Ann Coulter Strikes Again; Elizabeth Edwards Strikes Back

by Sean Hackbarth

Ann Coulter creates controversy. It’s not shocking. What’s shocking is the timing. Coulter doesn’t have a book coming out until October. She had no reason to be controversial and mean other than she’s internalized it so much she can’t help herself. As is her forte Coulter puts herself above the ideas she claims to be promoting. The latest vitrol oozing out of Coulter’s mouth came on Good Morning America Monday morning.

She said, “If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” That’s not wishing Edwards was killed, but it was typical Ann Coulter. It was sarcastic, not funny, ugly, and mean. She was advancing Coulterism instead of conservatism.

It got the John Edwards campaign to send out a fundraising e-mail. But that floundering campaign needs all the help it can get.

Then Elizabeth Edwards got in the act giving Chris Matthews some “must see tv” on today’s Hardball.

According to Greg Sargent confronting Coulter is part of John Edwards campaign strategy to reach out to the strident Left.

Coulter didn’t expect this. She flailed away going so far as to claim Edwards wanted her to stop writing and speaking. For a woman who complains about her critics taking her words out of context Coulter needs to listen before speaking.

I could ignore her, but she’s a prominent conservative spokesman. She considers herself a promoter of conservatism. Her words soil the great, honorable tradition of William F. Buckley, Bill Kristol, and Rush Limbaugh.

Like her March gaffe Coulter was surrounded by young people. In the open letter to CPAC I wrote:

One of the points of CPAC is the opportunity it gives college students to meet other young conservatives and learn from our leaders. Unlike on their campuses—where they often feel alone—at CPAC they know they are part of a vibrant political movement. What example is set when one highlight of the conference is finding out what shocking phrase will emerge from Ann Coulter’s mouth? How can we teach young conservatives to fight for their principles with civility and respect when Ann Coulter is allowed to address the conference? Coulter’s invective is a sign of weak thinking and unprincipled politicking.

Coulter again fails to educate the youth passing on the best of conservatism.

“Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter

UPDATE: Here’s some selected blogospheric commentary:

  • James Joyner has a good round-up and writes, “Unfortunately, anger and ugliness sells.”
  • For Andrew Sullivan the Edwards campaign is “using Coulter.” Why not? Coulter shouldn’t be the only one to use her callous words for a fast buck.
  • The Politico’s Ben Smith asks, “Is Ann Coulter good for anything other than Democratic fundraising any more? It’s the only context in which I ever see her name.” Just wait until her new book comes out this fall.

UPDATE II: I failed to make the point that Elizabeth Edwards isn’t the pure mother trying to protect her family and civil political dialogue. She called in because it riled up the Left and gave her husband free media. And it worked. Also realize the Edwards campaign doesn’t act in a civil manner. As evidence are the two anti-Catholic webloggers he hired/fired earlier this year.

Save and Share:
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • email
  • del.icio.us
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Digg
  • Diigo

35 Responses to “Ann Coulter Strikes Again; Elizabeth Edwards Strikes Back”

1

Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter on ‘Hardball’…

Elizabeth Edwards called in to “Hardball” yesterday afternoon to confront Ann Coulter.
Elizabeth Edwards pleaded Tuesday with Ann Coulter to “stop the personal attacks,” a day after the conservative commentator said she wished E…

2

[...] When will it all end?  Not anytime soon.   One or two opinions:  The Huffington Post, MSNBC, State of the Day, No More Mister Nice Blog, The American Mind, Jules Crittenden, AMERICAblog, News Bloggers Blog, Election Central, CNN Political Ticker, The Gun Toting Liberal™, Firedoglake, Alternate Brain, The Reaction, Comments From Left Field, Unqualified Offerings, TIME: Swampland, Suburban Guerrilla, uggabugga, TBogg, News Hounds, Taylor Marsh, Rick Perlstein’s blog, PSoTD and BlondeSense [...]

3

Elizabeth Edwards Viciously Attacks Ann Coulter…

It’s really sad the way Elizabeth Edwards has debased our political dialogue by confronting pundits with their own words….

4

Regarding the whole “the Edwards campaign is using Coulter” theory: like you said, why shouldn’t they? Maybe that’s what it will take to finally render her completely irrelevent to the right–the realization that her vitriol and hate not only hurts the right, but helps the “left” (if you really call John Edwards “left”…i prefer to call him “fake,” but whatever).

Her words soil the great, honorable tradition of William F. Buckley, Bill Kristol, and Rush Limbaugh.

Hey, two out of three ain’t bad…

5

By the way, off-topic, by why haven’t we seen any posts yet with your take on Dick Cheney being *snicker* not part of the executive branch?

6

Ann Coulter is a canker sore in the face of conservatism

7

Y’know, the anti-Coulter schtick is getting pathetic (bordering obsession?). And your very post proves Ann is right “about her critics taking her words out of context.”

If you’re interested, here’s the full video, which presents a more honest context for the comment in question:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Story?id=3309572&page=4

8

I write a post about Ann about every few months, usually when spouts off in her typical nasty manner. If I were truly obsessed I’d be Fisking her column each and every week.

Ann may wish it were so but my life doesn’t revolve around her.

9

By the way Calvin, I actually defended Coulter a little bit. She didn’t say she wanted Edwards killed by terrorists. I was more interested in how she reacted to Elizabeth Edwards. Ann sputtered about attempted censorship when no one suggested any such thing.

10

Methinks small, out-of-context video clips from left-wing blogs; selective outrage over the SMALLEST threat to conservatism to speak at CPAC, and drudging up the old plagiarism canard say otherwise.

Ann deserves heat for some of the things she’s said. But this one is a liberal lie. And it’s pathetic that you’re enabling it.

11

I think the fact that Edwards had to lie about Ann’s words does suggest that she doesn’t want Ann to speak at all. If not, then why can’t she just criticize the REAL snafus?

12

Calvin, you care about what E. Edwards said. I care about Coulter’s words. She uses them merely to advance herself no matter how much it damages conservatism, a movement she claims to defend.

13

It sounds like Calvin is more obsessed with the fight against Those Evil Libruls than with promoting conservatism. Man, don’tcha hate it when people are more against something than for something?

14

My “caring about what E. Edwards said” directly pertained to your attack on Ann.

Sean, you are promoting a demagogic mischaracterization of this particular snafu. With all due respect, I’ll put her contributions to conservatism against yours any day.

Y’know what damages conservatism MORE than her words (some of which I agree have been blame-worthy in the past)? When people accept Al Franken-worthy lies about her words that distort her legitimate policy observations into charicatures.

DJ, your comment sounds exactly like the sort of thing people say when they don’t have anything substantive to contribute.

15

To clarify the E. Edwards point:

If she lyingly lumps Ann’s legitimate policy points in with her “personal attacks,” thereby making no distinction between the two, what are we to conclude other than that Mrs. Edwards wants her to shut up altogether?

16

Well, lookee here! A quick search thru TAM’s archives (namely the CPAC & Ann Coulter categories) exposes a few inconsistencies in Mr. Hackbarth’s defense of “civility” over “personal attacks.”

- Robert McClelland saying “Ah, dear Ann Coulter. She reminds me of an aging porn star who, as her beauty fades, must resort to increasingly depraved sexual acts in order to turn a buck” is acceptable.
- Hackbarth saying “I’m not touching her. I don’t know where those scrawny legs have been wrapped around” is acceptable.
- Josh Cohen saying “And really, you’re not that attractive, no matter what the mainstream conservatives say” is acceptable.

17

Calvin, you’re trying to defend Ann Coulter. It’s hard to contribute anything substantive when the topic is so vapid and inane.

Seriously. You’ve come off in this whole thread as a screeching Coulter fanboy. That’s really kind of sad.

18

Still waiting for that substance, DJ.

I don’t defend her on every single issue. But this particular attack against her is a LIE. Simple as that.

19

Gimme a topic with substance first. Shrill shit-slinging harpy vs. Ambulance chaser’s wife? Come on. It’s hard for me to be anything other than snarky about that.

20

Sooo, if it’s the topic’s fault that you can’t contribute anything intelligent, then why bother?

21

Because i’m bored at work and enjoy making wisecracks on the internet. Plus, your whole “OMG PPL ARE LYING ABOUT ANN ONOES I MUST COME TO HER DEFENSE” schtick entertains the hell out of me.

22

If cultivating an online reputation as a moron floats your boat, be my guest. Doesn’t change the fact that I’m right.

23

Hahaha

I think being called a “moron” by an Ann Coulter fan is akin to being called a racist by a Klansman.

24

Checkmate. You can go back to your Lincoln Logs now.

25

hahaha

26

Calvin, if I’m going to say anything about you in the future, I’ll just say that you’re a mouth-breathing sycophant with all the intelligence of a particularly dim species of refrigerator mildew.

27

Chet – another guy who doesn’t bother to factor in archaic concepts like “thought” or “honesty” into his commentary.

28

Chet – another guy who doesn’t bother to factor in archaic concepts like “thought” or “honesty” into his commentary.

Oh, I’m sorry. You must have misunderstood. I wasn’t actually calling you any names, now was I?

After all I used the same structure Coulter did. Funny that you only think it’s appropriate to frame remarks that way when a Democrat is on the receiving end.

I wonder, Calvin, if Coulter had actually just said “I wish Edwards would be killed by terrorists,” right to his wife, if there’s basically any possibility you wouldn’t still be defending her.

She’s a clown. You’re an idiot for being in her corner. When conservatism implodes and everyone realizes the intellectual bankruptcy in every single conservative idea, Coulter is going to be one of the reasons why.

29

“After all I used the same structure Coulter did. Funny that you only think it’s appropriate to frame remarks that way when a Democrat is on the receiving end.”

If that’s what passes as intelligent commentary on this liberal-fabricated (and Hackbarth-enabled) smear, think again.

Coulter’s was a reasoned point. Go watch the actual video (not the dishonest partial snippet Hackbarth posted), in which NO desire to see Edwards dead was expressed, nor was any delight at the prospect. If you’re intellectually honest or have IQ beyond a shoe, you’ll see that.

Yours was an isolated insult without any comprehension of any of the points made. If you want the charge of hypocrisy to stick, I’d suggest finding something called “facts.”

For the record, I’m not opposed to “personal attacks” from either side. What I AM opposed to is dishonesty. My criteria for evaluating rhetoric is 1.) is it accurate? and 2.) is it relevant? As long as it meets those criteria, fire away. I’m not Hannity; my objection to Democrat’s attacks is their dishonesty, not their tone.

“If Coulter had actually just said ‘I wish Edwards would be killed by terrorists,’ right to his wife, if there’s basically any possibility you wouldn’t still be defending her.”

The answer is no, and your challenge is nothing more than conjecture. You have no evidence to suggest that I would (indeed, I’ve already said she’s been wrong in the past), and frankly, I don’t think you care whether or not I truly would. I suspect you just assume it because to you, it feels better & easier to hate your opponents and feel superior to them than seriously consider what they say.

That’s about on the same level as Hackbarth’s wildly-irresponsible speculation that “If Senator Barack Obama is the de facto Democratic Presidential nominee next year will Coulter feel free to use a racial slur?”…

30

Go watch the actual video (not the dishonest partial snippet Hackbarth posted), in which NO desire to see Edwards dead was expressed, nor was any delight at the prospect.

You know, I did watch it, and I have the vomit in my mouth to prove it.

Cal – you’re out in left field on this. You’d probably have us believe that calling John Edwards a “faggot” was the height of intelligent discourse.

It might actually be, for you.

Yours was an isolated insult without any comprehension of any of the points made.

So, I guess you weren’t smart enough to pick up on the context? Or the fact that, according to your reasoning, I didn’t even insult you?

The answer is no

Which proves my point. No matter what filth might spew forth from that harpy, you’d be there to defend her.

You have no evidence to suggest that I would

What, aside from the fact that you just said you would? Now you’re just being nonsensical.

I suspect you just assume it because to you, it feels better & easier to hate your opponents and feel superior to them than seriously consider what they say.

Look, you just said you’d defend her no matter what she’d say. I don’t see what kind of assumption you think I’m making when I take you at your word.

31

You did watch it? Good. That means you now know the MSM is lying about her.

I made one mistake here – I misread “wouldn’t” as “would.” My bad, but a smart cookie like you could have figured that out from reading my full paragraph. Unless you don’t really care what the truth is.

So to restate it so even a twit like you can comprehend: No, I WOULD NOT defend her if she said your hypothetical. I can prove it:

http://rightcal.blogspot.com/2007/03/ann-coulter-cpac-and-republican.html

Considering that the rest of your post stems from the false premise that I would defend her no matter what, my initial criticsm still stands. You show no desire to think critically or objectively about this.

32

You really must be some kind of idiot.

I made one mistake here – I misread “wouldn’t” as “would.”

So what you’re saying is, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, but you feel perfectly free bandying about accusations of low intelligence directed at others?

Good luck with that.

No, I WOULD NOT defend her if she said your hypothetical. I can prove it:

First line from the body of your post:

In Ann’s defense, there wasn’t any homophobic intent behind the joke.

Do you try to look this stupid, or did I just get lucky today? I have to say, Calvin, I’ve not encountered a conservative as self-refuting as yourself in quite some time.

33

Chet, did you check his profile on Blogger? I almost feel bad sparring with the kid; when i was 19, i said a lot of douchey lame ill-informed stuff too.

34

“So what you’re saying is, reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit, but you feel perfectly free bandying about accusations of low intelligence directed at others?”

I’m saying I made one mistake, which – SUPRISE! – happens. I feel perfectly fine calling you what you are because you show no signs of maturity or open-mindedness higher than any other dime-a-dozen fools that infest the Web.

That “self-refutes” nothing, you twit. Go on to read the rest of it, and you’ll see that I did call her reckless for her CPAC joke, and I approvingly linked to criticism from others.

But criticizing somebody on one thing doesn’t preclude me from defending that person on other things, nor does it preclude me from trying to put any error or sin in its proper perspective.

For future reference, that’s how those of us who believe in a little something called “intellectual honesty” act.

DJ, since you’re the one to bring up my age, I might as well point out the fact that YOU’RE the one who basically admitted that you’re not trying to offer anything intelligent or serious to the debate, instead “making wisecracks on the internet” for your own childish amusment.

What’s it say about you that you can’t substantively show where the arguments of a 19-year-old are “douchey lame ill-informed?”

35

[...] “… a mouth-breathing sycophant with all the intelligence of a particularly dim species of refrigerator mildew.” – Chet [...]

Leave a Reply




You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>