Bring It On!

Ann Coulter: A Symptom Of A Larger Ailment

June 28th, 2007 | by Daniel DiRito |

In the past week, Ann Coulter has once again made her way to the center stage…the place from which she likes to spin her tasteless diatribes against everyone and everything she elects to associate with the Democratic Party and Liberalism.

In Coulter’s most recent appearances, she succeeded in wishing that John Edwards be killed by a terrorist assassin…an attack she offered to substitute for her prior controversial statement that John Edwards was a faggot…one that drew harsh criticism from both the left and the right. She also suggested that Edward’s work as an attorney had bankrupted good doctors and prevented them from delivering babies.

Coulter has drawn ample criticism for her latest screeds, but I believe the issue is much larger than a brazen blond in a dress far too short for a boney legged woman who is in her fifth decade of life (OK, I apologize for the ad hominem rant but if Coulter isn’t deserving, then who is?).

In all seriousness, while she has earned all of the criticism directed her way, she is simply a symptom of a far wider disorder. The core problem is that her brand of tabloid trash talk has broad appeal. It speaks to hatreds that were suppressed by the civil rights movement in the 60’s and early 70’s…a movement that virtually shamed bigots into silence though it likely failed to change as many hearts as we may have hoped.

Her willingness to say what others are thinking has made her the cause celeb for a group of hatemonger’s who have decided its safe to come out of the closet. It’s an interesting dynamic for a group that is primarily misogynistic. Ironically, Coulter’s supporters and apologists haven’t tagged her with either the “b” word or the “c” word monikers that they frequently attach to prominent and powerful women…a feat accomplished because she routinely attacks the same women these individuals dislike.

When she attacks these powerful women (and the men who don’t embrace the perpetuation of a gender driven status of privilege) she not only appeals to a distinctly defined male demographic, but also to the women that are trapped in a generational pattern of male dominance.

Pejoratively speaking, she serves as their female Uncle Tom…a co-opted woman who is willing to do their bidding (for a handsome fee). The dynamic is such that her attacks meet with the approval of men who would otherwise frown upon an assertive and acerbic woman. In many ways, they realize that she is the ideal candidate to champion their agenda…the ideal bait and switch if you will.

A blond white Anglo male of Coulter’s same age and ethnicity simply couldn’t get the coverage she receives as well as the free pass she coerces with her sensual shtick…an act aimed at mainstream media pundits like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly…men who are also predominantly white males that view sitting shoulder to shoulder with the vituperate vixen as an ego enhancing pseudo-sexual encounter…something to talk about over beers with other good old boys who languish in their own loofah lathered fantasies while objectifying women.

In some bizarre way, Coulter is a blessing in that she has been the catalyst which has served to illuminate a dormant, though festering fraternity of ebullient bigots who seek to normalize bias and demonize diversity. She is their mouthpiece and their megaphone.

Coulter hits all the hot buttons…she assails terrorism by calling Islam a “car-burning cult”…she talks about immigration with derogatory stories of illegal drug smuggling Mexicans…she has asserted that Bill Clinton is gay and that John Edwards is a faggot…she argued that there should be a literacy test and a poll tax for people to vote…she suggested that women should be armed but not able to vote.

When speaking about the 9/11 women who opposed the war in Iraq, she contended that they were enjoying their husbands deaths…she accuses liberals of hating America, flag-wavers, abortion opponents, and all religions except Islam after the 9/11 attacks…and she said her only regret with Timothy McVeigh was that he didn’t choose to bomb the New York Times Building.

Reality tells us that nothing is more attractive than words of hatred to a bigot…and if one were to think of Coulter as a magnet, she puts out a polarity that instantly unites her with virtually all things bigoted. That occurrence simply demonstrates that Coulter and her vitriol flourish because of the symbiosis that exists between her and her fanatical followers.

In that regard, Coulter is simply the ugly oozing wound through which the poison of a larger disease escapes its incubation chamber…a chamber filled with hatred and fomented by the flagrant face that she is able to attach to the insidious ailment of animosity and anger at all things anathema.

Silencing Coulter may make a number of her detractors happy but it will not expunge the disease from the body that it inhabits…a collective of citizens that would likely prefer a return to the times that preceded the civil rights era…a time when vigilante justice and the power of the posse mentality meted out justice on the branch of the nearest tree or through the barrel of a gun.

I have the utmost respect for Elizabeth Edwards and she, in my opinion, represents all things antithetical to Ann Coulter. I don’t begrudge her efforts to confront Coulter during her hostile appearance with Chris Matthews…but I suspect that doing so only emboldens Coulter’s supporters and enables them to make Edwards the object of their toxic tirades.

In so noting, I would suggest that it should inform and guide us to reconnect with the only strategy that can serve to muzzle Coulter and her ilk…a strategy that refuses to give recognition to their untenable ideations and uses the power of group rejection and shaming to force them into silent retreat.

Its simple things like voicing disgust when her name is mentioned or when she appears on television…in order to make sure that one’s disdain is heard by those nearby. It’s being heard making a comment in the bookstore when passing a Coulter book display…asking why anybody would buy such trumped up trash.

The strategy should be to make her and her followers pariahs…people to avoid…people to ignore…people that become identified as out of touch and out of the mainstream…people clinging to antiquated hatreds that are born of ignorance. The goal should be to shift her status from celebrity to notoriety…to label her…not in the same way she sets out to label all that she dislikes…but to label her as unacceptable, embarrassing, and ridiculous.

When identifying with Coulter is seen as an asinine alliance and an indication of ignorance, she will become inconsequential and her power will evaporate. The objective should be to establish a distinction between celebrity and notoriety whereby notoriety is a scourge; not a badge of honor.

Accolades and acclamation ought to be reserved for celebrity…celebrity that has at its core the betterment of society or at the very least a contribution that isn’t a detriment. Notoriety should have consequences…a far different outcome and one that shouldn’t reward inappropriate behavior but should instead relegate the notorious to a place of obscurity and insignificance.

In our instant gratification society, we thrive on the latest and greatest breaking story…and the more outrageous; the more we tend to indulge our appetites. We have accepted the notion that all publicity is good publicity…meaning that we have enabled the construct that fame and fortune will likely flow from every tragedy and every misdeed. Celebrity is no longer just the domain of those doing good deeds…in fact; it’s now as likely to be associated with horrific acts and horrible behavior.

Until we break this cycle, people like Ann Coulter will garner the spotlight and have a platform to connect with other ill-intentioned and ill-mannered agitators. As long as she and others like her are given celebrity status, the hatred they espouse will reinforce the mechanisms by which it has been, and will continue to be, perpetuated.

The power of a civil society lies in its ability to will those inclined to bad behavior into at least a reconsideration of that behavior…and at best a recognition that such actions would facilitate their being ostracized…thereby hopefully serving to extinguish the motivations and their bad behavior.

It’s by no means a perfect equation as there will always be miscreants that cannot or will not be rehabilitated. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that the equation we’ve recently adopted is an unmitigated failure that has the potential to unravel what remains of the fabric that has held us together in spite of our many differences.

Ann Coulter is the equivalent of a caustic solvent…a sharpened seam ripper…and she has as her goal to disassemble in order to denigrate. Hers’ is an equation of destruction premised upon the principle that division properly manipulated in fact serves to multiply. However, unlike the biblical story of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes in order to serve more humanity to more humans, Coulter seeks to multiply the hatred necessary for one group to seek dominion over all others.

Her book, Godless: The Church Of Liberalism is nothing more than the recipe by which she seeks to bring her plan to fruition. She is akin to the rogue angels that sought status over stability despite god’s original promise of bounty for all. In the many biblical fables, the clear instruction was that when humanity is torn asunder against itself, it will never achieve its potential. Coulter’s fable offers no such instruction and its title is nothing more than a projection of her misguided motivations.

In this human existence that we all share, our capacity for good is matched by our free will to choose evil. The challenge of humanity is to recognize that so long as one human is pitted against another; there will only be turmoil and torment…making it incumbent upon a majority of humans to choose to align with goodness and to elect to shun those who seek to divide. Our destiny is ours to determine. Our determination must be to let no human keep us from our destiny.

  1. 23 Responses to “Ann Coulter: A Symptom Of A Larger Ailment”

  2. By SteveIL on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    It’s one thing to attack Ann Coulter for what she says.  It is another thing to lie about what someone thinks she said and pass it off as truth.  That’s what this post is; a lie.

    This is bullshit, and I heard the quote.  She never meant that she wanted to see Edwards killed in any way, especially a terrorist attack.  Here is the video of Coulter (it may take awhile to load) using the quote on Good Morning America, and the context in which she said it.  If the video doesn’t load, here’s the transcript as noted by Big Lizards Blog:

    COULTER: But about the same time, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson: If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he’d been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

    She was, in fact, responding to something Bill Maher had admitted a couple of months ago, that he agreed with some Huffpo commenter that would it would have been better if Cheney had been killed in that attempted terrorist attack in Afghanistan.  How much “outrage” was there by the leftists, especially the 88% that exist in the media?  Almost none.  Hell, most leftists want Cheney dead.  Don’t try to deny it either.  This is the (Un)fairness, the double standard, of leftists, the same ones who want to inflict the unconstitutional (Un)Fairness Doctrine back on this country.

    The rest of this post is a pathetic attempt by the real haters, the real dividers, to smear someone who understands the vile subterfuge presented by the leftists for decades, and who does so brilliantly.  Leftists like to believe they’ve cornered the market on satire and irony; take it from someone who knows, Coulter’s the real deal when it comes to those things, and the author of this post appears to just not get it (he probably does, but would be too afraid to admit it).  “Silky Pony” (Edwards) is the sympton; he passes himself off as some kind of “Working Class Hero” when in fact he is nothing more than the shyster, who used hucksterism to make his millions.  “Silky” also is not one bit qualified to be President since he can’t handle even apparently harsh treatment he is getting from Coulter.  If the guy is such a (insert non-PC expletive here) when it comes to handling criticism by a columnist, how will he be able to handle a real threat against the United States?  Answer: he can’t.  Chris Matthews won’t be there to hold his hand for him.  Elizabeth Edwards needs to remember a couple of other things as well.  First, Coulter isn’t running for President.  Second, Elizabeth needs also to remember that the only “man” (Hillary) amongst the three Democratic front runners for President (”Silky” included) will eventually sharpen her claws on both “Silky” and Elizabeth.

    I also doubt that the post’s author actually read Godless, based on how it is “reviewed” in the post.  I borrowed it from a buddy and it is far deeper, very intelligent, and quite scientific in its approach.  And I do want to thank the post’s author for providing a link; I need to get my own copy to take with me on vacation.

  3. By SteveIL on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    It’s one thing to attack Ann Coulter for what she says.  It is another thing to lie about what someone thinks she said and pass it off as truth.  That’s what this post is; a lie.

    This is bullshit, and I heard the quote.  She never meant that she wanted to see Edwards killed in any way, especially a terrorist attack.  Here is the video of Coulter (it may take awhile to load) using the quote on Good Morning America, and the context in which she said it.  If the video doesn’t load, here’s the transcript as noted by Big Lizards Blog:

    COULTER: But about the same time, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I’ve learned my lesson: If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he’d been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.

    She was, in fact, responding to something Bill Maher had admitted a couple of months ago, that he agreed with some Huffpo commenter that would it would have been better if Cheney had been killed in that attempted terrorist attack in Afghanistan.  How much “outrage” was there by the leftists, especially the 88% that exist in the media?  Almost none.  Hell, most leftists want Cheney dead.  Don’t try to deny it either.  This is the (Un)fairness, the double standard, of leftists, the same ones who want to inflict the unconstitutional (Un)Fairness Doctrine back on this country.

    The rest of this post is a pathetic attempt by the real haters, the real dividers, to smear someone who understands the vile subterfuge presented by the leftists for decades, and who does so brilliantly.  Leftists like to believe they’ve cornered the market on satire and irony; take it from someone who knows, Coulter’s the real deal when it comes to those things, and the author of this post appears to just not get it (he probably does, but would be too afraid to admit it).  “Silky Pony” (Edwards) is the sympton; he passes himself off as some kind of “Working Class Hero” when in fact he is nothing more than the shyster, who used hucksterism to make his millions.  “Silky” also is not one bit qualified to be President since he can’t handle even apparently harsh treatment he is getting from Coulter.  If the guy is such a (insert non-PC expletive here) when it comes to handling criticism by a columnist, how will he be able to handle a real threat against the United States?  Answer: he can’t.  Chris Matthews won’t be there to hold his hand for him.  Elizabeth Edwards needs to remember a couple of other things as well.  First, Coulter isn’t running for President.  Second, Elizabeth needs also to remember that the only “man” (Hillary) amongst the three Democratic front runners for President (”Silky” included) will eventually sharpen her claws on both “Silky” and Elizabeth.

    I also doubt that the post’s author actually read Godless, based on how it is “reviewed” in the post.  I borrowed it from a buddy and it is far deeper, very intelligent, and quite scientific in its approach.  And I do want to thank the post’s author for providing a link; I need to get my own copy to take with me on vacation.

  4. By manapp99 on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    You don’t like Ann and that is o.k. with me, but she did not say that she wished Edwards was killed by a terrorist. The clip is here:

    http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html

    She was making reference to Bill Maher wishing Cheney dead and her previous flap over the F word remark regards Edwards. Note: that is addressed in this clip as well. Listen for yourself. You still won’t like her but at least you might charactarizer her remarks accurately.

  5. By Tom Baker on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Bill Maher in fact did not say he wished Cheney had died in a terrorist attack sir. You are guilty of misquoting the event to serve your cause. Bill Maher first of all was discussing the Huffington’s Post decision to remove comments that said those things. It was a discussing of 1st Amerndment rights vs Private publishing. What Maher did say in the end was that IF Cheney had died, he thought other people wouldn’t. At no time does he say I wish they had killed him. Watch the video.

    So to recap Maher does not say I wish Dick Cheney were dead. He does not say I wish the terrorist would have succeeded. Whathe is saying is Dick Cheney’s advice to the President and his complete and total misread of the War on Terror and the Iraq war has directly led to the deaths of thousands of American service men and tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s. Maybe if he weren’t around to give such stellar advice a bunch of mothers wouldn’t be grieving right now. 

    Ann Coulter is the news equivalent of Paris Hilton. The fact you would even stick up for that and  try to justify her statements and corroborate her lie shows a lot about your thought process.

     I’ll take any of the top 5 Dems over a single Republican candidate this time. Admit it your scared shitless because you know your party is in deep trouble.

     

  6. By SteveIL on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Tom Baker,

    You, sir, are now misquoting me.   Neither Coulter or I said that Maher said he wished Cheney dead.  He did, and I did check, defend that what the Huffpo commenter had said was correct, agreeing with the assertion.  He received hardly any scrutiny by any leftist.

    Coulter, if you bother to really read or listen to what she said, did not say that she wished “Silky Pony” dead.

    The only person who could be considered anything like Paris Hilton is Bill Clinton.

    And, yes, I do worry about the socialist state a Hillary would create.  But I don’t worry one bit about “Silky” because if he can’t handle the caustic criticism from an Ann Coulter, there’s no way he could handle the subtle mean-spirited viciousness from Hillary.  And it is she who “Silky” has to deal with first, not the Republicans.  Nor even Ann Coulter.

  7. By manapp99 on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    The other interesting thing from the Coulter clip is that she says she did not call Edwards a faggot. Or the F word as she puts it. She said that would be an insult to gays. That’s funny.

     

  8. By steve on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    The liberals are sad and crying for the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine because they have no answer for the truthiness that comes from Rush and Coulter.

  9. By mr bigstuff on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    ill steve,

    6 and a half years of miserable failure after miserable failure by your role models w and trickey dick cheney have left you in the pitiful position of defending the likes of anne coulter and defaming those who will have to clean up the hazardous waste dump that you and yours have created here in america and iraq by following the mindless lack of leadership exhibited by w and his gang of unread and unlearned fools. why don’t you spend some time touting the successes of the objects of your adorations: w, cheney, rove, and the rest of the incompetent crooks. alas, if you did that, your next post would be one big blank space because there has been not one successful accomplishment by this alleged administration. just like w’s sad excuse for a life, the oval office has seen nothing but failure after failure over the last 6 and half years. however, there is one thing you and manapp can celebrate. just drive to the closest gas station and pick up some of that $3.00/gallon gasoline you guys are so proud of. together with w you can celebrate america’s worst president’s only intentional accomplishment: high gas prices.  

  10. By Daniel DiRito on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL,

    Thanks for offering your comments and observations…even though you mischaracterize my words.

    Please note what I stated, “She [Coulter] succeeded in wishing that John Edwards be killed by a terrorist assassin […] to substitute for her prior controversial statement that John Edwards was a faggot…”

    I didn’t say that Coulter, in her heart of hearts, hopes John Edwards would be killed by a terrorist…I don’t know what is in her heart…just as you don’t know what is in mine. I said she “succeeded” in wishing it…regardless of the context or intent. Clever? Perhaps.

    Coulters act is to telegraph controversial statements into the media for those who are inclined to buy into such thoughts…and therefore buy her books. Maybe you find that a noble endeavor but I find it rather sleazy.

    I think the point you are missing is that this isn’t a one time event with Coulter…it is her modus operandi. There are countless similar examples. Just recently she was on Hannity and Colmes suggesting that Barak Obama…because his middle name is Hussein…should not use the words “hijack and religion” together. Clever? Perhaps. But the goal is to link Obama with a mindset that believes that a Democrat is a terrorist sympathizer.

    You see, I don’t think Coulter is stupid…I simply think she likes to manipulate “less than informed” individuals…she likes to play on peoples bias and prejudice. I don’t know if she does it solely to sell books or if she would like some unhinged follower to unleash their hatred on someone like Edwards or Obama.

    What I do know is that people filled with hatred are looking for triggering mechanisms to act out their hatred. Does that make Coulter responsible for what someone might do after hearing her “contextually challenged comedy”? No, not really…but at the same time there is something tawdry about a person of intellect serving as a catalyst for hatred…especially when it is done deliberately…and with full knowledge of the possibilities.

    I’m fine with the fact that you don’t buy my analysis…but I’m not telling lies. Many years ago a friend gave me a piece of advice that I often recall. While talking about our words and our actions, she stated that it was crucial to be mindful that one’s words and actions were delivered after carefully considering whether their impact matched their intention. In other words, it isn’t enough to simply know what you intend when you say or do something…it is equally important to consider the impact of one’s words or actions. Essentially, she argued that we need to ask, “What impact will they [our words or deeds] have and is it consistent with one’s intent?”

    Perhaps you feel my point is far too subtle or nuanced. I have no problem with that as it simply points to the blind spot that I think we fail to consider. I’ve said it before and I say it with sincerity, words are important and we have become far too casual with our words.

    I recently wrote about an op-ed piece by Joel Connelly in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. In that op-ed Connelly takes the time to look at the impact I’m discussing with regard to Alberto Gonzales. Towards the end of the piece, Connelly quotes a former U.S. District Judge, citing the following: 

    From The Seattle Post Intelligencer: 

    As the Aesopian justifications pile up, one turns to Dwyer for the antidote, only in this case a warning.

    “George Orwell showed us brilliantly how freedom depends on the integrity of language: If words are debased, the liberties that are sustained by words are in peril,” he told the Washington Library Association.

    “In the late 20th century, there is a disturbing trend toward the debasement of language, as well as toward a reliance on symbols and catch phrases.”

    The “other” Washington is, increasingly, an Orwellian place of twisted language and wars by proxy. As in Iraq, the casualties are those of lower ranks.

    _________________________________________________ 

    Connelly is talking about the same thing I’m concerned with. A society cannot hope to succeed if we lose the meaning and the context of language…our words. When words are manipulated such that intent and impact are no longer relevant, the populace is left without leadership and clarity…a quasi form or self-imposed anarchy.

    Look, you’re entitled to view Coulter’s “word wizardry” as anything you choose. You think she’s the real deal when it comes to satire and irony…so be it. My perception of satire and irony comes from classical literature…and Ann Coulter is no purveyor of classical literature. If Ann Coulter is indicative of today’s scholarship, then the world is truly an ironic satire.

    SteveIL, I’m not the enemy. Thanks again for sharing.

    Regards,

    Daniel

     

  11. By Daniel DiRito on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    SteveIL,

    Thanks for offering your comments and observations…even though you mischaracterize my words.

    Please note what I stated, “She [Coulter] succeeded in wishing that John Edwards be killed by a terrorist assassin […] to substitute for her prior controversial statement that John Edwards was a faggot…”

    I didn’t say that Coulter, in her heart of hearts, hopes John Edwards would be killed by a terrorist…I don’t know what is in her heart…just as you don’t know what is in mine. I said she “succeeded” in wishing it…regardless of the context or intent. Clever? Perhaps.

    Coulters act is to telegraph controversial statements into the media for those who are inclined to buy into such thoughts…and therefore buy her books. Maybe you find that a noble endeavor but I find it rather sleazy.

    I think the point you are missing is that this isn’t a one time event with Coulter…it is her modus operandi. There are countless similar examples. Just recently she was on Hannity and Colmes suggesting that Barak Obama…because his middle name is Hussein…should not use the words “hijack and religion” together. Clever? Perhaps. But the goal is to link Obama with a mindset that believes that a Democrat is a terrorist sympathizer.

    You see, I don’t think Coulter is stupid…I simply think she likes to manipulate “less than informed” individuals…she likes to play on peoples bias and prejudice. I don’t know if she does it solely to sell books or if she would like some unhinged follower to unleash their hatred on someone like Edwards or Obama.

    What I do know is that people filled with hatred are looking for triggering mechanisms to act out their hatred. Does that make Coulter responsible for what someone might do after hearing her “contextually challenged comedy”? No, not really…but at the same time there is something tawdry about a person of intellect serving as a catalyst for hatred…especially when it is done deliberately…and with full knowledge of the possibilities.

    I’m fine with the fact that you don’t buy my analysis…but I’m not telling lies. Many years ago a friend gave me a piece of advice that I often recall. While talking about our words and our actions, she stated that it was crucial to be mindful that one’s words and actions were delivered after carefully considering whether their impact matched their intention. In other words, it isn’t enough to simply know what you intend when you say or do something…it is equally important to consider the impact of one’s words or actions. Essentially, she argued that we need to ask, “What impact will they [our words or deeds] have and is it consistent with one’s intent?”

    Perhaps you feel my point is far too subtle or nuanced. I have no problem with that as it simply points to the blind spot that I think we fail to consider. I’ve said it before and I say it with sincerity, words are important and we have become far too casual with our words.

    I recently wrote about an op-ed piece by Joel Connelly in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. In that op-ed Connelly takes the time to look at the impact I’m discussing with regard to Alberto Gonzales. Towards the end of the piece, Connelly quotes a former U.S. District Judge, citing the following: 

    From The Seattle Post Intelligencer:

    As the Aesopian justifications pile up, one turns to Dwyer for the antidote, only in this case a warning.

    “George Orwell showed us brilliantly how freedom depends on the integrity of language: If words are debased, the liberties that are sustained by words are in peril,” he told the Washington Library Association.

    “In the late 20th century, there is a disturbing trend toward the debasement of language, as well as toward a reliance on symbols and catch phrases.”

    The “other” Washington is, increasingly, an Orwellian place of twisted language and wars by proxy. As in Iraq, the casualties are those of lower ranks.

    _________________________________________________ 

    Connelly is talking about the same thing I’m concerned with. A society cannot hope to succeed if we lose the meaning and the context of language…our words. When words are manipulated such that intent and impact are no longer relevant, the populace is left without leadership and clarity…a quasi form or self-imposed anarchy.

    Look, you’re entitled to view Coulter’s “word wizardry” as anything you choose. You think she’s the real deal when it comes to satire and irony…so be it. My perception of satire and irony comes from classical literature…and Ann Coulter is no purveyor of classical literature. If Ann Coulter is indicative of today’s scholarship, then the world is truly an ironic satire.

    SteveIL, I’m not the enemy. Thanks again for sharing.

    Regards,

    Daniel

  12. By Jersey McJones on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    The Edwards should not be wading around in the mud with Coulter.  This doesn’t help them, but it helps her.  The best thing any pol can do is just ignore Coulter.  Meanwhile we bloggers and people in the media can have at her all we want.  She’s a pig and we need to keep pointing that out.  We need to make her fans feel like shamed pigs so they turn her off and eventually she goes away.

    JMJ

  13. By steve on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    You forgot sleazy Jersey…  your trademark word.

  14. By tos on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    If Ann Coulter’s a pig then what is Rosie? I know a fat pig!

  15. By SteveIL on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Daniel,

    Thanks for your response.  Have you read Godless?
     

  16. By SteveIL on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    One other thing, Daniel.  As I mentioned, Ann Coulter said what she said as a subtle criticism of how a Bill Maher says similar things and is allowed to get away with it.  I also provided the links to it.  Neither your post or comment mention or reflect that, although that is the crux of all of this.

    Adding to it, Chris Matthews sandbagged Coulter with the call from Elizabeth Edwards.  It was a cheap, dirty trick by Matthews (something we conservatives expect from the leftist media) that Coulter picked up on and handled well.  Mrs. Edwards went through her unhinged rant, and all it showed is that the Edwards’ may not be ready for the kind of national leadership required of a President and the President’s spouse.

  17. By Jersey McJones on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Yes Steve, she’s also sleazy.

    Tos, Rosie is a much funnier comedian than Ann Coulter.  And I don’t find Rosie all that funny.

    JMJ

     

  18. By tos on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Oh yeah Jersey Rosie is hysterical. In an off the wall lost my head kind of way.

  19. By steve on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Rosie is not a pig, she is a train wreck.  If Ann is getting everyone talking and debating then she is doing her job as a political writer and commentator.  

    Notice Ann and Rush are quite quiet on Fred Thompson though…  Almost like a cricket in the woods. 

  20. By steve on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Whoa!!

     Hey Daniel,

    I noticed this in one of your links:

    Markos Moulitsas, who runs the popular liberal blog Daily Kos, sees a media “double standard” when it comes to conservative flamethrowers compared with, say, the flap over two left-wing bloggers who quit the Edwards campaign amid criticism of their past anti-Catholic rhetoric.

    “There’s the notion that this is her shtick and this is how she sells millions of books,” Moulitsas says of Coulter. But while she “just calls people traitors because they disagree with her,” he says, “what’s amazing is how much she’s cheered in some quarters for saying those things.”

    Kos finds it amazing that people have a different opinion regarding Ann?  Holy crap!!  The guy is disillusioned.  There are three types of people in this world, one who doesn’t care, one with a political affiliation and an open mind and the third one that sees the world as a one sided event and anything else contrary is wrong.  I can’t believe he says that about her selling books (she does make a living as an author) but so disillusioned that people would actually buy them.  If people didn’t buy her books, there would be no Ann Coulter.  Duh!!!  Is Kos that dumb?

     

  21. By jimmy on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    Why do people assume that if you do not like Ann Coulter, you are automatically some Rosie O’Donell fan? What’s that all about?

  22. By Daniel DiRito on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    First, a big thank you to all who offered comments and observations…I truly enjoy the dialogue.

    SteveIL,

    I have to confess that I’ve rarely read a book from cover to cover…must be an ADD thing…but I’ve perused Coulter’s book as I do with a number of books.

    Look, Coulter isn’t always wrong and she does make some good points…but I’m talking about more than that. Two points. One, her books are going to have a limited audience due to the manner in which she presents herself and her material. Two, if she hopes to change minds, it isn’t gonna happen the way she goes about it. None of that may matter to her…she does well with the audience she has and I’m sure she’s making good money.

    The problem I have is her disregard for the impact that results from how she presents her thoughts. No doubt she’s not the only one and I’m not only talking about those on the right…they exist on the left as well. I’m not here to argue which is worse though I have my opinions. My goal is to cut through all the hyperbole and look for some realities. Disliking Democrats and Liberalism need not succumb to a lowest common denominator approach. Don Imus thought he was a comedian too…but the question is what kind of discourse do we want? I think one ought to be attempting to change minds…perhaps that makes me a fool…I don’t know.

    I’m sure I could have a great conversation with Coulter if she would set aside the act and just talk politics…but that may have no appeal to her because her goal may be nothing more than making money. Again, I don’t know…but she and others who make political discourse what it is don’t serve the public nor do they demonstrate leadership. Not good enough for my liking.

    I hear what you are saying about her remark and the Bill Maher context…but I’m talking about the larger pattern demonstrated by Coulter. You see I’m not worried about you and I…I’m worried about the guy that simply sees, hears, and lives the hatred…and I don’t think anybody ought to fuel that…anyone. We have a responsibility to demand better and glamorizing people like Coulter is part of the problem.

    As to Chris Matthews setting Coulter up…I don’t know. I could see a scenario where she knew about it from the outset. Again, unless you and I know what her real goal is, it’s impossible to determine what really happened. Do you think less people will buy her book because of the exchange with Edwards? If I’m her and I’m out promoting my book, a cat fight with Elizabeth Edwards is just the ticket. The problem is that it offers nothing to the debate about real issues and real solutions…unless we should conclude that the solution is for D’s and R’s to take up arms for the final battle? 

    My dad tells a story about his brother getting married. Their mom was sick with leukemia at the time my dad’s brother had planned to get married. As it turned out, my uncle had the misfortune to end up getting married the day his mom died. A number of relatives criticized my dad’s dad for letting my uncle go ahead with the marriage. My dad recalls an argument his dad had with a relative who was lecturing my grandpa. After listening to his relative, he said to him…my son was unlucky, he’s not a bad person…should I take him and his wife out behind the barn and shoot them for having bad luck?

    In other words, at some point we’re left with killing each other if we can’t find some common ground or some compassion…and that should compel us to think about what we say and what we intend by what we say.

    Lastly, you infer that the exchange with Coulter means Edwards and his wife are not the right stuff. I simply don’t follow your logic (and I’m not an Edwards’ supporter BTW). I recall Lynn Cheney coming “unhinged” when Kerry mentioned their lesbian daughter (respectfully mind you…no dead son bumper sticker snark). Lynn Cheney was livid and said Kerry was a bad man. Did Elizabeth Edwards sound the same? You make the comparisons and tell me the difference and what conclusions I should draw.

    You see SteveIL, I want all the spin to stop…on both sides. I want to know who can run the damn country and what their ideas are…I don’t want to know if John Edwards has pretty hair that costs $400.00 to cut. Trust me, there isn’t an American alive that can emerge from the scrutiny unscathed…so why in the hell do we spend time on inconsequential nonsense? We don’t hire people we work with on the same basis…so why is that the measure we want to use for our president? The easy answer is because we try to use bias to defeat someone. Not good enough for my taste.

    Frankly, when I was in grade school, we chose the class president with more decorum…everyone had a chance to tell us why they would be a good president and then we voted…we didn’t look for some silly fact to trip them up or make them look bad…it wasn’t relevant.

    If you think Edwards would make a bad president, offer something more than his wife had a spat with Ann Coulter and that must mean they can’t handle the heat. I’m not picking on you Steve…I’m asking you to engage me honestly. I will listen. I won’t shit you and you needn’t shit me…I’m not about that and I’m hopeful you aren’t either.

    This country needs a new approach and an honest dialogue. All I’m trying to do is nudge it along.

    Thanks for sharing and for listening…I truly appreciate it.

    Regards,

    Daniel

     

  23. By Ron on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    I think Matthews is a piece of shit for setting the whole thing up. I mean, even by ambushing Coulter, he helped her career. The best thing to do with a Coulter is to ignore her, and I think someone wise here has already tried to convince people to do just that.

  24. By Jersey McJones on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

    I know, Jimmy!  When the hell did I say I was a Rosie O’Donell fan???

    Well Ron, Coulter puts herself out there in the public arena, does a whole psuedo-intellectual/lowbrow shtick like a Howard Stern doing GOP politics, so Matthews called her out.  The Edwards call may have been a set-up, but not an ambush.  Coulter could have been ambushed or set up by any number of people.  If anything, she requested the bigger fish in John Edwards.

    I agree with you this much - the Edwards should have stayed away, as they are politicians.  Matthews, however, is right to take on these crazy cons, and to show the world what sleazy (for you, steve) pigs they are.  Lord knows the cons don’t have the guts to take people like Matthews on themselves!

    JMJ

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel