John Edwards responds....
John Edwards followed Coulter a day later and said that we need to fight back against attacks like Ann's on Hardball.
Download | play 
Download | play
JOHN EDWARDS: I applaud Elizabeth. I think that when people like Ann Coulter—and it‘s not just her, unfortunately, it‘s her and people just like her, Karl Rove and all those people. I mean, when they engage us in this kind of hate-mongering, you have to stand up to them. You have to stand up to them.
They start this fight, but we have to be willing to be strong and to fight back because if we don‘t, Chris, what happens is all the important things—men and women dying in Iraq, those who don‘t have health insurance, et cetera, their issues don‘t get heard. Instead, it‘s this—it‘s this low-level dialogue with this name-calling, which is what we see. (full transcript below the fold)
MATTHEWS: OK. Yes, Senator Edwards now, I guess the question last night was why didn‘t you make the call, rather than Elizabeth, to Ann Coulter on the HARDBALL set?
JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, the simple answer to that is Elizabeth, I guess, heard her and knew she was on and called in. So I thought it was appropriate that I come on today.
MATTHEWS: OK. Did you talk with your wife, Elizabeth, beforehand about this, her decision to call in to the program?
JOHN EDWARDS: Elizabeth made this decision on her own to call in, I guess based on what she was hearing from Ann Coulter and I think something Ann Coulter had said a couple of days before.
MATTHEWS: Right. Well, what is your reaction to what you heard last night and heard today about what happened last night?
JOHN EDWARDS: I applaud Elizabeth. I think that when people like Ann Coulter—and it‘s not just her, unfortunately, it‘s her and people just like her, Karl Rove and all those people. I mean, when they engage us in this kind of hate-mongering, you have to stand up to them. You have to stand up to them.
They start this fight, but we have to be willing to be strong and to fight back because if we don‘t, Chris, what happens is all the important things—men and women dying in Iraq, those who don‘t have health insurance, et cetera, their issues don‘t get heard. Instead, it‘s this—it‘s this low-level dialogue with this name-calling, which is what we see.
MATTHEWS: Well, what do you make of the role of trash talk in politics generally, this willingness on the part of partisans to enrage the other side by going over the top? I mean, is that a smart tactic? Does it work? Does it debase the politics?
JOHN EDWARDS: Oh, it clearly debases the politics. There‘s no doubt about that. It makes it very difficult to talk about issues that affect people‘s day-to-day lives. And it‘s why, when this kind of hate-mongering and this hate language is used—and I just—I feel the need to point out this woman didn‘t just use it against me. I mean, the things she said about Senator Obama, the things she said about Senator Clinton, they all fall in the same category.
And they‘re calculated to create an emotional response. They‘re calculated to make people hate. And if you don‘t speak out against it, then that means you‘re tolerating this kind of language and it means you think it‘s OK. It‘s not OK.
MATTHEWS: What do you make of someone who‘s a person who writes a column, went to Michigan Law School, has a fine education, apparently, from what I can tell, is quite a writer, a good writer, uses comments like, I hope that the terrorists kill this guy, things like that? What do you make of that stuff? Where does it come from?
JOHN EDWARDS: Well, it means a couple things. Number one, she‘s smart enough to know better. She knows exactly what she‘s doing. She‘s not alone. I mean, if you look at what she‘s doing and you look at what‘s happened in the past, for example, the Swift Boating of Senator Kerry, I mean, I think a lot of this is very coordinated, very calculated. They intend to create a result.
And what they hope is that we won‘t say anything, we‘ll just let them continue this hateful dialogue. And we‘ll try and hope that the country will hear us talk about important things, issues that affect the lives of Americans every single day.
But we have to fight back, Chris. We have to be strong. We have to speak up. That‘s what Elizabeth did yesterday, and I‘m proud of her for it.
MATTHEWS: Elizabeth had one—I think Elizabeth may have made one strategic error last night. That‘s assuming that she could get Ann Coulter to express shame.
JOHN EDWARDS: Yes, I don‘t think she has any shame. There‘s no doubt about that. And her response to any effort to raise the dialogue, to talk about things that people care about, is to attack in a mean, hateful, mean-spirited way. I think that‘s just the way she behaves. That‘s who she is. And I think that‘s a lot of what we see from these people who are just—that are crazy. I mean...
MATTHEWS: Yes.
JOHN EDWARDS: ... there‘s nothing remotely mainstream about them.
And normal people are repelled by them.
MATTHEWS: Well, how do you explain the fact that you see people with good educations walking around the streets of New York and Wall Street, people with big business jobs in equity firms—hedge fund people—all buying books by Ann Coulter?
How do you explain the fact that even last night‘s fight involving your wife, Elizabeth, and Ann Coulter probably helped her sell some more books to these kind of guys?
JOHN EDWARDS: Because I think there is a segment of the population that responds to this sort of hateful craziness. It‘s always been true, Chris. It‘s been true my whole lifetime.
When I was young, growing up in the South, people were very responsive to name-calling of African-Americans, prejudice and discrimination against African-Americans. And people would say the most outrageous, demeaning things about good human beings. And there would be a response.
And so there‘s always been hateful language, hate-mongering in this country. It‘s been true for as long as I‘ve been alive and it‘s still true today. But that doesn‘t mean we have to tolerate it. We have to speak out about it. We have to stand up.
MATTHEWS: Can you dismiss this as hate speech and negativity and debasing of the political process and at the same time have your campaign use the comments made by Ann Coulter to raise money? It‘s clearly part of your Web site e-mail campaign solicitation effort now. Two e-mails have gone out now to raise money off of Ann Coulter‘s attacks on you and your family. Do you think you can do both, attack her and exploit her?
JOHN EDWARDS: Here‘s what I think. I think that we can say to America that we‘re not going to tolerate this kind of behavior, we‘re not going to tolerate this kind of hate language and we‘re going to stand up and we‘re going to fight.
And if we ask Americans, other good Americans to join us in standing up and being strong, there‘s nothing wrong with that. And that‘s exactly what we‘re asking them to do. And I hope there‘ll be lots of people who will join us in standing up and doing the right thing.
MATTHEWS: Have you raised a great deal of money? There was a report today that you‘ve had your best, most successful e-mail hitting back at Ann Coulter that you‘ve had so far.
JOHN EDWARDS: We are raising money. I don‘t know the numbers. I hope they go up. I hope we get more and more people who join us in this cause because this is important.
MATTHEWS: Do you think people should buy Ann Coulter‘s books?
JOHN EDWARDS: No.
MATTHEWS: OK. We‘ll be right back. That‘s a good answer. John Edwards. We‘ll be right back with John Edwards, who‘s coming on tonight to follow up on that incident here last night involving Ann Coulter and her very strong words, many people believe over the line, against the Edwards family. We‘ll be right back with John Edwards.
Man, it is nice to see Dems playing offence for a change...
Agree totally with Edwards. Free speech does not mean unchallenged speech.
Substance. Shame elections aren't about that.
Matthews still should be taken off the air. He loved it all.
This man has showed southern gentleman style class, and Elizabeth is just great in her firm commitment to quality debate.
So the first question right out the gate is Matthews with "why didn't YOU call in" as if questioning Edwards manhood.
Oh fuck you Matthews, just FU.
After the whole exchange
Matthews to Edwards: "Do you think people should buy AC's books?"
W T F
Dumbest. Question. Ever.
Well done, John, likening Coultergeist's venom to the racist comments you heard growing up. Hate speech is hate speech, designed to bring out the worst in human beings. What a disgusting trail of slime Ann leaves wherever she goes.
Worked out well for Edwards. He can raise some more money off Coulter now. QUICK ONLY 4 DAYS LEFT TO DONATE. ZOMG!?!
Matthews gets away with a lot in this interview. He voices the idea that Edwards is exploiting that lady by talking about it in solicitation emails. "To make use of selfishly or unethically," in the context that Matthews uses the word. He also supports the idea that regular people buy her book, and Edwards's response to that comment -- about how there has always been hate speech and people who respond to it -- was his most effective. What I would like to see is someone challenging the networks on their legitimizing of fringe hatemongers like her. Her bile is as legitimately news as anything about Paris Hilton. It's completely in a vacuum and exists only as a distraction from real things.
I wish Edwards had confronted Matthews. He asks about the "partisan trash-talk" but he is complicit in providing a forum for it and encouraging it. He didn't even say goodbye to Mrs. Edwards but changed the subject to Hillary's "chubby legs" - something I never even heard of until he brought it up.
People like Coulter DON'T need to be confronted. She is beyond redemption. It is the gate-keepers like Matthews that need to be called into account.
ps. The fact that the concept of using that lady's tirade in fundraising letters is being used to somehow sully Edwards is so strange and ridiculous. Of course he's going to use personal attacks against his family in soliciting support. The fight he has ahead of him is against these hate campaigns of which Matthews and that woman are the footsoldiers. Who are these people that march in lockstep to the conservative talking points?
Erik @ 9:
Indeed, the NERVE of Edwards, taking the issue away from poor li'l Ann, who just wanted to talk about how he wished he'd been killed by terr'ists and to mock his dead son.
"...how SHE wished he'd been killed by terr'ists". Sigh.
Edwards is kind of a jackass. People should read Coulter's books if they want and decide for themselves what's right. Brainlessness is the problem, not the solution, and book-burning encourages brainlessness, no matter what kind of book it is. If people can't filter out stupidity, the problem is with the people, not the writings.
mann coulter has issues from her past.
Good point, Ozymandias. That woman is utterly irrelevant. The media needs to soul-search, and until a candidate calls one of them out, we're just going to continue to get more of the Fox mentality shoved down out throats.
Did I miss something? What exactly does this Ann Coulter have against Edwards and his family? I know that she's long made a habit of flinging her feces around pretty much indiscriminately, but she seems to be targeting the Edwards family in particular.
Nobody needs to read her books. I've seen the trashiest pornography and the most vile murder magazines and I can testify that there is no upside.
Timmeh, Timmeh,
You and ann are both whores! You had better never refer to yourself as a journalist after this disgusting example of pandering to the lowest common denominator. How you shave in the morning without throwing up is beyond comprehension. One wonders; does money mean that much to you?
It's the corporate ownership, I'm afraid. They report how and what their profit-minded overlords tell them to report.
tweety is a scumbag, pure and simple. He knew damn well what sort of person this she-man Satan was when he agreed to interview it for an hour. Now he's milking it further to get reactions to his assinine behavior. What a worthless piece of shit!
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul
-Dylan
Edwards did well. However, when Matthews asked what Edwards thought when he hears comments like Coulter's, my head was screaming "What kind of shows are giving them the platform?"
he said something very important there....
she's not alone. swift boat for veterans????
is she apart of a heritage foundation (or like minded) black-ops propaganda group??????
?????
this thought just occurred to me.
she's very well funded!
she always gets access.
to pay one person to do what she does cost nothing to the heritage foundation and halliburton and the military ind. complex. and ect. ect.
there is something more to this then meets the eye.
Ozymandias @ 11:
Absolutely spot on. That's the nub of the whole debacle. Why was this lying, evil, amoral harridan given a forum to spew her hatred and disinformation in the first place?
I was just phone surveyed by Freeanncoulter.com (apparently she's imprisoned?). In a desperate effort to create even an illusion that she has support among the American population she is runing a survey in the deep south targeting elderly conservative men and she will undoubtedly try to pass it off as representative of the majority of the american population.
Among Karl Roves favorites from his bag of dirty tricks is to attack the strength of the opponent. Why does Edwards worry them so much? First "Ken doll, then the haircut, the charity, now Coultergiest. I want a well ran, hard fought primary-it makes for a seasoned candidate to go up against the opposition. When he ran as VP I took my grown children to a campaign event so they could see the event in person and then we went home and watched tv so I could show them the difference between what they see with their own two eyes and how it is filtered in the "left leaning main stream media"-needless to say-quite an eye opener. He scares them, I find that interesting.
DON'T GO TO THE SITE LISTED IN #28!
And #28, sorry, but if that site gets hits that are linked to this site, it'll feed the fire baby. And sorry for the caps.
Oh, and on topic... I gained a new respect for Edwards, and he is much prettier than Romney. Be nice to see them wrestle in oil.
Matt G @ 15:
Yeah, because unless you read her books, you really can't tell what she is about? Please point out where book-burning was mentioned.
ironchef @ 30:
Since it's not a hyperlink, it won't be linked to this site. Ironchef just stated the domain name that needs to be typed into a browser.
chrissie is scum!!!
Blue Buddha @ 32:
Errr... I mean Gerbal typed the domain name
Gerbal @ 28:
'
Does this involve an exorcism of any sort?
I couldn't agree more with Ozymandias #11.
Mathews is part of the problem.
I always walk around dog turds on the sidewalk.
Edwards should have taken a strip off of Tweety and his ilk for giving crazies like mAnn a public platform. Tweety lobbed those asinine questions at Edwards, all the while absolving himself any responsibility for his actions in lowering the standards for public debate. He just let mAnn blast away with her hateful bile and did squat to call her on her bull$hit.
JOHN EDWARDS: I mean, when they engage us in this kind of hate-mongering, you have to stand up to them. You have to stand up to them.
Oh yeah John?
Tell us about how you stood up to that blow-hard Donohue?
I've never been a fan of Chris Matthews but after having Coulter on for a full hour yesterday and then this nasty, tilted interview with John Edwards, I think he is a JERK! It's people like him who keep giving haters and bigots like Coulter a platform. Matthews is another hack pretending to be a journalist. Edwards shows how classy he and his wife are by not responding to Matthews' and Coulter's inflamatory rhetoric. Both John and Elizabeth handled themselves very well and should be an example to all of the Democratic leadership.
nobody can come out and say she an operative agent from
some secret group.
it wouldn't old water in the public realm. the proof would evaporate.
she's an agent....because nobody that educated could be the dumb except john roberts "supreme court justice" LOL (he's a full on indoctrinated dumb shit).
ashton @ 31:
Edwards said that he doesn't want anyone reading her books. The implication is the same as book-burning: preventing the reading of a certain books. He doesn't want you learning about a point of view that's different from his. He's basically taken Ann Coulter's PR strategy on-board, thus illustrating that he's really not much different from her after all. Anyone with a brain can see that Coulter is an idiot, but because people have no brains, they can't see it. Encouraging close-minded bigotry isn't going to help anything, even if it is against idiots.
I think a better response from Edwards would have run more like, "I think people should read whatever they want, but to understand that Ann Coulter is invested in a particular point of view that goes against truth and that at least 95% of her views are flat out wrong and that people need to consider different, more intelligent points of view."
Edwards needs to get some sack if he expects to win the nomination, let alone the election.
He should have called out Matthews. He knows what a filthy animal Coulter is and should be mocked by Edwards and everyone else for giving her a a place to speak. I can't sand Christopher Hitchens, but he was spot on after Falwell died. He called the guy for the miserable human being he was and was not the least bit apologetic about it. Same needs to be done to Coulter and the rest.
In my book Kerry lost the election in the fist debate becuse he got scared. He had Bush angry, and stammering like the fool he is. He had him on the ropes and backed off out of fear of looking mean. He should have pointed a finger across the stage and said "Look at him! Just look at this ignorant excuse for a man, let alone a leader."
Edwards needs to step up and point them out as the chicken head biting circus geeks they are
I agree with the above comment. If Edwards is serious about what he stands for he should have CALLED OUT MATTHEWS on the spot, even if it meant he wouldn't be invited back. If Edwards had said the obvious, "And it's people like you Chris who keep enabling these hate mongers. Why do you do it?" I would have dropped everything and sent Edwards my money. He's so close to truly being a candidate who exhibits leadership skills, but right now he's just showing political skills.
Please Edwards, show some intensity and shine the light of truth on the world if you want to lead. I agree with everything Edwards has to say about Coulter, but until he gets to the ROOT of the problem, like people like Chris giving Coulter a platform, only until then Edwards is still a part of the problem and is not a true solution...
Agree. All the candidates have suffered from pussyfooting around the outrageous criminality and incompetence of their adversaries, and slogged through the BS of the corporate-owned media, and the dems have suffered for it.
Matt G., what you're saying is just a more vague version of what Edwards said. People will read whatever they want to read (*if* they read) regardless of what Edwards said. The best response would have been to just jettison that part of the question by saying, "Whether people read her books or not is not for me to decide. But the viewers of MSNBC need to know what kind of hate and fact-free spin they're being fed."
Obama's greatest feat so far was deep-sixing that question during the debate. That's the only time I've seen one of the candidates show some brio.
First of all Chris Matthew is a low life creature. He himself should have snub off this trace talking bigot Ann Coulter. Instead he was scoring the rating of his program. Now ever days almost all major cable news channels has turned into Jerry Springer.
Thanks to internet. Fight for net-neutrality. We can not live together and prosper with these fundamental difference on decency.
Yeah, because unless you read her books, you really can't tell what she is about? Please point out where book-burning was mentioned.
Edwards said that he doesn't want anyone reading her books. The implication is the same as book-burning:
The word NO does not mean the same as book-burning. People generally use the word "book-burning," for that. Don't be a drama queen.
The Dems need an Ann Coulter type to spread lies and half-truths about a few Repukian Candidates. Then they need to take advantage of the Fourth Branch of Government that Dick Cheyney created to funnel documents relating to screwing over the now minority party into oblivion when they take the WH. Then they need to pressure their states attourneys to start bogus investigations of the Repukians since those prosecutors "serve at the pleasure of the Prez." After four years of Dems railroading them the way the GOP did for 8, you'll see a real bipartisan effort to play fair.
Why don't any of these people bring up the fact that Coulter is a media whore that makes money off of them? How dare she say they make money off of her while trying to be elected while she makes money ridiculing them with absolutely no net gain to the human race other than to sell more books. She has discovered the more outrageous she is the more she sells with no consequences.
Keep in mind these people, especially Coulter, are sniveling cowards at heart, and will flee, sobbing and whining, when confronted. Fisticuffs are not necessary, nor insults from Our Side, just confrontation with truth. Truth stings, smarts, hurts!
[...] through the efforts of strong broadcasters like Rush Limbaugh and my favorite, Bill O’Reilly. Traitors like Edwards and the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart are just two of the many examples of extreme liberalism the [...]
Leave Ann Coulter alone! The woman obviously suffers from acute mental illness, and it's a carnival freak show of a world we live in that she is taken at all seriously.
The only humane action that could possibly be taken towards Coulter is to put her out of her (and our) misery. Now that Dr. Kevorkian is out of jail, we may have a solution.
To #39, TB: Edwards is learning as he goes along. A lot of what pundits, media call "flip-flopping" or inconsistancy, is just the person who wants to represent Us afterall, adjusting to the viewpoints, questions, needs of The People. What a politician SHOULD do!
#49: We do NOT need a sleezoid to spread lies about the Repugs. Just someone to tell the truth.
I hope that everyone here would apply the same scrutiny to Bill Maher. He says highly inflamatory statements every week on his show.
AndyZ @ 4:
true chris is a beneficiary of this . but edwards is handling effectively to his advantage by revving up people hurt by right wing attack. but still the field needs gore.
Matt G @ 42:
I think a better response from Edwards would have run more like, "I think people should read whatever they want, but to understand that Ann Coulter is invested in a particular point of view that goes against truth and that at least 95% of her views are flat out wrong and that people need to consider different, more intelligent points of view."
Yes indeed. But to be fair to your condescending bullshit, next time someone wishes, in public no less, that you are assasinated and makes fun of a family tragedy in national TV, you can then show us how to respond. Until then, good luck with the worn out meme of the pooh mouthy liberals who talk back. I know it's been downhill ever since thouse potty mouth minorities stop taking shit nicely...
RB @ 56:
RB,
Calling Bush a dolt may be inflamatory, but he is also correct. Hardly on par with Ann Coulter's garbage in any event. Your comparison does not apply.
vivek @ 57:
If not him than someone else. He should not be taken off the air, but rather held to account. Or better yet lose his job to an actual journalist who smokes him in the ratings.
"OPPORTUNITY" RACE DOMINATES DEBATE AMONG DEMOCRATIC CONTENDERS that's the headline on MSNBC
all i've got to say is WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
R @ 59:
You obviously have never seen the show. Maher says far worse things about more than just Bush. How does it not apply. Very similar to me. Coulter and Maher are even friends.
oh it says opportunity GAP ....my bad.
but the point is.........is this a divide and conquer headline or a unity headline???
what say you ....chris mathews....you unamerican piece of shit!!!
Well said, Senator! Ann and Savage have used a strategy to distract from the real and pressing issues of today by hate dialogue. It is diabolical and planting seeds of poison in the hearts of the people.
Ann and Savage have a serious moral and mental problems. They are delusional and dysfunctional.
I pray that Ann and Savage will recover from this madness.
yeah i made few comments earlier about ann maybe not acting alone.
nobody spoke to it.
not even gave it a thought.
plenty of man-coulter nonsense though, as if being transgendered were a crime???
grow up.....really??
Maybe I missed this somewhere in all this but if Edwards did not answer one of Mathews questions about why does she sell books with: Well, Chris, it is because people like you promote hate speech in America for ratings by having her on.
then he is a coward and part of the problem. Coutler should be confronted but so should Mathews who is shilling for Coulter to try and raise in perpetually minuscule ratings.
Our nation has been taken into the gutter by these mind controlled misinformation hate freaks, our public discourse is rampant with right wing hate and disinformation - the only way to stop it is to push back which they know only drives us further into the death spiral. The right in America operates JUST like a mind controlled cult, not a critical thinking political movement.
It isn't just "hate" speech Mathews and now PBS is promoting, it is an alternate reality which translates into a huge national security problem and the end of our democracy.
I think it is way, way too late. We should have seen this coming 25 years ago when the right started down this road. My Lord, their early leader Newt Gingrich supplied them with his "GOPAC Memo" which was a lesson in mind control through the manipulation of language.
Mathews will translate his higher ratings into something good, like he does the fact the mind numbed buy her books. But name a few people on the left who sell books and you will not see them on his show. That is because he is disgusting, inept, unprincipled fraud.
[Deleted-You're done. Bubbye-Sitemonitor]
Ann Coulter Is Not The Only One With A Mind For Bucks
My point is simple. Ann Coulter has made money off of everyone’s misfortunes for years. I recall what she said about the 9/11 widows and calling John Edwards a fag. I could go on and on. The fact is she makes money from the outrages things she says, and the special appearances she generates for saying mean spirited things about others. So, Coulters makes a little money off what she says, Matthews makes a little money for MSNBC. Yet, if those Edwards try and make a buck out of this, we will call them petty and superficial because they should be above it all?
First off, what Chris Matthews did, after cashing in on the same shock tactic that has made Coulter famous, is similar to the pot calling the kettle black. The man is a shit disturber,and I mean a good one. To have Coulter on his show questions his judgment call and put into doubt his sensitivities for those Coulter hurts. Then, he allows Edward’s wife to call into HIS show and confront Coulter on disgracing Edward’s dead child — by the way he knew about the donation ad before Edward called in. After Edward confronts Coulter, Matthews leads the ethical drive to place into doubt Edward’s sincerity. This Mother “so and so” actually had a whole show, continuing to rake in the bucks off Coulter and Edwards, asking “special commentators, Democrats and Republicans, who did they think won between the two of them, Coulter and Edwards. You go figure.
Everybody is allowed to make money off this clownish lady except the Edwards. Hell, the least Coulter can do for those she hurts is allow those hurt by her some of the money she makes off them. This is true “hardball” with rational twist.
Joseph
"Why did your wife call in and not you?"
BECAUSE she's my wife, and not my bitch!!
ert@68 Says:
“Why did your wife call in and not you?”
BECAUSE she’s my wife, and not my bitch!!
This was clever and funny. Thank you.
Joseph
I really like the way John Edwards responded to all of this. I have new respect for him. I confess, I had kind of writen him off as a pretty boy who cries for the impoverished but may not understand the plight of the middle class. I'm going to pay more attention to him now. Thank you Fucking Ann Coulter for that.
What's with these "news" people that they repeat and regurgitate the shit and re-ask rude questions? It's like Chris Matthews was Ann Coulter's bitch. What an ass. I guess he doesn't have the brains to come up with his own questions that might actually focus on important issues.
Well Edwards has many more points on my list then any other Candidate : apart from Kucinich...
I would seriously consider voting for him once I see a bit more as to how much he wants to War monger, Health Insurance Plunder... The Drug war ..etc
He makes money off health care crooks.
He makes money off rightwing blonde hate spewing c*nts.
He has Sissy Chrissy without further comment when pulled into actually intelligent dialoge with the individual being interviewed.
Not bad Johnny.
Hearing Christ Mathews (I'll refrain from calling him Tweety this time), I think the tide may be turning against the wingnut shockjocks like Coulter.
+10 to Edwards
Rehmeyer @ 7:
LOL! Yes but what a wonderful answer John gave "NO" and not another word.
RB @ 62:
The first reason it is a false comparison is that Maher is a Comic. Coulter was a lousy lawyer who's claim to fame was the trumped up Paula Jones case. The first rule of comedy is that the joke must actually be funny. First Maher is actually funny. The comment that got him fired from Politically Incorrect was both correct, and now widely accepted. Coulter is as much a comic or political commentator as Maher is a lawyer. The fact that he seems to have poor taste is friends makes your point no more valid. BTW his HBO show is for laughs. Matthews puts himself up as a journalist on MSNBC. Holding Maher to the same standard as Matthews would be a better option. You would lose there as well. Then again you probably are one of those people that compares Jon Stewart to CBS News, and I can't help you anyway.
Yesterday was the worst day of Ann Coulter's life. She went apoplectic on every program she appeared on.
It was John Edward's best day. She raised more money for him than would have have happened with dual endorsements from John and Robert Kennedy.
He wants to be President of the United States and he's spending time responding to a conservative pundit? Doesn't he have better things to do- like end poverty?
Edwards scared of Fox News and Ann Coulter. Great, what can we expect from him and his team when things get nasty in the world?
[We can see your IP address, john148. Do not post under multiple identities, genius]
I was amazed that Edwards didn't face Chris Matthews with responsibility for providing Coutergeist with a free forum for selling her trashy hate books. It's people like Matthews (and his bosses) who keep monsters like Coulter in business, burning up time that could be used for real issues. It's because of things like this that intelligent people have no respect for Chris Matthews.
Chris Matthews has all the talent of a loaded baby diaper: he stinks.
Swallow once in awhile, Chris. You're sounding like Daffy Duck.
Was Edwards on for the whole show? I ask because I can't watch it myself. I mean, I gotta have SOME standards.
"When all else fails, lower your standards."
I have to say I'm really warming to Edwards -- both he an Elizabeth (in her interview with Gregory above) hve showed a lot of inetgretity. There is a sincerity in the way he has addressed this issue that just seems to resonate well, maybe the best I've seen him. I think the reason Coulter and her ilk are going after him is because there's a realization on their side that he may actually be the strongest candidate -- doesn't have Hillary's baggage (right wing hype that it may be) and isn't inflated by hype the Obama has been (such that no matter how good he is, he's bound to seem less experienced then you'd expect based on his 'second coming' status), but he has a lot of the same personal appeal that's lacking in an otherwise strong candidate such as a Richardson or dare i say it, Biden.
Ya know, I just have to wonder about Coulter's seeming obsession with John Edwards. Maybe beneath all the vile bile that she barfs out of her sick, twisted, I'd even say even possessed mouth is something else. Maybe Coulter's secretly attracted to Edwards! Maybe she's hoping that he'll "notice" her and "dump" his dying wife for her disgusting carcass.
I'd just bet when she was in elementary school (where she seems to be locked in, mentally speaking) when she couldn't get some guy to respond to her weird advances she probably turned on 'em just like she's to Edwards now. Maybe someone should check it out...
"No."
Coulter's obviously psycho. But what's really strange is the GOP's embracing of her. To me this is proof positive that the entire lot is sick.
John Edwards Discusses Coulter’s Politics of Hate
John Edwards was on HARDBALL on Thursday night, discussing Ann Coulter’s politics of hate and backed up his wife’s call in to the show the day before when Coulter was a guest. Edwards said:
JOHN EDWARDS: I applaud Elizabeth. I think th...
Matthews: "How do you explain the fact that even last night‘s fight involving your wife, Elizabeth, and Ann Coulter probably helped her sell some more books to these kind of guys?"
Don't blame this on Elizabeth, you scumbag! It's YOU who helped her - again!! - to sell books! John Edwards should have pointed that out, the candidates still are way too intimidated by these pundit SOBs.
Matthews is a 2 faced ninny. Why does he suck up to Coulter and push her message in such a shameless manner? His performance here is dismal.
THE BETTER QUESTION WOULD BE SHOULD PEOPLE BUY YOUR BOOKS, TIMMEH!
what really perplexes me is how in the world both Edward were able to maintain their decorum in the face of the line of questioning of Gregory and matthews. The fact that they did speaks very well for his presidential aspirations. every time i see both john and elizabeth speak and confront the issues and maintain their decorum with these hack journalists, i am more and more swayed to vote for him. he seems genuine and not the typical politician. i think he is emerging very quickly as a sincere person and one whom we can trust to do the right thing in that office.
[...] up his wife’s call in to the show the day before when Coulter was a guest. Edwards said: JOHN EDWARDS: I applaud Elizabeth. I think that when people like Ann Coulter—and it‘s not just her, [...]
RB @ 62:
Please do point out where and when Maher has advocated the assassination of the George Bush, last time I heard someone making a bad joke about harming the president he was sentenced to actual prison time.
You need to get through your thick skull that wishing harm on someone and making fun of someone are two very different concepts, incompatible most of the time actually. Calling you a dolt would be both funny and true, wishing you were assassinated is not funny it is a threat. It is only mental midgets like you who actually buy the right wing's favourite backpedal technique:"it was taken out of context/it is not what I meant."
It is actually a fun game, let me demonstrate: “I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed, animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.”
I can always backpedal and say how my comment was taken out of context because I was just simply talking about cuddly animals, how you may have taken my previous lines as an insult is just a clear proof of what a complete twit you are, hahahahahaha. See I manage to also achieve the second part of every right wing attack, even when issuing an apology; I was able to achieve plausible denial and at the same time keep calling you a daft dumbass.
And then is the third act of every republican hatchet job: if the recipient of the insults dares to even insinuate the slightest contempt towards being called a daft dumbass (in this case you sir) in public, well... you just showed us an example by either implying that someone may have said something worse. All done w/o any proof to back up your claims, right wingers assume that whenever they have to proof something they can pull anything out of their collective arses and assume that the burden of proof is on the people NOT making the actual claims, I mean how fucking lazy are right wingers really?
Et voila, your silly game-book is explained to you in three or four easy steps.
In any case, I think that Mr. Coulter is a clear proof that bulimia affects not only teenage girls but also full grown transsexual man, and that lack of proper nourishment can affect brain function. Mr. Coulter needs a good counseling service to help her/him address his transgender issues and some good food to nourish that ugly skeleton, and for crying out loud will someone buy a couple of her pamphlets! She obviously needs the money because I have seen him wear the same crack whore little black dress like 5/6 times.
My God this guy Edwards is a wimp. Call the waaaaaaaaaahmbulance!
Um, er, uh, we should um, fight back, you know, against Ann Coulter, for uh, the things she is saying that uh, don't, uh, help us out much....we need to fight back, we need to fight back?
How about you Edwards, strap on a pair of cahones and do what you are saying WE should do? Why don't YOU fight back? Tell that biatch Coulter the errors of her logic!!
What in blazes do you so called liberals want from John Edwards? He spoke to Matthews
with intelligence and truth. Coulter on the other hand never does. The shame belongs to
the Americans who listen and agree with the right-wing media who controls the pea brains
who listen to the scum that is the majority in America. We are our own worst enemy. Who
elected Bush? Was it Mexicans or Canadians? No. It was the ordinary dimwit American. We
should be ashamed but instead we are proud & all bullshit aside most of us agree with Coulter. What a shame.
"Low-level dialogue". That is exactly what it is and should be called that at every turn. They'll have to be embarrassed at some point at having every moronic comment that they spew called low-level dialogue.
Everyone, say this while looking into the mirror: "That is just low-level dialogue that avoids real issues". Repeat it until it flows naturally and you feel comfortable with it.
Ann was pretty nervous. His adams apple was going nuts.
Funny how she is against gay people now that she had the change done.
I haven't read all the comments, so someone may have already said this. But when Matthews asked why rich professionals buy coulter's books, maybe the response could have been why do rich pundits put her on their tv shows and allow her an hour of air time to spew her poison?
After the terrorist attack on the base Cheney was visiting in Iraq, Bill Maher stated on his show that, had the terrorist attack succeeded, the world would be a safer place. It's not the exact same wording that Coulter used, but the meaning is similar. While he caught a little bit of flak over it, it's nothing compared to what Coulter gets over saying similar things.
Granted, I do NOT like Coulter. I think she's a terrible, terrible person. I also happen to like Bill Maher and agree with him on many issues (though not all). But I do think that in this situation, they both have to be treated the same way. If what Ann Coulter insinuates is bad, by extension Bill Maher's statement is inappropriate as well.
Interesting how reichwingers will come on this site to denounce how harsh some of our comments are, but will defend to the death even worse things that Ann says on TV broadcasts.
Hemming Coulter in would be an easy job for any competent interviewer (or high-school substitute teacher. Maybe they should replace Mathews with one). Something along the lines of "look Ms. Coulter. This is a serious program about politics and issues important to our country, not a late night cable tv comedy slam. We're perfectly happy to discuss actual issues (like your contention that Edwards "took $50,000 to speak to a poverty group." Since when is a major private American university a "poverty group"?) in an adult manner. But we will do it without snotty asides, interruptions, and mean-spirited ad hominem attacks. That is how grownups discuss serious matters and if you can't get with the program you are welcome to go peddle your books on the Comedy Channel."
That's never going to happen, because cable news is ratings driven, and dreck like Coulter brings in people who can't wait to see what's going to fly out of her mouth this time. It's a freak show, like professional wrestling.
"Granted, I do NOT like Coulter. I think she’s a terrible, terrible person. I also happen to like Bill Maher and agree with him on many issues (though not all). But I do think that in this situation, they both have to be treated the same way. If what Ann Coulter insinuates is bad, by extension Bill Maher’s statement is inappropriate as well."
See my post above. Maher is a comedian and (in my market at least) his show appears on the comedy network. Coulter passes herself of as a political pundit, when in fact she is much closer to insult comics like Andrew Dice Clay, with a political spin. Either put her on the comedy network where she belongs, or demand that she conform to the rules of civilized, adult discourse, which means talking about actual issues without resorting to sarcastic asides, interruptions, and snotty, ad hominem smears that have zip to do with the topic at hand.
She'll never agree to that, because without those devices, she's got nothing.
John Doheny @ 102:
Here, Maher's show airs on HBO. To me, it's meant to be a show on current issues. It's primarily political and social commentary. That said, regardless of whether or not the person is a comedian, I don't think Bill Maher's statement was meant to be funny. He seemed quite serious to me. But when is it alright to be an ass, and when is it wrong? Does it only depend on what you call yourself? Is it only an issue when you're on a certain type of network?
I think each one should be able to say whatever they want to say. But don't be a hypocrite. You can't admonish Coulter, saying that her comments were inappropriate, while patting Bill Maher on the back for his statement that condones and encourages an attack on the current vice president. I think both comments were probably made in poor taste, and neither one should get a free pass on them because of their job description.
Matt G @ 15:
Funny. I didn't hear Edwards mention at any time that Coulter's book should be burned. All he did was acknowledge that there are other hateful people out there in the world that feed off the tripe that Coulter spews. When asked if he thinks more people should buy the book he said, "No." Get your ideas straight.
onsay @ 105:
Ann Coulter -- the Paris Hilton of the right. Everyone knows she's irrelevant but the media can't turn their eyes away.
John Edwards responds….
Wanna see me shove my whole fist in my mouth?
does Chris Matthews feel shame?
Comments are closed on this entry