Ann Coulter -- Elizabeth Edwards Smackdown

Chris Matthews and MSNBC's low-rated Hardball are actually getting some attention.

Democrat hack Matthews allowed the John Edwards campaign to exploit an appearance by Ann Coulter on Tuesday's show.

Was Elizabeth Edwards sitting around the big house, watching Hardball when she decided to try to get through and confront Coulter? Was this a spontaneous bit of political drama?

Hardly.

Things like that don't just happen. They are made to happen.

David Shuster, Hardball correspondent, explains how Elizabeth Edwards managed to call into the show and challenge guest Ann Coulter.

While the campaign was raising money, Elizabeth Edwards decided to confront Coulter herself on Tuesday's "Hardball." Every major blog and Web site that covers politics and covers the news has featured the video of that phone call—from The Drudge Report, Huffingtonpost, TV Newser. And the downloads keep coming on YouTube.

So how did the Ann Coulter-lizabeth Edwards confrontation happen?

Before Tuesday’s Hardball appearance, MSNBC and MSNBC.com promoted that viewer comments and questions would be part of the program.

According to Hardball executive producer Tammy Haddad: “The Edwards campaign called to ask if it was possible that Elizabetth could talk to Ann Coulter live on the air. And we told them yes.”

In turn, Haddad had a conversation with Coulter. “I talked to Ann before the show and told her we had gotten a call from the Edwards campaign and that Elizabeth might call in and she was fine with it,” she says.

In the third block of the show, Elizabeth Edwards was patched in. This morning, the confrontation got more air time on the Today Show. On the show, Chris weighed in, saying “In human terms, Elizabeth Edwards has won this round.”

There was nothing spontaneous about the call.

The Edwards campaign was merely carrying out it's TV Blitzkrieg strategy targeting Coulter.

The week began with John and Elizabeth Edwards appearing together on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, all folksy and likable and down to earth.

Tuesday, the Edwards campaign played the victim card, using Ann Coulter's Hardball appearance as a pity ploy.

Transcript excerpts:

MATTHEWS: You know who is on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today. We said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You‘re on the line with Ann Coulter.

ELIZABETH EDWARDS, WIFE OF JOHN EDWARDS: Hello, Chris.

MATTHEWS: Do you want to say something directly to the person who is with me?

EDWARDS: I‘m calling—you know, in the South, we—when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it.

I would like to ask Ann Coulter to—if she wants to debate on issues, on positions, we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today. But—but it is quite another matter to—for these personal attacks.

That‘s—the things that she has said over the years, not just about John, but about other candidates, is—lowers our—our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it.

So, I—I want to use the opportunity, which I don‘t get much, because Ann and I don‘t hang out with the same people—to ask...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: ... have enough money.

EDWARDS: .... her politely to stop the personal attacks.

COULTER: OK. So, I made a joke, let‘s see, six months ago. And, as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months, since then.

MATTHEWS: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

COULTER: I didn‘t say anything about him, actually, either time.

EDWARDS: Ann knows—you know that‘s not true. And, what‘s more, this has been going on for some time.

COULTER: And I don‘t mind you trying to raise money. I mean, it‘s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor...

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you—I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: ... just to use my name on the Web pages. But, as for a debate with me, yes, sure.

EDWARDS: I‘m asking you politely...

COULTER: Yes, we will have a debate.

EDWARDS: ... to stop—to stop personal attacks.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: How about you stop raising money on your Web page, then?

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: No, you don‘t have to, because I don‘t mind.

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: It did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago...

COULTER: Great. OK.

EDWARDS: ... where you suggested that...

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: The wife of a presidential candidate is calling in, asking me to stop speaking?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.

COULTER: You‘re asking me to stop speaking? Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Ann, please.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: OK.

EDWARDS: You had a column a couple of years ago which—which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean‘s death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said, “Ask me about my dead son.”

COULTER: That‘s now three years ago.

EDWARDS: This is not legitimate political dialogue. It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can‘t have a debate about issues if you‘re using this kind of language.

COULTER: Yes, why isn‘t John Edwards making this call?

MATTHEWS: Well, do you want to respond? We will end this conversation.

EDWARDS: I have not talked to John about this call.

COULTER: I think this is just another attempt for...

EDWARDS: I‘m making this call as a mother. I‘m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate. These young people behind you are the age of my children. You‘re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness, instead of on the issues.

And I don‘t—I don‘t think that is serving them or this country very well.

(CHEERING AND APPLAUSE)

MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Elizabeth Edwards.

Do you want to—you have all the time in the world to respond to that.

COULTER: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking.

No.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually.

(CROSSTALK)

COULTER: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries, based on science...

MATTHEWS: OK.

COULTER: Wait. You said I would have as long as I would have.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead.

COULTER: And you instantly interrupt me.

MATTHEWS: Go ahead. Go ahead.

(LAUGHTER)

COULTER: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors, who now can‘t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don‘t talk to me about how to use language.

MATTHEWS: Elizabeth.

EDWARDS: ... language of hate. And I am going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.

COULTER: OK, I will stop writing books.

(LAUGHTER)

MATTHEWS: Why do you talk about...

(CROSSTALK)

EDWARDS: If you can‘t write them without them, then that is fine.

Surprise, surprise!

Mrs. Edwards' performance just happened to be one of the seeds of a large fundraising effort. Operation Ann Coulter would be a fitting name for it.

It was a clearly calculated move.

WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards on Wednesday encouraged his supporters to donate to his campaign in response to "hateful" comments from conservative author Ann Coulter.

Edwards made his first comments to The Associated Press in response to Coulter's suggestion that she wished he would be "killed in a terrorist assassination plot." His campaign cited her remarks in two e-mails and a telephone text message to supporters for donations, with the fundraising deadline on Saturday.

...In the e-mails, the campaign asked supporters to send donations to defy her remarks and help Edwards meet his goal of raising $9 million in the second quarter. The first e-mail from campaign adviser Joe Trippi showed a clip of Coulter on ABC's "Good Morning America," where she made the comments on Monday.

...Mrs. Edwards followed up with an e-mail to supporters Wednesday morning that included a clip of the [Edwards/Coulter] exchange and a donation request. The campaign also sent a text message to supporters' cell phones, asking them to call to hear a recording of the clip and an appeal from Mrs. Edwards to donate. The campaign said it raised more money this week than from any previous e-mail campaign but declined to give a total.

It seems to me that the Edwards campaign did the very thing that they were accusing Ann Coulter of doing.

The Edwards campaign shamelessly chose to exploit the death of Charlie Dean, the Edwards' son, to raise money.

There's something very twisted about John and Elizabeth Edwards' orchestrated outrage over Ann Coulter. I'm sure comments made by Coulter about the death of their son have been hurtful. But this wasn't about that pain. It was about seizing her remarks to rake in cash.

Then, shock of shocks! John Edwards was on Hardball Wednesday to discuss Tuesday's drama.

Democrat hack Matthews sounded like he was a paid worker on the Edwards campaign.

He didn't challenge Edwards when he clearly was misleading about how his wife just happened to call up and do battle with Ann Coulter. He didn't say a word about the set up.

When Matthews asked Edwards why he didn't call into the show to challenge Coulter, Edwards said, "The simple answer to that is Elizabeth I guess heard, and heard her and knew she was on, and called in. So I thought it was appropriate that I come on today.... Elizabeth made this decision on her own to call in."

He certainly makes it sound like it was spontaneous. That, of course, isn't true.

I think it's pretty pathetic that Edwards' campaign must be floundering so badly that it's necessary to resort to playing off of the Left's hate for Coulter as a means to raise money.

What's the deal? Isn't the "two Americas" thing resonating with the public? Do they think that running on an anti-Coulter agenda would be more effective?

Edwards accused Coulter of making comments "calculated to create an emotional response. They're calculated to make people hate."

Flip that around. This whole thing is a coordinated effort on the part of the Edwards campaign. Edwards is counting on an emotional response and trying to benefit by getting people to hate Coulter. He hopes slamming Coulter translates into campaign donations.

Matthews, total Dem mouthpiece that he is, said that Elizabeth may have made a strategic error by assuming she could get Ann Coulter to express shame.

Oh, give me a break!

Edwards responded on cue, "I don't think she has any shame. There's no doubt about that."

He went on, "These people are crazies. There's nothing remotely mainstream about them, and normal people are repelled by them."

GAG!!!

Where does John Edwards get off lecturing about Coulter's lack of shame?

John Edwards is synonymous with no shame.

This was all about raising money, not raising the level of political discourse.

Check out Edwards' website.

The Right Wing Attacks!
Tuesday evening Elizabeth Edwards called Ann Coulter live on Hardball to ask for an end to her personal attacks on John and other candidates. Coulter's response? More personal attacks.

It's up to us to raise the dialogue by taking our message straight to voters. Let's show that Ann Coulter style politics will never carry the day. We have 4 days to reach $9 million. Please donate today:

$25 $50 $100 Other

Good grief.

No shame. No shame at all.

Ann Coulter's "Roach Motel"

Ann Coulter's latest column presents some...let's call them interesting thoughts about the immigration bill. She gives some historical perspective of immigration policy in America as well.

Coulter also zeroes in on Ted Kennedy's role in setting the course of the country's immigration law.

Excerpts:

Republicans' defense of President Bush's immigration bill is more enraging than their defense of Harriet Miers. Back then, Bush's conservative base was accused of being sexist for opposing an unqualified woman's nomination to the highest court in the land. Now we're racists for not wanting to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.

I don't know why conservatives like Linda Chavez have to argue like liberals by smearing their opponents as racists. Oh wait, now I remember! Their arguments are as strong as liberals' arguments usually are.

...In 1965, Teddy Kennedy overhauled immigration law with the specific purpose of effecting a dramatic change in the nation's demographics. Bobby Kennedy had civil rights, so Teddy needed something big: He would preside over a civil rights bill for the entire Third World! My word, but that man could drink in those days.

With his 1965 immigration act, Kennedy embarked on entirely transforming American culture for no good reason. (You know how people always say the same arguments against illegal immigrants today were once made about the Irish to show how silly those arguments are? If only the U.S. Senate had had an "Irish Need Not Apply" sign!)

Until that point, immigration law basically took a laissez-faire approach, with country quotas attempting to replicate the traditional immigration patterns. Most immigrants to America had historically come from Great Britain, Germany and Scandinavian countries. Consequently, immigration quotas roughly reflected that balance, with smaller numbers of immigrants admitted from other countries.

But in an angry, long-awaited payback to WASPs, Kennedy decided he was going to radically transform the racial composition of the country. Instead of taking 15 immigrants from England and three from China, America would henceforth take three from England and 15 from China. Payback's a bitch, Daughters of the American Revolution!

Some of those hardworking immigrants who just want a chance to succeed were arrested in a plot to blow up JFK Airport last week.

...If liberals think Iraqis are genetically incapable of pulling off even the most rudimentary form of democracy, why do they believe 50 million Mexicans will magically become good Americans, imbued in the nation's history and culture, upon crossing the Rio Grande? Maybe we should dunk Iraqis in the Rio and see what happens.

And as long as we're adopting an open borders policy for immigration, how about opening the borders for emigration? As it stands, anyone can come in and start plotting terrorist attacks or collecting government services right away. But the rest of us can never escape having to pay for it.

You can leave the country, you can renounce your citizenship — but you still owe taxes for 10 years. The government does not allow us to stop supporting welfare recipients in America, millions more of whom it plans to import under Bush's bill. That's not a free market — it's a roach motel.

If these free-marketeers at The Wall Street Journal want the free movement of people, how about letting us freely leave after they've wrecked the country

I would say Coulter is sort of ticked off over this immigration stuff.

She's not the only one.

Bill Maher, Ann Coulter, and Gay Slurs

Why is it that Bill Maher can get away with saying the most disgusting and degrading things, but Ann Coulter is crucified by the libs for saying "faggot"?

Clearly, there's a double standard.

On last Friday's edition Real Time, Maher really stepped over the line.

Transcript from NewsBusters:

The Republican Party, besides Rudy Giuliani, Bush likes to dress up. He likes to be a cowboy, or Iceman from “Top Gun.” And they have something very gay, excuse me, going on with Ronald Reagan. I mean, they love Ronald Reagan in a way that’s just gay. I’m sorry. But, I think they want to put him on a stamp so that they can lick his backside. Well, seriously, I mean – am I right?

That's unbelievable!

It's not unbelievable that Maher would say something so offensive.

It's unbelievable that he can get away with saying something so graphic and derogatory and the Left has no problem with it.

Why is Coulter's joke out of line, but Maher's joke is cheered?

Would the Left put his remarks in the mean-spirited gay slur category, or would they put them in the hilarious gay humor category?

Maher says such outrageous things; yet I don't hear an outcry for him to apologize.

I think it would be ridiculous to hold fellow Bush-bashers like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards accountable for what Maher says. They aren't responsible for Maher's hate-filled rants and they shouldn't be expected to apologize for his truly obnoxious comments.

Maher speaks for himself and so does Coulter, but Coulter is condemned.

There's a double standard. No question about it.

What's amazing to me is I once thought that Maher was really funny.

Has he changed or have I?

I think it's probably a little of both.

Ann Coulter's Spine

Ann Coulter is tough.

She has the spine of a... something with a really strong spine.

Coulter isn't buckling under pressure to apologize for a joke she made during a speech on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C.

I really can't believe that this is such a major story.

This is shaping up to be a feud on the scale of the Donald Trump - Rosie O'Donnell bout.

Coulter's remarks weren't unusual for her. They were classic Coulter -- pushing the limits, creating controversy for controversy's sake. That's her calling card. That's what she does.

On Monday night, Coulter got the chance to explain herself.

From FOX News:

Ann Coulter fired back at critics who demanded the conservative columnist apologize for comments she made during a speech in which she referred to Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards as a "faggot."

"'Faggot isn't offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays," Coulter said on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night. "It's a schoolyard taunt meaning 'wuss,' and unless you're telling me that John Edwards is gay, it was not applied to a gay person."

...Coulter called the whole controversy another example of the mainstream media's "speech totalitarianism" and says she sees no reason to apologize for a joking comment that was taken out of context.

"What I was saying right there was for conservatives to not let the mainstream media describe us as anti gay and oppose Mitt Romney's policies for being pro-gay," Coulter said.

Nope, no apology there. No backing down.

Actually, she's helping Edwards. I think the last thing he would have wanted would be for her to beg for his forgiveness.

Rather than refusing to dignify the gay slur, Edwards is using it to raise cash. Obviously, his sleazy money grubbing lawyer instincts kicked in.

Coulter has Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior's solicitation e-mail on her website.

Dear [Supporter],

Did you hear about Anne Coulter's speech this afternoon attacking John? A friend just forwarded me the video and it's one of the worst moments in American politics I've seen.

I can't bring myself to even repeat her comments. Her shameless display of bigotry is so outrageous you actually have to see for yourself:
This is just a taste of the filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us. And now that it's begun, we have a choice: Do we sit back, or do we fight back?

I say we fight. Help us raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week to show every would-be Republican mouthpiece that their bigoted attacks will not intimidate this campaign. I just threw in 100 bucks. Will you join me? Just click here.:

Coulter's attack was no accident. It happened on national television at one of the year's biggest conservative conferences. Dick Cheney and most of the Republican candidates were in the audience. She was even introduced by Mitt Romney.

John was singled out for a personal attack because the Republican establishment knows he poses the greatest threat to their power. Since they have nothing real to use against him, Coulter's resorting to the classic right-wing strategy of riling up hate to smear a progressive champion. And the Republican attack dogs will keep playing this despicable trick as long as they think it works.

But this time, you and I can change the game.

If we can raise $100,000 in "Coulter Cash" this week, we can show that bigotry will only backfire on those who use it. John is not the first progressive leader to face this kind of slime, but together, we can make sure he is one of the last.

Tonight, I've put in 100 bucks of "Coulter Cash" to get us started. Can you match me, or chip in whatever you can afford? Just click here:

http://johnedwards.com/r/6665/22570:

Thanks,

David Bonior Campaign Manager John Edwards for President

What a load!

"Slime." "Bigotry." "Filth that the right-wing machine is gearing up to throw at us."

How dramatic!

"Coulter Cash"?

Let's be honest. Edwards wasn't offended by the joke. He's licking his chops.

The feigned outrage in Bonior's message is priceless.

I think a message that Coulter has posted on her site is funny, too.

AMBULANCE CHASER GETS REAR-ENDED BY ANN COULTER -
I'm so ashamed, I can't stop laughing!

Coulter is definitely offering no remorse; but that's actually making everybody happy.

Edwards is getting what he wants (a fund-raising opportunity) and Coulter is getting what she wants (attention).

CNN has weighed in on another aspect of this pretend scandal.

At least three major companies want their ads pulled from Ann Coulter's Web site, following customer complaints about the right-wing commentator referring to Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards as a "faggot."

Verizon, Sallie Mae and Georgia-based NetBank each said they didn't know their ads were on AnnCoulter.com until they received the complaints.

A diarist at the liberal blog DailyKos.com posted contact information for dozens of companies with ads on Coulter's site after the commentator made her remarks about Edwards at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington on Friday.

"One of the best ways to communicate one's distaste for Coulter's repeated incidents of hate speech is to respectfully but firmly let her advertisers know you are deeply troubled by their indirect support of bigotry through their advertising on Coulter's Web site," the blogger VolvoDrivingLiberal wrote on DailyKos.com on Sunday.

Read the fringe Left's Coulter attack plan.

Verizon, Sallie Mae and NetBank said the ads were put on a variety of sites by a third party company. In many cases, advertisers do not know which sites feature their ads.

"Per our policy, the networked Web site ad purchases are supposed to be stripped of certain kinds of Web sites," said a Verizon spokesperson. "This one could be considered an extreme political Web site, should be off the list, and now it is off the list."

A Sallie Mae spokesperson said the company was only testing an online advertising agency, and that their ads were not meant to show up on Coulter's site. The company said they planned to pull ads from other political and religious Web sites as well.

A spokesperson for NetBank said Coulter's page "is not the kind of site we want to be on."

I'm guessing, but I doubt that the bulk of Coulter's income comes from her website.

I don't think that companies pulling their ads will mean much to her.

The uproar works to her benefit in the long run. It really serves to help her cultivate her image as the queen of controversy. I bet her speaking fees are rising ever higher.

I wonder. Does Verizon advertise on The View? How about MSNBC? Or CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS?

Think of the trash Rosie O'Donnell spews out every morning on The View.

Think of the garbage that comes out of the mouths of Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

Are advertisers fleeing because of their extremism and hateful statements?

Once again, the double standard rears its ugly liberal head.

Bigotry, shmigotry.

These libs are hypocrites. They practice in selective outrage and moral relativism.

They're frauds.

Coulter, like her or not, isn't a fraud. She is what she is.

Howard Dean, Ann Coulter, and John Edwards

Howard Dean has resurfaced.

He'd gone missing. It seems like weeks since he's had anything to say.

Who brought Dr. Dean out of hiding?

Ann Coulter.

NEW YORK -- In recent years she has suggested that Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore have or may have homosexual tendencies. Now columnist/author Ann Coulter has targeted former senator (and current candidate for president) John Edwards.

Speaking today at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Coulter closed her remarks with: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I -- so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”

Audience members appeared startled, then many clapped, and she opened the floor to questions. The event was carried on C-SPAN.

Democratic Party chief Howard Dean weighed in later: "There is no place in political discourse for this kind of hate-filled and bigoted comments. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on the issues, we should all be able to agree that this kind of vile rhetoric is out of bounds. The American people want a serious, thoughtful debate of the issues. Republicans -- including the Republican presidential candidates who shared the podium with Ann Coulter today -- should denounce her hateful remarks."

While I agree with Dr. Dean that Ann Coulter's comments were terribly inappropriate, I think only she is responsible for what she says.

She needs to be held accountable, not the Republican Party or any of the Republican presidential contenders.

Ann Coulter is not the voice of the GOP; and last I heard, she's not running for president.

I'm not defending Coulter at all, but I do find it laughable that Dean is bent out of shape over "vile rhetoric." It seems whenever he opens his mouth something vile dribbles out.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."

Does that qualify as a "hateful remark"?

Here's a few more choice Deanisms:

Dean: “I’m Tired Of The Ayatollahs Of The Right Wing … (Josie Huang, “Dean Calls For End To ‘Culture Of Corruption’,” Portland [ME] Press Herald, 10/23/05)


Dean: “Republicans Always Divide People.” (Carla Marinucci, “Dean: The Mouth That Won’t Stop Roaring,” San Francisco Chronicle, 6/8/05)


Dean: “These Guys [Republicans] Are Bad For Democracy. They Are Not Interested In Ideas But Interested In Power And They Are Not Interested In The Best Interest Of The American People.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/6/05)


Dean: “The R.N.C. … They Love To Play The Victim. The Truth Is They Are A White Christian Party.” (ABC’s “The View,” 9/15/05)


Dean: “These Guys [Republicans] Are Bad For Democracy. They Are Not Interested In Ideas But Interested In Power And They Are Not Interested In The Best Interest Of The American People. That’s Why They Will Be Gone In 2006.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/6/05)


Dean: “I’m Not Sure He [Chief Justice Roberts] Loves The American People.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 9/9/05)


Dean: “New England Republicans Are Different Than Most. They Are More Reasonable And Thoughtful …” (Cole Manning, “Dean Works To Energize State’s Democratic Party,” Foster’s Online, 8/11/05)


Dean: “You Know, The Republicans Are Not Very Friendly To Different Kinds Of People. They’re A Pretty Monolithic Party. (Carla Marinucci, “Dean: The Mouth That Won’t Stop Roaring,” San Francisco Chronicle, 6/8/05)


Dean: “They [Republicans] All Behave The Same. They All Look The Same. It’s Pretty Much A White Christian Party.” (Carla Marinucci, “In S.F., Dean Calls GOP ‘A White Christian Party,’” San Francisco Chronicle, 6/7/05)


Dean: “[L]ord Knows This Administration Is Beginning To Erode The Core Of Our Democracy.” (DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Remarks At Campaign For America’s Future “Take Back America Conference,” DC, 6/2/05)


Dean: “[R]epublicans … A Lot Of Them Have Never Made An Honest Living In Their Lives.” (DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Remarks At Campaign For America’s Future “Take Back America Conference,” DC, 6/2/05)


Dean: “I Hate What The Republicans Are Doing To This Country. I Really Do.” (NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 5/22/05)


Dean: “Republicans Are All About Suppressing Votes ...” (DNC Chairman Howard Dean, Remarks At Campaign For America’s Future, “Take Back America Conference,” Washington, D.C., 6/2/05)


“Appearing On The Liberal Air America Radio In Minnesota, Dean Said Republicans Are, Quote, ‘Mean. They’re Not Nice People. They Want To Run Nearly Every Aspect Of Your Life,’ End Quote.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 4/5/05)


Dean Called Republicans “Brain-Dead.” (Peter Gorrie, “Spreading The Message,” Toronto Star, 3/20/05)


Dean On Republicans And Democrats: “This Is A Struggle Of Good And Evil. And We’re The Good.” (Joel Mathis, “Dean Roars Into Town,” Lawrence [KS] Journal-World, 2/26/05)


“During A Meeting … With The Democratic Black Caucus, Dean … Questioned Republicans’ Ability To Rally Support From Minorities. ‘You Think The Republican National Committee Could Get This Many People Of Color In A Single Room?’ Dean Asked To Laughter. ‘Only If They Had The Hotel Staff In Here.’” (Nancy Benac, “Dean Ready To Take Charge Of Democrats,” The Associated Press, 2/11/05)


And then there was that little misunderstanding about gay marriage. Dr. Dean misstated the Democrat Party platform while courting evangelicals. You might call it a lie.

Dean: "The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says." (David Brody, "Howard Dean: Democrats Have Much in Common with Evangelicals," CBN News, 5/11/06)

I'm sure that someone on the Left could match every idiotic thing uttered by Democrat Party Chairman Howard Dean with something idiotic uttered by Ann Coulter.

It should be remembered that their comments do not carry equal weight. Ann Coulter is not a spokesperson for the Republican Party. She speaks for herself.

Furthermore, I don't hear Ann Coulter demanding that Democrats and Dem presidential candidates apologize for what Dean says.

I also don't hear Dean calling for his ranks to apologize to Michael Steele, Condoleezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and other conservative African-Americans for throwing all those ugly racial slurs and oreos at them.

Dean doesn't demand that former President Carter apologize for his anti-Semitic remarks.

Dean doesn't insist that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson apologize for making ethnic slurs.

Clearly, Dean cherry picks when it comes to denouncing "vile rhetoric."

He's a hypocrite.

Still, the ugly truth about Howard Dean in no way excuses Ann Coulter.

It's unfortunate that she keeps pushing the envelope, trying to "out-Coulter" herself.

It was in incredibly bad taste to make that joke about John Edwards. There's plenty to criticize about Edwards. Her comment was a cheap, offensive shot. I think that was intentional.

Coulter is an intelligent woman. She knew exactly what she was doing.

Coulter seems to be more interested in grabbing attention and headlines for herself than in furthering conservative principles.

Her shtick may win her some fans and help her books become best-sellers, but she's hurting the conservative movement by giving libs ammunition. Obviously, she doesn't care.

The fact is the current level of discourse in politics, thanks to the likes of Howard Dean and Ann Coulter, is not good for the country.

Lots of apologies are in order.

Another Coulter Speech Disrupted

Media Credit: Daniel Feeser

Jeremy Atkinson holds a copy of "Socialist Worker" in the LBJ Library lobby. Several students gathered to protest the evening´s speaker, Ann Coulter.

From Drudge:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED MAY 04, 2005 12:01:02 ET XXXXX

Arrest made at Coulter speech; Student arrested, charged with disorderly conduct after offensive question
Wed May 04 2005 11:57:58 ET

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by controversialist Ann Coulter at the University of Texas at Austin.

THE TEXAN reports: Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence.

"You say that you believe in the sanctity of marriage," said Ajai Raj, an English sophomore. "How do you feel about marriages where the man does nothing but f*@k his wife up the ass?"

UT Police officers approached Raj to arrest him, resulting in a mass exodus of protesters chanting, "Let him go."

"The person had been disruptive the entire event," said Matt Hardigree, former Student Events Center president. "He took the opportunity to say something lewd and offensive and then made masturbatory gestures as he exited."

Hardigree said that Cheryl Wood from the Office of the Dean of Students spoke with some of the protestors before the event, and assorted members of the Distinguished Speakers Committee asked them to sit in the back if they had signs and to leave quietly if they wanted to leave.

According to Jeffrey Stockerwell, a friend of Raj, officers violently seized Raj and illegally searched him after his question.

Police have charged Raj with disorderly conduct, a Class C misdemeanor.

Representatives of the Austin People's Legal Collective were taking statements from everyone at the scene, in case it should be taken to court.

The booing began early into Coulter's speech, when she issued a joke to pro-choice advocates.

"I wonder why those 'I Heart Partial-Birth Abortion' T-shirts aren't selling better," she said, followed by a combination of cheers and jeers.

One student asked Coulter why universities and institutions place microphones in front of Coulter when she advocates terrorism against liberals, prompting Coulter to mention the strength of her book sales. Coulter has had four New York Times best sellers.

The $30,000 event was co-sponsored by the Texas Union Student Events Center and Student Endowed Centennial Lectureship Committee.

Developing...
______________________________

Don't you just love those liberals?

Disrupting a conservative speaker with such foul language is a noble thing in their myopic view.

No wonder more and more Americans view Democrats as the party of fringe nutjobs with ABSOLUTELY NO IDEAS.

Ann Coulter Fires Back

ANN COULTER addresses her critics in "Pies, lies, and videotape."

She takes no prisoners in this one.

Some highlights—

After my column last week, in which I noted that there had been a spate of food attacks on conservative speakers on college campuses within weeks of charges being dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys who threw pies at me at the University of Arizona, the prosecutor said it was my fault. (This column gets results!) David Berkman, chief criminal deputy in the office of Democrat Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall, told the Arizona Daily Star that charges had to be dismissed because I didn't show up for the trial.

…Is the prosecutor a phony or the reporter a moron? In other words, is this a "Jeffrey Toobin situation" or a "Dan Rather situation"? We report, you decide.

In an article titled "Writer Coulter, arresting officer missed 1st trial," reporter Kim Smith writes in the April 16 Arizona Daily Star:

· "Pima County prosecutors plan to take another shot at two men accused of throwing pies at political writer Ann Coulter, even though she didn't show up at their first trial last month."

· "Smith and Wolff were scheduled to go to trial March 18, but neither Coulter nor the arresting officer showed up, Berkman said."

· "Coulter was sent repeated notices of the court date" (all of which were apparently sent telepathically) "and she will be notified of the new court date as well, Berkman said. He said it should also be noted that Coulter never contacted prosecutors to find out the resolution of the case."

In fact, my verbatim reply in an e-mail dated Feb. 15, 2005, to the only notice I ever received about my appearing at the trial was the following, preserved through the miracle of computers:

I remain very committed to pressing charges. What is the date of the trial? I do not live in AZ and it may be difficult for me to get there for the trial. Does the prosecutor believe he will have to call me as a witness? I believe there is videotape of the entire event and it is evident thereon that I apprehended the attack and ran away.

I was never asked to attend any trial. Are crime victims in Pima County typically required to pester prosecutors with endless "When's the trial?" phone calls? This trial received even less publicity than my recent speaking engagement at the school. I didn't even get one of those "haven't heard from you lately" postcards the publisher sends after you let a magazine subscription lapse.

The need for a prosecutor to call me as a witness still seems completely absurd in light of the in-living-color videotape of the entire assault, vividly showing each element of the crime. But if called by the prosecutor, I would attend the trial with relish. I can't wait to see if the defendants will try the novel "guy who throws like a girl" defense.

…In Berkman's defense, his office is shorthanded, having been bleeding prosecutors in the last several months. That includes the departure of at least four female prosecutors, two of whom expressly said they were leaving because of the way Berkman treats women. So on the bright side, maybe Berkman allowed charges to be dismissed against my assailants not because I'm a conservative but because I'm a female.

But there still remains the devilish issue of the accuracy of the reporter's account. Daily Star reporter Smith also wrote: "Coulter couldn't be reached for comment late Friday" (as a result of our not trying to reach Coulter for comment late Friday). Tip to aspiring reporters: If you want a comment ... try asking!

I'll even type out my comment for you, Kim: "In a prepared statement, Coulter darkly hinted that prosecutors who fail to bring the pie assailants to justice will be held accountable for their actions – a charge that was tantamount to Coulter calling for a pie-throwing attack on the county attorney." Reporting like that could earn you a coveted position covering Tom DeLay for the New York Times!
_______________________________

Although I distance myself from some of Coulter’s more over the top statements and condemn her for occasionally falling back on racially offensive remarks, I do enjoy reading her stuff, particularly when she exposes the mendacity of her critics.

The Irony of Platon

When I saw the Ann Coulter Time cover cheap shot, I immediately flashed back to this image of Clinton. As it turns out, both pics are the work of the same photographer.

Drudge reports that the editors selected Zelman Platon with a note of irony.

Platon captured Coulter-nemisis President Clinton in the infamous "Lewinsky" power pose for Esquire.

The difference: Ann Coulter is not happy with her photo.

On the other hand, I imagine Clinton was thrilled with his cover shot. I wouldn't be surprised if he used the image for his Christmas cards. Not the official Clinton family card of course--a Christmas greeting only for those on Bill's special list.

Covergirl Ann Coulter

From the Drudge Report:

SOURCES: COULTER TO BE ON COVER OF TIME MAG
Sun Apr 17 2005 06:38:51 ET

Ann Coulter epitomizes the way politics is now discussed on the airwaves, where opinions must come violently fast and cause as much friction as possible, TIME’s John Cloud claims in this week’s cover story.

No one, right or left, delivers the required apothegmatic commentary on the world with as much glee or effectiveness as Coulter, Cloud writes (on newsstands Monday, April 18).

It is almost impossible to watch her and not be sluiced into rage or elation, depending on your views. As a congressional staff member 10 years ago, Coulter used to help write the nation’s laws.

Now she is far more powerful: she helps set the nation’s tone. TIME’s Cloud had unprecedented access to Coulter.

He goes more than 6,000 words.

And he appears to come away liking her.

"On TV or in person, you can trust that Coulter will speak from her heart. The officialdom of punditry, so full of phonies and dullards, would suffer without her humor and fire. Which is not to say you don't want to shut her up occasionally," Cloud notes.

Developing...
________________________________

I give Time credit for knowing how to boost their sales--put Ann Coulter on the cover.

Consider this: Would John Cloud put Maureen Dowd in the "phony" or "dullard" category?

For all her seductive hair-twisting and attempts at "humor and fire," Dowd hasn't managed to get the cover of Time.

Can you hear Maureen Dowd grinding her teeth?

Liberals Throw Like Girls

Ann Coulter offers a blistering appraisal of the intellectual inadequacies of liberals.

In her column today, "It's only funny until someone loses a pie," she is right on target, unlike the goons who threw pies at her.

(Excerpts)

Liberals enjoy claiming that they are intellectuals, thrilled to engage in a battle of wits. This, they believe, distinguishes them from conservatives, who are religious fanatics who react with impotent rage to opposing ideas. As one liberal, Jonathan Chait, put the cliche in the New Republic: Bush is an "instinctive anti-intellectual" and his administration hostile to "fact-driven debate." In a favorable contrast, Clinton is "the former Rhodes scholar who relished academic debates." Showing his usual reverence for fact-checking, the New York Times' Paul Krugman says the Republican Party is "dominated by people who believe truth should be determined by revelation, not research."

I'm not sure how these descriptions square with the fact that liberals keep responding to conservative ideas by throwing food. (Remember the good old days when liberals' "fact-driven" ideas only meant throwing money at their problems?)

Last October, two liberals responded to my speech at the University of Arizona – during question and answer, no less – by charging the stage and throwing two pies at me from a few yards away. Fortunately for me, liberals not only argue like liberals, they also throw like girls. (Apologies in advance to the Harvard biology professors who walked out on Larry Summers in a demonstration of their admiration of "research," not "revelation" – but this may account for the dearth of female pitchers in Major League Baseball.)

Unfortunately for them, Republican men don't react favorably to two "Deliverance" boys trying to sucker-punch a 110-pound female in a skirt and heels. The geniuses ended up with bloody noses and broken bones.

It's really outrageous how conservatives respond to liberals who are just trying to engage in a "fact-driven debate." How typical of Republicans to go on the offensive just because a female has been physically attacked. Instead of capturing and subduing my attackers, those strong Republican men should have been trying to understand why they threw the pies.

In the five months following the liberal ass-whupping in Arizona – I mean "fact-driven debate" – all was quiet on the Eastern Front. College liberals still couldn't formulate a coherent argument, but they seemed to want to avoid ending up in jail having to explain to their cellmates that they were in for trying to hit a girl (and missing).

Then on March 19, all charges were dismissed against the "Deliverance" boys – including a felony charge for $3,000 worth of damage to school property. Inexplicably, this outcome did not instantly lead to widespread rioting and looting in South Central Los Angeles.

Democrat Barbara LaWall is the Pima County attorney who allowed the liberal debate champions to walk. LaWall brags on her website about "holding criminals accountable." She didn't say anything about liberals, however. Be forewarned, conservatives: Do not expect the law to protect you in Pima County.

...I think Kristol, Buchanan, Horowitz and I would be perfectly happy if college liberals merely brandished symbols at us. Speaking for myself, I would be unhappy if they didn't. But these Rhodes scholar geniuses with a taste for "fact-driven debate" can't even achieve the level of argument practiced by the average juvenile delinquent. They're still stuck at the intellectual level of 2-year-olds in high chairs throwing food.
_______________________________

"They're still stuck at the intellectual level of 2-year-olds in high chairs throwing food."

EXACTLY.

Ann Coulter Stands Her Ground

Ann Coulter speaks at the Lied Center as part of the J.A. Vickers Sr. Memorial Lecture Series.

Ann Coulter causes stir at KU

Heckling, standing ovations interrupt right-wing commentator

By Mike Belt, Journal-World

Conservative columnist and author Ann Coulter was greeted with a mixture of standing ovations and heckling after she took center stage Tuesday night at Kansas University's Lied Center.

As soon as she stepped up to the microphone, Coulter fired off one zinger after another about liberalism while promising to answer questions from left-wing members in the audience who could "thrash their way to a coherent thought."

"I've come to find I like liberals a lot more," Coulter said early in her speech. "They're kind of cute when they're cold, shivering and afraid."

Coulter spoke as the 37th J.A. Vickers Sr. Memorial Lecture Series lecturer to a crowd estimated by KU officials at about 1,800 people. The lectures, which began in 1971, were established through a gift to the Kansas University Endowment Association by the Vickers family of Wichita.

Coulter received several standing ovations during her speech, but she also found herself interrupted several times by a small, scattered group of hecklers.

"I think there are some people in the audience who meant to be at the sexual reorientation class down the hall," Coulter said, in response to the heckling.

Moments later Coulter stopped and called for assistance from students when hecklers started in again and no one of authority was seen trying to stop them.

"Could 10 of the largest College Republicans start walking up and down the aisles and start removing anyone shouting?" Coulter asked. "Otherwise, this lecture is over."

Several people responded, leaving their seats to confront the hecklers, and verbal confrontations erupted in parts of the auditorium...

Later, when heckling broke out again, a couple of uniformed KU Public Safety Department officers appeared and escorted about six people out of the auditorium...

Coulter's appearance spurred mixed emotions among those who came to see her. About a dozen protesters stood outside the center before her speech, carrying signs bearing quotes from her books and columns. Ron Warman Jr. dressed up in a clown suit to express his dislike of Coulter.

"I think she's a clown or a witch," the 45-year-old Lawrence man said.

Some of the protesters, such as Robert Richardson, said they were members of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics.

Kay Wright, Lawrence, carries a copy of Ann Coulter's book "How to Talk to a Liberal." Wright hoped to get it signed for her son, Lt. Col. Kevin Wright, of Fort Knox, Ky.

"We're just not open-minded enough to like Ann Coulter," Richardson, 28, of Lawrence, said.

Others, such as Mollie Devine, 26, said she was a big fan of Coulter.

"I love her," the Lawrence woman said. "She doesn't back down. She's also funnier than the other (conservative) columnists."

Mary Anne Smith, 38, said she welcomed a chance to hear a noted right-wing conservative speak.
_______________________________

Do you think any of the Coulter hecklers whined about suppressing free speech during the Ward Churchill controversy?

Do you think they objected to attempts to silence Churchill?

Do you think they warned of the "new McCarthyism" engulfing the country?

Do you think they are hypocrites?

I do.