation | History of the United States (1945–1964)

Report this

By John Czarnecki, June 29, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While reading through the posts on TruthDig, it came to me why Ann Coulter is such an angry bitch. She was born in Egypt and had female circumcision as a child and is unable to obtain relief from female sexual tension. So she takes it out on the rest of us. Try harder, Ann.

Report this

By Skruff, June 29, 2007 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Geoff H on 6/28 at 6:05 pm says:

“Anne M. Coulter” on the board of the National Right to Work (which is the only right they seem to want to afford workers.) Is that *the* Ann Coulter?! I think it must be, but can someone confirm this?”

It appears (through superficial research) that Anne M. Coulter is a different entity from Ann H. Coulter.

The Right to work folks seem to find more support in Democratic circles, Bill and Hill (the business shills) among them.  So when The D party says “We’re for the working class” you have my permission to gaw-faw!

Report this

By great_satan, June 28, 2007 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

Neo-con Barbi.

Report this

By Hondo, June 28, 2007 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am continually amazed at the ability of liberaliars to ignore truth, distort fact, alter reality, and refuse to debate issues with facts, logic and reason. This Ann Coulter “controversy” is a prime example.

For the 2 or 3 of you liberals who actually care about the truth, go to http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3312795
and actually watch the Coulter interview video.

If you do that, you will see that Ann Coulter did not say that she wished John Edwards would get killed in a terrorist attack. The interviewer had asked her a question about her “faggot” comment at the CPAC Convention. By the way, I thought that comment was reprehensible, and she deserved all of the criticism she received. Coulter responded by saying that her comment was no big deal (which I strongly disagree with) and then she compared her comment to the comment made by Bill Maher when he said, quite seriously, that he wished Dick Cheney would get killed. Coulter remarked that Maher’s hateful, inexcusable comment was never denounced by any Democrats, and then she said that maybe she just should have said that she wished Edwards would be killed by a terrorist. She was trying to illustrate that the modern left operates under a horrible double standard when it comes to who can say what in public.
Those are the facts. Anybody who has a brain that hasn’t been ravaged by the cancer of liberalism will see that, if they watch the video.
Now, let’s see just how many of you liberal scarecrows have a brain!

Report this

By DennisD, June 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dr. Kevorkian please come out of retirement, just this once - Ann desperately needs your help. Thanks in advance - signed, the American public.

Report this

By Geoff H, June 28, 2007 at 7:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you go to http://www.right-to-work.org/about/officersboard.php you’ll see that there’s an “Anne M. Coulter” on the board of the National Right to Work (which is the only right they seem to want to afford workers.)  Is that *the* Ann Coulter?! I think it must be, but can someone confirm this?

Report this

By Inherit the Wind, June 28, 2007 at 1:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Not only is John Edwards better looking than Ann “The Nazi” Coulter, he’s better dressed and has a better stylist.

Oh, and he’s smarter, richer, more ethical and, of course a far, FAR better lawyer.

Report this

By John LeVan, June 28, 2007 at 6:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I bet…if we ignore her and she stops making money she’ll lose her financial supporters (those who publish her material and advertisers that pay big bucks to radio and television outlets who drool over such controversy) she’ll have no platform from which to speak except for right wing Christian radio and Fox Newsless. What sound minded normal person from the middle or left side of the podium cares what that psychotic androgynous looking voice box has to say? I’m surprised that Al Franken has given her so much of his attention, because Al’s a pretty smart guy but to get cought up in it with Ann Coulter is absurdly trite of him. What normal person cares what a lunitic says? what normal people care what insane people have to say, unless studying them to find out what makes them tick? Well, we know what makes her tick and it’s your money. Jokes on you all as she cashes her checks.

Report this

By nefertiti, June 28, 2007 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

If Ann Coulter was not who she is , she could have been arrested for inciting to murder and violence. but she wont be arrested , she has some fans among the republicans and those people high up in the Media who enjoy these kind of controversial people , for some weird reason . crazy people .

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, June 28, 2007 at 12:29 am Link to this comment

I wonder if Ms. Coulter ever bit her mother’s breast when she was being nursed?

Because, she certainly is compelled to “jerk-off”, lots of rage with her mouth. 

But on the other hand, as someone pointed out, it may well be that she is “strangely” actracted to Mr. Edwards. The operative word here is strangely, much in the way a Kangaroo accidently falls in love with a Horse, or a mother hog accidentaly nurses a baby duck that has lost it’s way.

Unable to recognize her own needs as a women, she must create a fantasy of hate, that both keeps her safe from her own ravenous needs, and disguises the awareness of her attaction from her intellect, keeping her asleep.

In other words, she’s nuts.

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

#81941 by NewsView on 6/27 at 6:21 pm

Thanks for the excellent post. You made some excellent points, though I would sincerely question anything like this woman having a good head on her shoulders, or even being able to “hold her own” in a male dominated world. This is NOT holding ones own, and it is hate inspired, and it’s always been there. She didn’t just evolve into this overnight, any more than rush limbaugh did. These kinds of people are sick, and in a different time and place, in a different atmosphere before the Coup of 2000, people like this would not have been able to be this outrageous on prime time TV.

But, look for a minute at ALL of the lawlessness that has taken place over the past 7 years, in absolutely EVERYTHING that shapes our society. It’s like the whole system has become such an anarchy, beginning at the top, and the crimes perpetrated by them have been so enormous, that apparently everybody is desensitized, and it takes more and more to scandalize them.

I listened this time. It felt like what I could only imagine drinking battery acid would feel like.

Report this

By VietnamEraVet, June 27, 2007 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a naive question Newsview asks..
My questions for Ms. Coulter: Why not up the bar of discourse to a level true conservatives, religious and otherwise, can respect?.

BECAUSE THEN SHE WOULDN’T BE ANN COULTER!!

Report this

By CJ, June 27, 2007 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Umm…Annie has a crush on Johnny?

Report this

By steve, June 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I actually had to listen to this clip three times in a row.  I simply couldn’t believe it.  I mean there had to be something wrong my computer.  Right?  I couldn’t have actually heard what I thought I heard.  How could she or anyone actually say something like that…about anyone?  I mean it had to be some kind of mistake.  Right?  Really unbelievable.

Report this

By Jim Houghton, June 27, 2007 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“We already know nothing she says should be taken seriously, so why is “Good Morning America” giving her a soapbox?”

That is the most naive question I’ve heard posed in a serious forum in ages.  Didn’t youse ever hear of ratings?  Since when did truth, accuracy, sanity and serious discourse ever produce ratings?

Report this

By steve, June 27, 2007 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I actually had to listen to this clip three times in a row.  I simply couldn’t believe it.  I mean there had to be something wrong my computer.  Right?  I couldn’t have actually heard what I thought I heard.  How could she or anyone actually say something like that…about anyone?  I mean it had to be some kind of mistake.  Right?  Really unbelievable.

Report this

By cyrena, June 27, 2007 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

OK, I admit that I couldn’t watch the clip. I tried at first, to do it with the volume off, knowing that I couldn’t bear to listen. (once a year or so by accident, and I just couldn’t do it again).

But…I DO agree with a lot of you, about just not watching her, (OR the Good Morning Show) or the Today Show, or whatever any of those shows are. If these networks weren’t getting any viewership, they wouldn’t have her on.) And if nobody is watching, the advertisers are wasting their money, so she REALLY wouldn’t be on. I think it wouldn’t hurt for EVERYBODY to stop watching these shows for a few weeks.

A barage of letters and the jamming of their switchboard could be helpful though. It’s worked before.

Report this

By NewsView, June 27, 2007 at 7:21 pm Link to this comment

Ms. Coulter has a good head on her shoulders but that hasn’t stopped her from growing increasingly crass and sensationalistic. Although I enjoyed her as a guest in ABC’s “Politically Incorrect” days, I can’t stand her self-glorifying verbal assaults at the expense of others. She doesn’t merely disagree with liberals — she comes off as if she is screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

Seemingly, Ms. Coulter is more interested in her own fame than the conservative cause. Outrageous behavior ensures that the publicity remains on her rather than the issues she ostensibly cares about.  If she would step out of her own way and let the logic or morality of her arguments speak for themselves, perhaps we could take her seriously. For now, though, her actions speak not of conservatism, but narcism. Her commentary is no longer witty, but evidence of foot-perpetually-stuck-in-mouth disease.

Just the same, I don’t believe Ms. Coulter is without redemption. She sets an example to young women in the sense that she holds her own in a male-dominated segment of the media that is unavailable to most women. The problem? Ms. Coulter hangs on to her position with the sort of desperation more befitting of a feral cat.

My questions for Ms. Coulter: Why not up the bar of discourse to a level true conservatives, religious and otherwise, can respect? Why craft a career out of cheap shots that will never lead a liberal to “convert”, and might even inspire conservatives to defect from the bitter cultural wars you have advanced?

There may be stronger on-the-merits conservative arguments to make, but Ms. Coulter’s increasing reliance on “hate speech” is unlikely to change. As a result of irresponsible punditry from the likes of Ms. Coulter, Americans now live in a “house divided” unlike anything, perhaps, since the Civil War. If Ms. Couture and her pundit cohorts know anything about the Bible, which I doubt, she and her bickering crowd of celebrity pundits might recognize that the conclusion of this little proverb holds that “a house divided will fall”. Pundits like Ann are not fixing the problems that plague America. Rather, she and her inflammatory media counterparts are ensuring that the political divide between us grows exponentially. Give it another 30-odd years of reckless, bitter incitations, and partisan gridlock will be so severe that our children will inherit a democratic republic that can no longer function with two parties under the same Capitol dome. I’m all for free speech, but I’m NOT for the idea that pundits, right or left, should shred our constitutional government one alarmist attack at a time, year after year, decade after decade without “equal time” for moderates to balance out this pathetically polarized political picture. Sadly, one look at the average Internet discussion forum reveals the growing distrust that Americans have toward one another — pundit-inspired hatred — attacks that bring us down in ways no terrorist “outsider” can accompish.

When the extreme pundits on the Right and the Left are through dividing and conquering us, there won’t be an America left to argue over or defend from outside enemies.

That’s the bigger picture.

The mass media ought to listen up: Ann Coulter’s days as a conservative spokeswomen are numbered by her own reckless rhetoric. If my own evolving view of Ms. Coulter is any indication, even those who agree with her increasingly despise her schoolyard bully tactics. As such, Ms. Coulter is essentially committing career suicide, masked temporarily by the same phenomena that causes bystanders to slow at the scene of an accident. Although she surprises us with a witty remark and well placed criticism from time to time, Ms. Coulter has, for the most part, crossed the line from crusader to crackpot.

Conspirators might argue that perhaps the so-called liberal media loves Ms. Coulter for this very reason: She’s particularly good at making conservatives look bad.

Report this

By QuyTran, June 27, 2007 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Coulter’s mouth is full of venom !

Report this

By Slotty Bart, June 27, 2007 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ann Coulter’s job is to attack, and that’s all she’s capable of. No constructive words will ever, or have ever, come out of that pie-hole, that I know of. Very personal attacks, extremist right wing fringe “humor”, involving calls to murder people…these are the odorous pinch-loafs that she is famous for.

And that’s what you can count on when you attempt to engage her…vicious invectives and slanderous (although she’s very careful there…being a lawyer) personal assaults. And now that I think of it, Elizabeth Edwards call must have been preceded by the realization that this is what she’d get if she called and attempted to engage this vicious harpy. The Edwards campaign was guaranteed to benefit with increased donations…which is exactly what has happened. To which, I would think, the Edwards campaign should thank the blonde witch/harpy, for the help.

I still can’t understand how anyone, be they Coulter or Limbaugh, can make a career out of such endless waves of hatred. It’s like someone who only finds the worst in everything they see…gets to be a very tiresome trait that drives away all but the most deliciously stupid. I really do feel sorry for people who are so deeply cynical, so filled with loathing for themselves that they can only attack others. Never a positive word, never a capitulation for errors, never an apology for pointless personal attacks…like Coulter’s vicious attacks against the Edwards and their deceased son. She’s a give no quarter, show no weakness, very small person. She’s also a publicity hound as well…primarily of course because controversy drives her business, which is selling books and columns in op-eds around the country.

I do wish her “fans” would focus on one aspect of her “character” that I think many of them might have missed…she’s a lawyer. I would think most of her “constituents” are of the “kill em all” category toward lawyers. Oh how sad they would be if only they knew…

And as to it being inappropriate to comment on this things “comments”, I think it’s reasonable to say that she’s like a train-wreck with tits, it’s very hard not to look, and comment, when something is so vile and so consistently so.

Report this

By BobZ, June 27, 2007 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

And the cheap hits just keep coming from that scarecrow, with the media eating it up and helping her sell more books. This is part of the new American culture of outrageousness. If there is anyone who deserves censure it is Ann Coulter. However she is laughing all the way to the bank. At least in the short run this will also help John Edward’s campaign coffers, but the nausea factor just makes it disgusting for most of normal America. In 2008, voters will be able to make a strong statement to change this climate of hate. I can hardly wait.

Report this

By J. Lewd, June 27, 2007 at 5:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hemi at 1:10 pm:

Regarding your comment, “I see Hillary as the Democrat of choice for the Republicans. Beatable but if not, not all that different from what’s already in place.” I agree.

But there’s another reason Hillary’s their Democrat of choice. For Republicans, beating a woman is no big stretch. I call it “tough (Republican) love.”

Report this

By deang, June 27, 2007 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What do you mean “nothing she says should be taken seriously”?! A disturbingly large proportion of Americans do take what she and a lot of other right-wing hate-mongers say seriously, and she knows it. She can say she’s “just kidding” or “only joking” all she wants, but she and her fellow rightists are very strategically minded. They know they’re goading on like-minded, non-celebrity right-wingers into uncontainable, violent fury. It also bears wondering why anyone would consider their targets jokeworthy in the first place. As Surinamese-Dutch writer Philomena Essed put it when speaking of racism, “Joking is expecting or hoping for consent from others by way of laughter.” You think racist anti-immigrant attacks and attacks against “liberal” celebrities (like the near-assault against Michael Moore in Colorado this week) by irrationally pissed-off right-wingers would be occurring without the Ann Coulters goading them on while claiming to be “joking”? Think again.

Report this

By niggling_jerk, June 27, 2007 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have to say, this clip cuts out some important context that makes what she’s saying seem less insane. She was making a statement about Bill Maher supposedly wishing Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. She’s really just more wrong than crazy.

Report this

By Dale Headley, June 27, 2007 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was going to comment here; but then I would be taking her seriously, too, wouldn’t I?  And I’m not talking about Paris Hilton; but I can understand the confusion.  Hilton’s the one who has only been PRETENDING to be dumb.

Report this

By Chaseme, June 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Does that mean that cheney and Halliburton will take Edwards down like they did the WTCs?

What did Ms. Babblette mean by her senseless babble? Did she just place a hit on John Edwards?

Report this

By republicansscareme, June 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Republicans, not to mention the “news programs”, had any morals or self-respect, they would distance themselves from that $10 whore.

Why don’t they?

Because they’re $10 whores themselves.

Report this

By Jacks, June 27, 2007 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

We must make sure not to allow fellow progressives to use the bigotry of misogyny to attack Coulter, which only justifies her use of slurs as generic insults.

We need not dehumanize and demonize women and girls just to take a swing at Coulter.  Bigotry is never excusable and she is too easy of a mark.  Not just on basic issues, either.  Her whole life is stunning in its hypocrisy with her apparent “values.”

Besides, she’s playing the same game that not only “shock jocks” play but also rappers.  We live in a society that considers intolerance and hate to be “entertainment.”

Report this

By Hemi*, June 27, 2007 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

The Republicans are eliminating contenders. Mind you, they don’t want to eliminate every candidate simply those that would be tough to beat or steal Republican votes. Edwards would likely attract anyone of faith having second thoughts regarding the war in Iraq. The word “faggot” has no connection to Edwards but shouted loud enough it stigmatizes him in the eyes of the “sheeple”. Edwards does respond to Coulter but not in sound bites that make tabloid headlines. “Well, she said something about him on television and it wasn’t good. They had it on “Good Morning America” so it must be true.” Edwards loses traction and is eliminated from serious contention. The “sheeple” will likely bounce back to any Republican candidate touting his “faith” as integral in his decision making. Coulter has served her purpose.

The immigration bill will essentially eliminate Obama. Who does more for minorities? Heck, the Bush White House wants open borders, what more do you want for the oppressed and poor? Incoming Latin-Americans will be so enabled that they will in short time be the majority. If you piss enough voters off, simply bring in a whole new block of voters. Good business.

I see Hillary as the Democrat of choice for the Republicans. Beatable but if not, not all that different from what’s already in place. One nation and one party.

Report this

By DMK, June 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment

Andy Couter is just jealous because John Edwards is so much better looking than it is.
Are you e-mailing the networks and protesting this piece of trash when it appears? If not, you are part of the problem. How about e-mailing the sponsers of the program and protesting this trash talker also? Just complaining about it will not change a thing. Get busy.

Report this

By J Lewd, June 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Trann Coulter; that’s a good one.

Report this

By J Lewd, June 27, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ann Coulter is the neocon gangbang skank of choice; whenever the red(state)nex need a quick group punk, they call this syphilitic, transexual whore in to do their dirty work. After all, what blonde-haired, blue-eyed Christofacist boy doesn’t prefer his wimmen to be bulimic, beard-growing blondes who look more like their cross-dressing older brothers than a nurturing, intelligent woman?

P.S.—Don’t forget to check out her latest book, “Crackwhore Confessions: The In-Fellated Rhetoric of the Right.”

Report this

By Jeanine Molloff, June 27, 2007 at 1:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Finally—the peroxide has rotted through her poor, besotted brain!  As I type this little diatribe; I notice a confirmation message asking me—...“are you a human?”  I posit that the question is being asked of the wrong claimant.  Coulter is nothing more than an ‘Eva Braun’ wannabe—without the good fashion sense. 

Sign Me,
Nice little Jewish Girl
Jeanine Molloff

Report this

By oilcan, June 27, 2007 at 12:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

she is a non issue. as long as we are talking about her and not the issues, her goals are accomplished. classic misdirection, like a magician.

Report this

By RJ, June 27, 2007 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I keep hearing people say we should boycott these shows and stations. Who are their ADVERTISERS? We need a LIST OF NAMES. Can someone list them so we can let them know that we no longer buy their products because they tacitly support assassination of presidential candidates? I don’t have TV anymore so I only hear about this trash online, but I still make purchasing decisions for my family.

Report this

By DICKERSON3870, June 27, 2007 at 12:21 pm Link to this comment

IF MS.COULTER WOULD ‘COME TO TERMS’ WITH HER ORIENTATION, PERHAPS SHE WOULD NOT BE SUCH AN ANGRY, ACERBIC INDIVIDUAL. OF COURSE, I REALLY SUPPOSE THAT IS HER PRIVATE BUSINESS. /// JOHN-LEWIS DICKERSON, ATLANTA

Report this

By Danny Quintana, June 27, 2007 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The first two laws of human behavior are: whatever behavior you feed grows and whatever behavior you starve dies.

To acknowledge a spectacle whose main public accomplishment is she is very loud and bitter is to give credibility to a clown. Coulter is verbally abusive, which explains why she is still single. She successfully gets attention with her horrible comments and by being intellectually dishonest.

Deep down inside the extreme right wing of the Christian Party of God, fka the Republican Party, there is a hatred of the poor working class, people of color, and of course, Muslims. Coulter’s real audience is this vicious segment of the political spectrum. I seriously doubt she truly believes even half of what she screams out with her vile, hateful words. Her job is to sell words. And that she does very well.

Since she refuses to discuss political issues and merely shouts to be heard, the best solution is to ignore her. When children misbehave, don’t feed their bad behavior. Starve bad behaviors and encourage positive behaviors.

Cheers,

Danny

Report this

By Janus, June 27, 2007 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“#81760 by Non Credo on 6/27 at 8:08 am
(46 comments total)

Why oh why is Ann Coulter seen all over prime time TV while Michael Moore is banished as an “extremist”?
***************************************************

Because this is what our Neofascist Plutocracy wants. Coulter’s deranged outbursts serve to keep the admiring Dupes in a wild-eyed frenzy against that “un-American, liberal Moore” and keeps them cheering against their own interests.

Report this

By Skruff, June 27, 2007 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“...so why is “Good Morning America” giving her a soapbox?”

Because in these united states… hate sells soap!

Report this

By Thomas Mc, June 27, 2007 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris Matthews pretends to be a liberal, but have you noticed how he practically worships every right winger on his show?

Report this

By ib, June 27, 2007 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

call the FCC 800 844 2784 and demand that the Today Show be fined for allowing a terrorist to call for the death to Americans

Report this

By Joe R., June 27, 2007 at 9:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ann is a festering sore that will not go away.  My question is “How can see publicly advocate political violence against Dems and not be charged with a crime?”

She should be shunned by the media and I believe she would be is it wasn’t all owned by Murdoch.  All news has a tabloid side to it now.

Every show that has Ann on should suffer boycott until she is gone from the public discourse.

Report this

By Onion Volcano, June 27, 2007 at 9:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Coulter is great; she reveals the hypocracy of the right.  Got a problem with what Rosie says?  Clean up your own team first; Coulter is far worse.

Report this

By Mudwollow, June 27, 2007 at 8:34 am Link to this comment

Who cares. Run the Dyke for president. This she male wouldn’t be any more disgusting to watch than the other transvestites running for the presidency.

Report this

By kevin99999, June 27, 2007 at 8:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It speaks volume about the right wing and hateful corporate media in this country….the corporate media is the enemy of decency and the American public.

Report this

By LANCE, June 27, 2007 at 8:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

(Ann Coulter talking to a disabled Vietnam vet)-
“People like you caused us to lose that war.”—MSNBC

Disgusting. This disabled Vietnam veteran fought against communism when no one else like Ann or AWOL Bush or Cheney or even Romney would. She was fired from MSNBC because her comment was so bad.

Report this

By Hemi*, June 27, 2007 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

I simply wish that Tran…er I mean Ann Coulter would wear his skirt a little longer. He frightens the children when his marble sack shows. I don’t think you need worry about Tran and R.L. having children. You need at least one female partner or even better two as the Cheney’s have found much to their delight.

Isn’t it great the way the Republicans have embraced transsexuals? First Rudi and now Tran. Who’d a thunk it? Thank you J. Edgar Hoover, whoever you were. Look, I’m as accepting as anyone but I do have my limits. I draw the line at Romney in lipstick and a blonde wig.

Report this

By themightym, June 27, 2007 at 7:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If Ann Coulter were on fire I would not piss on her!!!

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, June 27, 2007 at 6:18 am Link to this comment

I believe Coulter is"certifiably insane.  I’ll just ditto Mike Mid-city’s eloquently posted comment.  In fact, Mike, you’re my hero, except I have to look the other way when you factor in anything religious.

Report this

By JGW, June 27, 2007 at 6:01 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now that Rosie is gone from The View and Paris is out of jail, she’s the only one causing a stir.  Like Rush, she gets viewership with hate-filled right-wing spew because it’s exciting and people watch it to see fur fly. 

Mrs. Edwards is a thoughtful, intelligent lady with ethics who knows we have some serious issues to engage as a nation.  Coulter is damaged goods.

Report this

By Sally A. Bridges, June 27, 2007 at 4:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, Ms. Coulter, You think it’s all fun and games, and Oh so clever to run your mouth without a care for what garbage you spew?  Be careful what you say, My Dear, next time it could be you that makes someones dreams come true; maybe terrorists or maybe someone else that you have so thoughtlessly trashed.  That nasty little sneer might just be your last.  Someone just may not be able to control themselves.  I hope it doesn’t come to that, but I do hope you live to regret your childish disregard for others.  You are tolerated because you appeal to the ignorant faction on the far right.  If you and Rush L. ever had offspring…the horror!  My God!  THE HORROR!

Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, June 27, 2007 at 3:36 am Link to this comment

Why watch Hardball when this witch is on? You give her the ratings she needs to keep her on the air. Quit watching her and they will have no reason to put her on the air.

Report this

By Druthers, June 27, 2007 at 1:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This poor twisted creature is like a reptile dressing its head to strike.  The crowd there was like those around a snake charmer in India watching fascinated while the normally slithering scaly thing preens its head with its tongue spewing forth its evil intentions.

It is like “Freaks” as though she peels aw<ay her skin to show her putrified inner self.  I avoid seeing and hearing her.  It is too repulsive.

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, June 26, 2007 at 10:59 pm Link to this comment

Why does anyone but Fox Noise give this ugly, evil whore the time of day?

Chris Mathews sickens me how he fawns all over her.

I need to vomit.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, June 26, 2007 at 10:54 pm Link to this comment

Ann Coulter truly makes me ill. What is with the weird, psychosexual approach to politics? What’s with all the smearing of her opponents based on her perception of their sexual prowess?

God, I think I’m getting sick….

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, June 26, 2007 at 10:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This hurts.Put any conservative commentater on this blog you can find who has a point of view and an intelligent way of of espousing it and I almost always will disagree with their point of view but hold respect for them.But please could you skip this ninny.She gets the publicity she craves by the right wing nut jobs she is ripping off who buy her books and read her columns.It hurts because I feel you are hurting Truthdig and for that reason I am offering you my opinion.That I wasted five minutes on Ann Coulter I will never get back hurts.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.