Then a call came in from Elizabeth Edwards. John Edwards' wife was calling Ann Coulter to account for her persistent personal attacks on John, ranging, as per Coulter's style, from stupid to vicious. (You've no doubt all heard about the "faggot" comment. Now Coulter has switched to rhetorically wishing John had been "killed in a terrorist assassination plot.")
Predictably, Ann Coulter didn't give an inch, and jumped on her high horse about not being about to stop writing books, or change what she writes, because a Presidential candidate's wife asked her.
But Coulter also made another point, which highlights the value of Elizabeth Edwards' call. Coulter chided Elizabeth for calling, instead of her husband, the Presidential candidate, John Edwards making the call.
Coulter's point would have been better taken if the call had been about a political attack she had levied. But Elizabeth was calling about personal attacks, which have no place in political campaigns, and every moral ground for family members to call out and answer.
So kudos to Elizabeth Edwards for standing up for her husband and decency in dialogue and making this call. Let people like Ann Coulter know, if you attack candidates personally, expect their families to come after you.
As for Chris Matthews and Hardball, good that the show put through Elizabeth Edwards' call. But, next time, show a little more outrage when you're interviewing Ann Coulter. Humor and good spirits have their role on 24/7 all-news stations, but Ann Coulter is far more than a laughing matter.
Here's a videoclip of the call, from YouTube:
========================================
See also Hardball II: John Edwards about Ann Coulter and John Edwards' Favorite Book
Digg
22 comments:
Typical liberal sheep. Not even bothering to research the issue. The comment about Edward's child was from a 2003 column that Ann wrote about all of the Democratic candidates using the death and misery of loved ones to score political points. The comment about wanting Edwards to die during a terrorist attack was in response to a Bill Mahr comment.
I can't believe how shallow and stupid people are. Don't accept what you are being told....look up the information yourself. Read Ann's article, watch the entire segment. When you cut and paste little pieces you can end up with whatever you want.
And your comment is typical of an inability to discuss an issue, without being insulting ("sheep").
In fact, I - and no doubt, Elizabeth, and probably most people watching - knew the contexts and most of the details you cite.
And, you know what? It doesn't make Coulter's comments any more acceptable.
So she said she wanted Edwards to die in response to a Bill Mahr question (and I did grant that it was a "rhetorical" answer). In what way does that make her answer any more acceptable?
And so what if Coulter talked about all Democratic candidates using those tactics (which they do not). Does that make Elizabeth any less likely to be furious, given her own family's history?
It's sad that your partisanship blinds you to these issues, "anonymous"...
Your response shows that you are not aware of the contexts of her statements.
"So she said she wanted Edwards to die in response to a Bill Mahr question "
That is not what happened. You say you know the facts but it is obvious you believe the edited clips and spin of the media. It was NOT a Bill Mahr "question". Talk to me once you have seen the ENTIRE clip. The fact that you said "Bill Mahr question" proves that my use of the adjective "sheep" was totally appropriate.
Since you obviously didn't research the terrorist attack quote and relied on others to tell you what you should think I will help you out on the "bumper sticker" issue. Just to help you out, this is not in reference to the current campaign. Should I assume that your usage of the present tense was just a mistake or are you once again just accepting the spin?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter112003.asp
This is from 3 1/2 years ago. Mrs. Edwards brings up something from 3 1/2 years ago and it isn't a political stunt? If you don't want your dead kid brought up then don't bring him up yourself. The Clintons and the Bushes did it right. They didn't talk about their kids and expected the press to leave them alone. It worked.
Ann Coulter is a vile human being with no redeeming qualitys. I can not even give her the satisfaction of watching her
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html
anonymous - congratulations - I quickly typed "question" when I should have typed "comment" -
Coulter was playing off Mahr's crack that he'd like to see VP Cheney killed by a terrorist (which, by the way, is a vicious and stupid statement, too - I have no more use for liberal slingers of invective than I do for conservative slingers)-
So, does the fact the Mahr said something despicable first make Coulter's statement any more acceptable?
Meanwhile, your point about 3+ years ago makes no sense at all. If someone says something utterly disgusting and vile, does the fact that she said it 3 years ago make it any less vile?
PS - Bill Maher (see, I was so courteous to you, I even incorporated your misspelling)...:)
dawn - well said!
anon - thanks for the link
"I have no more use for liberal slingers of invective than I do for conservative slingers" This would make you fairly unique on the left. The media selectively clips and edits Ann's remarks and proceeds to try and hang her. I'm OK with that if the entire context of her statements is used. Why didn't the media try to hang Maher? If Ann's remarks are despicable then why didn't Maher receive the same treatment?
The media has portrayed her remarks as wishing Edwards would die in a terrorist attack. If a reasonably intelligent person watched the entire exchange they would not get that impression. It was a discussion about what was appropriate to say about a candidate. She was pointing out what a left wing extremist can say and yet not be castigated by the press. The Edwards web site carefully clips out the one sentence to make it appear that she wants to see him dead So...a person is either of limited intelligence or politically motivated to believe she was advocating the death of Edwards in a terrorist attack.
"utterly disgusting and vile" If it is so vile why have there been no complaints from the others mentioned in the article. I haven't heard anything from - Gore, Gephardt, Dean, Kennedy, Braun, Sharpton, Clark, Kerry or Clinton. As a father, if I lost a child, I would not want anyone making comments like Ann did in her article. I would hope that I would never be so "utterly disgusting and vile" to use my child's death for political gain.
Ann's original article is being spun as her making nasty remarks about Edward's dead child. I have seen the carefully cut and edited quotes from the article. When you read the entire article you know that she is taking all of the candidates to task for the "utterly disgusting and vile" political tactic of using one's own misery for sympathy and gain. To say the context is different shows a lack of intelligence or a crass political motivation.
Thanks for the spelling correction. When I typed I left out the "e". This didn't completely change the context of my statement. ;^)
:) Actually, I like to think of myself as "fairly unique" - period.
And if you click on Ron Paul in the labels of this blog, you'll see I support a lot of his positions, and think he's a better candidate than all of the Democrats in at least one crucial way (he believes in supporting the Constitution - in particular, the declaration of war clause, and the First Amendment).
As for Bill Maher - right, he makes me nauseous - he's arrogant, has an enormously high opinion of his own wit, and in fact is often not very funny.
What he said about Cheney was typical and despicable.
But, again, that doesn't justify what Coulter said. And again, I acknowledged in my very first post on this that I didn't think she was seriously calling for Edwards' killing - that's why I said "rhetorically" - but even joking publicly about killing political candidates is disgusting, and should be called out, and Elizabeth Edwards was right to do it (just as Dick Cheney's wife would have been right to do that with Bill Maher).
On the misspelling - touche :)
Thanks for the civil discourse.
I believe, based on Edwards web site, that this was a calculated political ploy. The Edwards pair seems willing to stoop to any level to raise money. The public political use of the tragedy of the death of their child sickens me.
As far as the death by terrorist assasination thing - I don't like either Maher or Coulter using this type of rhetoric. It makes light of the very real and serious issue of terrorism. It really irritates me that she is misquoted and then lynched while Maher gets a complete pass. If it is wrong for her then it is wrong for him and he should receive the same treatment.
How the press is too lazy to find the truth -
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS09/706280382/1056
If this were the truth I would be very angry. Many sheep will fall for this.
anon 1: I don't agree that the Edwards were using the death of their child for political ends. How about: they are so tormented about this (fortunately, I am not in this situation, but I can only imagine as a parent what this would feel like), that it's always on their minds, and so, yes, they speak of it, sometimes, in public, political situations.
Far cry between that and using this in a cold, political way...
anon2: so, I assume, you're privy to the truth ... which is?
It doesn't bother anyone else that Coulter never actually answered Elizabeth's questions? Either she knows she's wrong and is deliberately avoiding the issue or she truly thinks she's right, which is even more disturbing - that saying mean things and irrelevant things about people is her God-given right, and that it is her moral duty to mock the pain of others.
Paul -
Am I privy to the truth? No. Are you? It is normal to judge one by their actions. Will this always yield the truth? No.
Would the topic come up from time to time? Sure, but you have to ask yourself, at what point is bringing it up again too much. If I were a public figure I would keep that pain private. It would be far too easy to keep going to the sympathy well. At least you and Ann have something in common now. You are both questioning the sincerity of Edwards' public tragedy display.
Anon-2 How would you respond to an ambush? Mrs. Edwards misrepresented (lied) about what Ann said. I might be tempted to cut Mrs. Edwards some slack but the very same day an email and a web page was used to raise money from this incident. It has a nickname - "Coulter Cash" Hmmmmm....campaign contribution reporting period ending.....candidates recieving most money perceived as winners and they receive more money.
Ask yourself a question, if you have been offended by another person do you wait for the opportunity to take the person on in front of 300,000 people? 1,000 people? Let's say you and your teenage kid have an argument. The kid says "I hate you. You're stupid". Do you talk to them privately or wait until their high school graduation ceremony and with a bullhorn ask why they are so mean to you?
Anon-2 go back and read the original column by Ann. Listen to entire "terrorist attack" segment. Don't be a sheep.
Here is a radical suggestion. Read what was really said.
http://www.anncoulter.com
The Edwards just creep me out.
anon1: Good point.
anon2: I'm not really questioning it - I think the explanation I gave is likely accurate. And Ann Coulter isn't questioning either - she's attacking. So she and I really have little in common.
anon3: Here's a radical suggestion for you: don't assume that people with whom you disagree have not read the source materials you cite. I've indeed read plenty of Ann Coulter's writings. Here's a sample from her web page: "Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly." That's enough for me to conclude she's either (a) out of her mind, (b) about as clumsy an hyperbolist as has come down the pike in a long time.
Paul,
I believe I am anon 2 & 3. Obviously not 1 since you agree without remark to those who dislike Ann Coulter.
If I didn't know better I would say you are a writer for a major media outlet. You pick one line out of an entire article to attack her with. You give little if any weight to her argument that the Edwards are willing to use their own dead child for gain. It sickens me that anyone would defend the Edwards on this issue. There are far more politicians that have personal tragedies that we aren't being reminded of. I think the Edwards should honor their child and shut up about him.
Since you say you have read plenty of Ann Coulter why no mention of these wacky lines? -
"For the first time in recorded history, the show's host did not interrupt a guest," A vicious and whacky lie!!!
"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit"? Whoops, that was a line from a blogger hired by the Edwards
"first 45 minutes of Elizabeth Edwards' harangue" Another vicious lie!!
" a column I wrote four years ago" Another terrible lie, it was only 3 1/2 years ago
"The usual nut Web sites posted a zillion denunciations of my appearance" Lies, lies the hag is lying!!!! Zillion isn't even a real number!!
"Ann Coulter tried to kill John Edwards on 'Good Morning America'!" What?!?!?! That evil right wing HATER tried to kill John Edwards??? We must do something to stop this hateful hag!!!
I must stop now because if I continue quoting the article you might understand her points and find the Edwards as creepy as I do.
anon 1/2 - here's a suggestion - if you don't want to use your real name, how about adopting a nickname or whatever here, and that way we can distinguish you from the other anonymous posters...
I already answered you regarding what John and Elizabeth say about their family. You're not addressing my point - you're just repeating your "sickened" line. Repetition doesn't equal explanation or elucidation.
As to what Ann Coulter said and wrote, I'm basing my views on what I heard her say on TV or radio, or what I read in one or another of her columns.
and anon2/3 - here's a link to Coulter's The Party of Ideas, in which she writes about Edwards' son ... I can't recall ever reading such a vicious, mean-spirited little essay - it brings ad-hominem attacks to new lows...
Paul,
"I already answered you regarding what John and Elizabeth say about their family. You're not addressing my point" It is you that won't address the point here. I have made the point over and over that if they want people not to mention their dead son then quit talking about him. At some point when you keep bringing it up someone is going to question your motives especially if you are running for political office. The problem here is, that if you acknowledge that fact, that you can no longer cast Ann as evil.
The first question to answer is - Can someone use their personal tragedy for political gain? If yes, then you must ask yourself how you would be able to tell? Third, are the Edwards doing this?
You can't mention your tragedy over and over during a political campaign and then be offended if someone questions whether you are using it for political gain.
"I can't recall ever reading such a vicious, mean-spirited little essay - it brings ad-hominem attacks to new lows..."
I would suggest that you avoid the Daily-Kos. Also, you may want to refresh your memory as to what an "ad-hominem" attack is. In fact, your use of that term to negatively describe Ann Coulter is what an ad-hominem attack actually is. Ann proposes the arguement that the Democrats are using personal tragedy for political gain. She uses sarcasm and satire to make the argument. You do not address her argument but instead accuse her of a vicious attack.
If the Edwards have tried to keep their tragedy private then Ann Coulter is making a false accusation and a straight out personal attack (NOT an ad-hominem attack). If the Edwards have not tried to keep the tragedy private then you need to address Ann's argument whether you like the presentation style or not.
To me, I want to know the candidate's policies not have them attempt to influence me with their personal tragedy.
Hi, I just stumbled onto this blog and was reading your and anon2/3's discussion. I think you both may be right. Ann Coulter is pretty obviously rude, crude, and tactless. She is the equivalent of a shock jock, and she knows it. She uses it to sell books and get on talk shows (that, and routinely dressing scantily). I also think the Edwards certainly could have been using their son's death for political gain. The problem is that there is no way to know. I think, yes, if you routinely bring up your son's death journalists have every right to ask you about it. But I also think you, as a parent who has lost a child and may not actually be bringing it up for political gain but instead are bringing it up because it was such a central, life-changing event for you (wouldn't it be?), have every right to be offended at the suggestion. Sorry, did that sentence make sense? It kind of ran on.
Also, regarding Maher not being held accountable, maybe he should have. The difference is that Maher, while offensive to many, is first and foremost a comedian. That's what he got his start as, he just happens to discuss politics. I view him akin to The Daily Show. No one would bother holding The Daily Show/John Stewart accountable for comments made. (Disclaimer: I have not actually read/seen what Maher said and in what context, I'm just basing my comments on the discussion here.)
And finally, I read the article Coulter wrote about liberals using personal tragedy for political gain and, while she might be right, I find it annoying that she wants to tell people how to grieve and how to handle tragedy more than the actual comments themselves. She also holds this antiquated notion that "real men don't cry" and the liberals are all just acting like girls. That's pretty sexist, isn't it? Of course, this from a woman who exploits her looks to sell books, in my opinion, i.e. the cover of Godless is simply a picture of her in a tight dress.
Post a Comment