Ann Coulter’s Marketing Scheme

I am a little late to the game with this, but it looks like Ann’s new marketing scheme is working fabulously:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton accused commentator Ann Coulter of making a “vicious, mean-spirited attack” on outspoken 9/11 widows whom the television pundit described as “self-obsessed” and enjoying their husbands’ deaths.

Coulter writes in a new book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act “as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them.”

She also wrote, “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Clinton, who has felt Coulter’s criticism over the years, responded on Wednesday.

“Perhaps her book should have been called ‘Heartless,'” the senator said. “I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened.”

First off, it kind of goes without saying that Ann went over the top, and made statements that were rude, offensive, and obnoxious. But what did you expect? It is Ann Coulter- she makers her living doing just this sort of thing- throwing red meat to the lunatic fringe. I think what she said was wrong, but I think in the bash Coulter train (which I am proud to join), something is being missed in her NBC Today Show comments:

Coulter: “To speak out using the fact that they’re widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism. How about sending somebody we’re allowed to respond to? No, no we always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die…”

Lauer: “But aren’t they the people in the middle of the story?”

Coulter: “…because then if we respond, ‘Oh you’re questioning their authenticity.’ No the story is…”

Lauer: “So grieve but grieve quietly.”

Coulter: “No the story is an attack on the nation…”

Lauer: “And by the way…”

Coulter: “That requires a foreign policy response. That does not entail the expertise…”

Lauer: “And by the way they also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11.”

Coulter: “Oh not, not the ones I’m talking about.”

Lauer: “No they have.”

Coulter: “No, no, no. Oh no, no, no, no.”

Lauer: “But is your message to them just grieve…”

Coulter: “No, no they were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.”

Ann is on to something there, but she is too dimwitted or partisan to recognize that it isn’t just the ‘left’s doctrine of infallibility,’ but the NJ wives represent a trend that seems to be popular on both sides of the aisle- the NJ wives are exactly the same as Cindy Sheehan was for ‘the left’ and Terri Schiavo’s parents were to the wingnut right. As I wrote about Cindy Sheehan:

I haven’t written about Cindy Sheehan because it is just a tragedy. She has lost her kid, is grief-stricken, so I figure it best to just leave her alone. Fair enough.

However, it is understandable that her new-found activism, along with her aligning herself with the radical anti-war left and staging media events with no purpose other than to attack the President, should be seen as opening herself up to criticisms of her political positions. It is also fair to state that many on the left have chosen her as a symbol to bludgeon anyone who still supports this war. The prevailing opinion from the left appears to be that Sheehan is the perfect weapon, someone whose viewpoints are simply not allowed to be challenged, someone who can be used at will to not only galvanize support for the anti-war movement, but to attack the President, the President’s policies, and anyone who chooses to continue to support the mission in Iraq. And no one is allowed to say anything to counter that- the President and those who still support themission are supposed to just sit there and take it, lest they be accused of attacking a grieving mother.

It is the same damned thing, just a different tragedy as the motivating force. It is the kind of crap that MoDo was trying to peddle with her absolute moral authority nonsense:

Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.

But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

In other words- anything the Jersey 4 or Cindy Sheehan states, from a policy standpoint, should be listened to because they are coming from a position of personal sacrifice. If you refute (or try to) their arguments or their policy positions, why, you are attacking a ‘grieving mother!’ That is what certain political operatives are trying to do, and it is nothing more than an emotional appeal that should be ignored. If the GOP found 4 relatives of people who had died in 9/11, and parents of soldiers killed in Iraq who were all wild and enthusiastic supporters of this administration, would their sacrifices make their political opinions ‘infallible?’

Of course not, as that is absolute nonsense. I don’t want you all to think that ‘the left’ is the only group that seems to do it- both political sides seem to be as cynically manipulative with this sort of thing. It just seems like this happens more now with ‘the left’ than ‘the right,’ which I would guess is because ‘the left,’ at the moment, is operating from a position of no power. They don’t control the WH, Congress, etc. However, if you doubt both sides do it, think back to how many times we saw poor Terri Schiavo’s parents wheeled out in front of the cameras to show that we absolutely must change longstanding laws and policy decisions because they were grieving.

So, yes, Ann Coulter is a vicious shrew who made a boatload of nasty comments about people who have gone through hell and deserve, if nothing else, to be treated with a dose of compassion that the heartless columnist Coulter seems to be unable to muster. But at the same time, Coulter is on to something- we, collectively, have got to stop using tragedy in attempts to make bad ideas somehow seem better. It is unseemly, it causes bitter divisions, and worst of all, it doesn’t let the best ideas come forward. It advances the most emotionally fraught arguments assume positions of dominance, and if we have learned ANYTHING over the past few years since 9/11, hysteria and emotional appeals are no way to run a government.

*** BTW- could you all please quit emailing me asking why I am running a Coulter ad? I am not. I don’t use an advertising service that gives me the choice to pick advertisers, I use a pj media feed, and apparently my evil corporate masters have signed a contract with Coulter to put her ads into the rotation.

*** Update ***

Apparently can ask to have the ad removed, but I am not going to- I would run an ad for Code Pink or Michael Moore or whoever. Unlike Charles barkley, I would draw the line at the KKK and groups like that, but I really don’t think the Coulter ad is a big deal. I haven;t even seen the damned thing yet, so I have no idea how frequently it procs, but I am betting not too often.






201 replies
  1. 1
    farmgirl says:

    John — This is completely off topic, but I hope you’ll excuse me: I’m glad you’re back blogging more frequently. Especially since it’s you, and not your evil twin who was posting a few months ago. ;)

    (This is in no way a criticism of Tim F, who is also a fantastic blogger and a great addition to the site. The more posts the merrier!)

  2. 2
    Steve says:

    Be real. There is no “infallibility.” Lots of people disagree with Cindy Sheehan on the war. Lots of people disagree with the 9/11 widows. It is absolutely untrue to suggest that no one gets to disagree with them because of their “moral infallibility.”

    Is it politically difficult for George Bush to defend the war when Cindy Sheehan is protesting against it? I’m sure it is, but guess what, he somehow managed to do so! And it’s no different than what he does when he trots out some Iraqi woman with a purple finger to show how great she has it now, which is the kind of thing every politician does. It’s called humanizing an issue. It doesn’t create an aura of “infallibility” because, as is obvious if you look around, people continue to disagree.

    It IS true that their standing as sympathetic figures makes it harder to attack them personally. But you know what, I’m fine with that. You can be in favor of the war without calling Cindy Sheehan “the bitch in the ditch.” You can be against implementing the 9/11 commission’s recommendations without calling the 9/11 widows “the witches of East Brunswick.”

    The problem is that people like Ann Coulter are no better than attack dogs and they don’t know any way to disagree with someone other than to make it personal. They don’t want to simply make a case on the merits, they want to be able to call the other person scum. And yes, isn’t it awful, our society frowns on calling people who have suffered a family tragedy scum. Tough rocks for Ann Coulter.

    What people like Coulter want to do by complaining about “moral infallibility” is no different from someone who introduces a racist joke by saying “I know this isn’t politically correct, but…” Anyone is completely free to stand up and say, “I think the 9/11 widows were wrong, because of X.” Whining about moral infallibility is just an excuse to dodge the merits and make nasty comments about them on a personal level, and there’s no need for that.

  3. 3
    Mr Furious says:

    …we, collectively, have got to stop using tragedy in attempts to make bad ideas somehow seem better. It is unseemly, it causes bitter divisions, and worst of all, it doesn’t let the best ideas come forward. It advances the most emotionally fraught arguments assume positions of dominance, and if we have learned ANYTHING over the past few years since 9/11, hysteria and emotional appeals are no way to run a government.

    Agreed. But be honest here John, who has gotten more mileage out of that? The Right or the Left? And who exacty has used tragedy to justify just about every goddam policy to come down the pike.

    If anything Sheehan and the Jersey wives are merely a small, yet vocal, pushback against a far greater misappropriation of tragedy.

  4. 4
    Tim F. says:

    God, if waving the 9/11 bloody shirt became declassee

  5. 5
    salvage says:

    >am running a coulter ad

    Another PJ media member said they could request to remove the ad but declined to:

    NOTE: A WORD ABOUT THE TOWER AD FOR COULTER’S BOOK

    The answer is, yes I could request that the ad be taken off this site. But since I don’t believe in stifling debate (witness the insulting, degrading, comments from most of you directed towards me below), I will not make that request.

    Details here:
    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/a.....tive-lout/

    Not that I care one way or another, anyone stupid enough to buy her crap should, it’s good that stupid people have less money.

  6. 6
    Andrew says:

    Can’t we send the 9/11 widows to Gitmo?

  7. 7
    D. Mason says:

    I don’t want you all to think that ‘the left’ is the only group that seems to do it- both political sides seem to be as cynically manipulative with this sort of thing. It just seems like this happens more now with ‘the left’ than ‘the right,’ which I would guess is because ‘the left,’ at the moment, is operating from a position of no power.

    Give me a fucking break. For years ‘The President’ dragged out 9/11 and used it to shield his policies from criticism on a near constant basis. He used it as a club with which to beat Kerry in ’04. He still flogs the worst terrorist attack in American history(which happened on his watch) for political points at every opportunity and so do the people in his administration. They’ve used 9/11 as an exscuse for everything from political stunts to Constitutional usurpations. They used the emotional appeal of 9/11 to drag us into a war for pleasure. And if people criticized them they used 9/11 to question their patriotism and love for America. If that’s not cynically manipulative I can’t imagine what is.

    You can trash Cindy Sheehan all you want, afterall she *is* guilty of what you’ve accused her of. But please John, don’t get it twisted. What she does is no different than what the President is doing whenever he drags out the specter of 9/11.

  8. 8
    Mr Furious says:

    Nice points, Steve. And, John, I want to be clear that I agree with your post as well, I just think you overemphasize (along with Coulter) the importance of both Sheehan AND the 9/11 widows. I’ve heard far more about them from their opponents than their supporters or straight news coverage.

    Just as Coulter thrives on getting criticism form the likes of Hillary Clinton, people like Sheehan and the 9/11 widows are the butter for her bread. Without bogeymen to point at and rail about the Coulters and Rushes have nothing to say. therefore it serves their purposes to inflate them and assign importance beyond even that of their supporters.

    Do you think I have ever hung my opposition to Bush or the War on something Cindy Sheehan said? Of course not, but Coulter would have you believe that I am awaiting my daily marching orders.

    I also want to be clear that despite your fetish with Sheehan (she did, after all run over your dog), I in no way want to imply that you are in the same boat as the putrid Coulter.

    And I’m glad you’re back in the saddle as well.

  9. 9
    John Cole says:

    Furious- You may not try to do that, but there most certainly were large swaths of people who stated we were not allowed to say anything about Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions because she was just a grieving mother, but we were supposed to wholly subscribe to her suggestions regarding iraq, because, after all, she had made the ultimate sacrifice. So while you personally may not have done that, rest assured, there were a number of people who did.

    I will let Brad R., that right wing nutjob from Say Anything, make my point:

    John’s got a point. This whole thing is a carefully-orchestrated political stunt. “We know Bush will be in Texas. We have a grieving mother who’s (justifiably) bitter that her son died. What better way to drum up attention for our cause than going with her to Texas to meet Bush?”

    I sympathize with Cindy Sheehan’s point of view. I think the Iraq war has been a goddamn disaster, I don’t think the place is going to be a functional democracy anytime soon (see the democratically elected theocracy in Basra if you want proof), and I don’t see what good it does us to keep our troops there indefnitely. And if I had a kid who died in this war, I’d be mad as hell.

    That said, there is something about this that is deliberately eomtionally manipulative, and I don’t like it. Look at MoveOn’s front page- you’ve got a picture of the poor woman about to break down right above the text that says “SIGN UP: Join more than 3,000,000 members online, get instant action updates and make a difference.”

    John’s right- this is “the perfect political weapon” because it elicits strong emotional reactions and makes anyone who criticizes her actions look like an insensitive asshole. (Of course, O’Reilly and Malkin ARE insensitive assholes, not to mention vicious liars, but that’s another topic…)

    Anyway, feel free to call me a sell-out, a wimp, a Michael Totten, whatever. I just think this whole stunt is manipulative political theatre intended to bring out raw emotions rather than rational thinking (and judging by how strongly most people have reacted to it, it’s accomplished its goal).

    If Cindy Sheehan, the Schiavo parents, or the Jersey 4 have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

  10. 10
    D. Mason says:

    If Cindy Sheehan George Bush, the Schiavo parents Dick Cheney, or the Jersey 4 Donald Rumsfeld have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

    Fixed.

  11. 11
    Mr Furious says:

    If Cindy Sheehan, the Schiavo parents, or the Jersey 4 have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

    Yup.
    Who they are/where they come from, might get me to pay attention the first time. But not the five hundredth…

  12. 12
    Steve says:

    Of course it’s emotionally manipulative. But you know what? That still doesn’t stop you from expressing whatever opinion you like on the war. It just stops you from personally attacking Cindy Sheehan – wait, who am I kidding? All kinds of people have launched all kinds of vicious attacks on Cindy Sheehan, complaining all the while about that terrible “moral infallibility” that supposedly prevents them from launching vicious attacks. The point remains that you ought to be able to make your case on the war without personally attacking Cindy Sheehan, and you might even make a better case if you tried.

  13. 13
    Brad R. says:

    In other words- anything the Jersey 4 or Cindy Sheehan states, from a policy standpoint, should be listened to because they are coming from a position of personal sacrifice.

    I wrote a lengthy piece on the moral authority of victims a while back. Basically, I concluded that they do have a certain amount of moral capital, but that moral capital can be squandered if they push it too far. Witness the transformation of Ron Goldman’s dad in the OJ trial. We sympathized with him greatly in the beginning, but by the end, he just went completely off the rails and sounded like a bloodthirsty nut.

    If you refute (or try to) their arguments or their policy positions, why, you are attacking a ‘grieving mother!’ That is what certain political operatives are trying to do, and it is nothing more than an emotional appeal that should be ignored.

    I agree. Witness “9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America.”

    If the GOP found 4 relatives of people who had died in 9/11, and parents of soldiers killed in Iraq who were all wild and enthusiastic supporters of this administration, would their sacrifices make their political opinions ‘infallible?’

    Well, let’s see:

    Had we been attacked and President Bush not previously ordered the NSA to snoop as he did, the “loyal opposition” would have been screaming that he failed to collect and connect those dots.


    Nope, seems like a pretty fallible position to me.

    The point that victims aren’t morally infallible is entirely correct, not the mention extremely bloody obvious. That isn’t the point Coulter was trying to make in her book, though. The point was to attack these women in a very personal and cruel manner, saying that they took joy in their husband’s deaths, and making snide remarks like “how do we know these husbands weren’t going to divorce these harpies,” etc.

  14. 14
    fwiffo says:

    If you refute (or try to) their arguments or their policy positions, why, you are attacking a ‘grieving mother!’ That is what certain political operatives are trying to do, and it is nothing more than an emotional appeal that should be ignored.

    I generally agree, but you miss the biggest and most flagrant example – the cries from the right that you can’t criticize Bush because we’re at war. Heck, that one’s so pervasive it’s even infected alleged Democrats like Joe Lieberman. And it’s espescially repugnant because he’s an actual politician in office with actual political power. I think Teddy Roosevelt said it best — “That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

  15. 15
    Jimmmm says:

    9/11 Commission. Not the Jersey Girls idea, but we have them to thank for keeping it on the front pages till Bush found compliance unavoidable, John. The Jersey Girls’ advocacy positions have been motivated not by partisanship, but by frustration with the Bush administration’s handling of security matters since 9/11/01. “Liberal Infallability”? Is that phrase this year’s black? How about knowing whereof one speaks?

    D. Mason: “If George Bush, Dick Cheney, or Donald Rumsfeld have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from. Perfect.

    Also, John, you go to war with the banner ads you have, not the ones you wish you had. I agree with Salvage: Less money in the hands of stupid people is a good thing.

  16. 16
    TTT says:

    As others have noted, when there were no actual intellectual or strategic merits to a Bush / Cheney policy they would just invoke 9/11 and that usually succeeded in shutting down the discussion. You want to see appeals to “infallible / untouchable authority,” look at so many modern conservatives’ nonstop appeals to religion when it comes to social policy, and the culty deification of Dubya.

    As for Coulter, given her record of endorsing or wishing for violence and death against liberals, including that Tim McVeigh should have bombed New York, it’s pretty funny to hear her accuse the 9/11 widows of “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” 9/11 gave Ann Coulter the mass killing of liberals that she always wanted. She probably loved it.

  17. 17
    RSA says:

    Emotional appeal for political gain goes much farther than politics in America. Consider what happens during the sentencing phase of many criminal trials: victims (or the families of victims) come in to talk about how their lives have been affected by the crime. Whether you think that makes for more just sentences or not, it seems obvious that the impact must have a large emotional component to it. And, of course, we’re not asking philosophers or psychologists or other disinterested observers to tell us about the objective impact of a crime, but rather the direct or indirect victims. The assumption, I think, is that their victimhood gives them moral authority.

  18. 18
    mrmobi says:

    But at the same time, Coulter is on to something- we, collectively, have got to stop using tragedy in attempts to make bad ideas somehow seem better. It is unseemly, it causes bitter divisions, and worst of all, it doesn’t let the best ideas come forward. It advances the most emotionally fraught arguments assume positions of dominance, and if we have learned ANYTHING over the past few years since 9/11, hysteria and emotional appeals are no way to run a government.

    Respectfully, John, if we have learned anything since 9/11 it is that the party of Lincoln will use ANY kind of scare tactic to retain power. I’m surprised that you can’t see the difference between Cindy Sheehan and the activist 9/11 widows. First, they might be making an emotional argument (how could it not be?) but it’s decidedly NOT hysterical, and appears to bear little relation to the kind of exploitation Cindy Sheehan allowed during her time in the spotlight.

    There probably wouldn’t have been a 9/11 commission without these women, and perhaps no serious evaulation of what went wrong that terrible day. You remember the decider-in-chief was dead against an independent commission before he was for it.

    The widows did respond. Did you see it?

    We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

    Silly, hysterical broads, eh?
    Actually, the rest of their statement is worth a read, too. I don’t blame you for taking ads from Coulter, John. We all have to make a living. But I’m offended by your readiness to attribute anything critical of this abysmal, corrupt government of ours as “bad ideas” simply because they are based on emotion. Remember Howard Beale, first you’ve got to get MAD!

    Here’s a bit more hysteria from the widows:

    We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

    It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

    We are continuously reminded that we are still a nation at risk. Therefore, the following is a partial list of areas still desperately in need of attention and public outcry. We should continuously be holding the feet of our elected officials to the fire to fix these shortcomings.

    1. Homeland Security Funding based on risk. Inattention to this area causes police officers, firefighters and other emergency/first responder personnel to be ill equipped in emergencies. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

    2. Intelligence Community Oversight. Without proper oversight, there exists no one joint, bicameral intelligence panel with power to both authorize and appropriate funding for intelligence activities. Without such funding we are unable to capitalize on all intelligence community resources and abilities to thwart potential terrorist attacks. Fixing this will save lives on the day of the next attack.

    3. Transportation Security. There has been no concerted effort to harden mass transportation security. Our planes, buses, subways, and railways remain underprotected and highly vulnerable. These are all identifiable soft targets of potential terrorist attack. The terror attacks in Spain and London attest to this fact. Fixing our transportation systems may save lives on the day of the next attack.

    4. Information Sharing among Intelligence Agencies. Information sharing among intelligence agencies has not improved since 9/11. The attacks on 9/11 could have been prevented had information been shared among intelligence agencies. On the day of the next attack, more lives may be saved if our intelligence agencies work together.

    5. Loose Nukes. A concerted effort has not been made to secure the thousands of loose nukes scattered around the world — particularly in the former Soviet Union. Securing these loose nukes could make it less likely for a terrorist group to use this method in an attack, thereby saving lives.

    6. Security at Chemical Plants, Nuclear Plants, Ports.. We must, as a nation, secure these known and identifiable soft targets of Terrorism. Doing so will save many lives.

    7. Border Security. We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.

    8. Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Given the President’s NSA Surveillance Program and the reinstatement of the Patriot Act, this Nation is in dire need of a Civil Liberties Oversight Board to insure that a proper balance is found between national security versus the protection of our constitutional rights.

    ###

    September 11th Advocates:
    Kristen Breitweiser
    Patty Casazza
    Monica Gabrielle
    Mindy Kleinberg
    Lorie Van Auken

    If they can’t contribute some sound ideas to the discussion, why can’t they just “take their money and shut up?”

  19. 19
    Blue Neponset says:

    But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

    It isn’t about their ideas being better or not it is about their perspective being unique. For example, I tend to give more credence to what Mothers Against Drunk Driving has to say about drunk driving than I would to what some generic politician has to say about drunk driving. I do that because I know that MADD has a perspective re: drunk driving that I thankfully do not have and as a result I give more weight to their opinions. What is so wrong with that?

  20. 20
    TexasMike says:

    Ann Coulter is a hate monger and a bigot. If you want to make a point about moral infallability you need a better messenger than her. The fact that she has no qualms painting ayone who opposes the Bush Admin. as traitors gives her no credibility whatsoever.

    The Right Wing Noise Machine started the whole moral infallability argument when they painted all dissenters as traitors with their “with us or with the terrists” garbage. If you defended the right to speak against the war you “hated Amurka”

    Now they whine like children when someone on our side uses their medicine against them.

    Ann Coulter should be banned from all civil discourse just as Mary Kay Latourneau should be banned from all discussion of family values.

  21. 21
    Zifnab says:

    It’s just more Republican-style “Sit down and shut up while we run your country” rhetoric.

    Democratic politicians can’t talk cause they’re too partisan. College protesters can’t talk because what do they know? They’re just punk kids. The media can’t talk because it’s biased. The Generals can’t talk because they’re retired. The returning soldiers can’t talk because they’ll be showing cowardess and emboldening the enemy while demoralizing the other troops.

    So now they 9/11 Mothers can’t talk because they have too much moral high ground.

    Meanwhile Ann Coulter, FOX News, and the newest gigglo in the White House press room are alotted as much podium space as they could possibly desire.

  22. 22
    Punchy says:

    So, yes, Ann Coulter is a vicious shrew who made a boatload of nasty comments about people who have gone through hell and deserve, if nothing else, to be treated with a dose of compassion

    But…

    Apparently can ask to have the ad removed, but I am not going to

    Unfucking-believable. Hypocrite to the core. Goodbye.

  23. 23
    JoeTx says:

    Each side uses the most shrill examples of the other to discredit the arguments they make. It is almost impossible to have an intelligent debate anymore because now its about the person and not the policy.

    A good leader builds consensus and rallys EVERYONE to the cause. Dubya and the RNC is divide and conquer governness to the least common denominator. This has done more to polute the dialog and peoples attitudes towards each other than anything else I can think of.

    On September 11, 2001 America had the WORLD in our hands and EVERYBODY was ready to rally to the cause. Even Russia AND Iran was ready and willing to help our cause. Instead, Bush used 9/11 like a club instead of a carrot and we have slowly and methodically cast off that goodwill of everybody but his hardcore “base” who only care about tax cuts, outlawing abortion and same-sex marriage.

  24. 24
    Steve says:

    For the record, I could give a shit what ads John has running on his site. Yeah, Ann Coulter is digusting, but I don’t blame him for not wanting to make a case-by-case decision every time an objectionable ad gets brought up. It’s really not a big deal.

  25. 25
    yet another jeff says:

    Punchy, you don’t see the fun in a Coulter ad showing up next to yet another post about why she’s a symbol of so much that is wrong in the world?

    Ah well, adios.

  26. 26
    Andrew says:

    John Cole: Who wouldn’t you run ads for? Is there a line of any sort?

  27. 27
    John Cole says:

    Punchy- Before you go, can you tell me who else upsets your delicate sensibilities so much that the mere sight of them will drive you away from this website.

    That way I can put their ads up for free and hopefully drive the rest of thefolks like you away permanently. I don’t think the website, and in particular, the comments section, will suffer.

  28. 28
    John Cole says:

    Ann Coulter is a hate monger and a bigot. If you want to make a point about moral infallability you need a better messenger than her.

    Which is kind of the point of this post.

  29. 29
    JoeTx says:

    why can’t they just “take their money and shut up?”

    If I remember correctly, these widows DIDN’T take the money. From what I remember reading, there was a “shut up” rider in the contract. So basically the government bought the silence of MOST of the 9/11 victims and these widows didn’t want to be bought off…. No THAT is moral high ground!

  30. 30
    Pb says:

    Amazing. Ann Coulter slimes 4 9/11 widows, and all you can think of is how much you hate Cindy Sheehan for speaking out as well. I think Ann is just jealous because since she’s been a conservative drone from the time of her conception (and/or spawning?), she has no personal story of her own, so she just sticks to attacking other people for having the audacity to have personal stories. Unlike Hillary, Sheehan, or the Jersey Girls, Coulter obviously doesn’t understand tragedy, pain, sacrifice, or the empathy (or even basic human decency) that can arise from it.

    And of course she’s had a grudge against the Clintons since the 90’s if not before, secretly helping to spread rumors and lies about them back in ’97 before she made a career out of it. Coulter doesn’t need a personal tragedy to turn her into an activist, she’s already had an activist career out of trying to create personal tragedies through smearing other people. She is the opposite number of Cindy Sheehan and The Jersey Girls, and that is what you are supporting.

    Coulter later responded to Senator Clinton on Sean Hannity’s radio show by saying, “Before criticizing others for being ‘mean’ to women, perhaps Hillary should talk to her husband who was accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick and was groping Kathleen Willey at the very moment Willey’s husband was committing suicide.”

    That’s what you’re promoting, John. To quote Cindy Sheehan, “what noble cause”?

  31. 31
    Doug says:

    fwiffo nails it: the most flagrant example of this kind of behavior are suggestions that we ought not challenge and question aspects of the War in Iraq because to do so will hurt the troops.

    Hiding behind the troops is a chickenshit thing for policymakers to do.

  32. 32
    salvage says:

    Punchy still a free country and her books do a service, you walk into someone’s home you see Coulter on the shelf you know to leave and or set a fire.

    It’s sort of like a scarlet letter or the way lepers ring bells. We know these people walk amongst us it’s best that we know who they are.

  33. 33
    ppGaz says:

    The PJ Coulter ad doesn’t bother me, but it does seem to bother some. I figure if you can make some money for all the work you put into this thing, good for you.

    It’s up to the PJ’ers to decide whether they want Coulter ads. If you do, take the money and enjoy. If you decide it’s bad mojo, then act accordingly. Either way I don’t associate BJ with Coulter.

    Now, if I were PJ (not BJ) management, I’d probably turn down the Coulter ads at this point. But that’s just me.

  34. 34
    Ryan S. says:

    Just so I’m clear, the so called ‘Jersey 4’were a group of 9/11 widows who pushed for a independant investigation of the attacks? Then having not gotten satifactory response from the current administration, backed the challenger.

    I fail to see how this in anyway can be construed to be anything but expected. A victim, for painfully obvious reasons, has a vested interest in seeing that the cause of their victimhood is not repeated.

    And, If you don’t like their ideas don’t blame your own lack of adequate male genetalia for you inability to speak up. They are victims but also failable people, and if someone labels you as ______ (fill in the blank). Realize that its no different than someone labeling you for any other arbitrary reason.

  35. 35
    Otto Man says:

    I’m sure glad that the GOP didn’t milk that image of Bush standing on the WTC rubble for political purposes. Gosh, that would have been so unseemly to appeal to our emotions that way….

    Seriously, more and more Bush is resembling the Yul Brenner robot from the end of West World. Broken down, immobile, and only able to mumble “9/11 … 9/11 … 9/11 … 9/11 …”

  36. 36
    John Cole says:

    Amazing. Ann Coulter slimes 4 9/11 widows, and all you can think of is how much you hate Cindy Sheehan for speaking out as well.

    This was intended as a joke, right?

  37. 37
    capelza says:

    I want Coulter on national television…I want people to finally hear the shit spew out of her own mouth. I want them to squirm in discomfort that they might have agreed with anything that cowardly (OMG! They threw a pie at me! They are terrorists), hypocritical (Liberals have no vlaues, but on’t I look hot in this leather mini skirt..not that there is anything wrong with leather mini skirts, mind you, just that dressing like a Top while decrying the values of someone else..)), wrong (I’m tired of putting examples in () ), just plain nasty and kooky…blech…she’s a very bad person.

  38. 38
    tBone says:

    Either way I don’t associate BJ with Coulter.

    Thousands of club-goers disagree with you, ppGaz.

  39. 39
    JoeTx says:

    THIS is rich!

    ‘Godless’ author Coulter unknown at church she claims to attend

    An April 17, 2005 article in Time Magazine by John Cloud provided a rare description of Coulter’s attendance of church, as Cloud suggested that she has been a regular attendee of New York City’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church, to which “she brings a lot of people…”

    snip….

    When contacted by Raw Story, however, Redeemer Presbyterian’s Communications and Media Director Cregan Cooke could not confirm that Coulter had ever attended services at the church.

    “The only thing I have heard is hearsay that she is an attender” of Redeemer, Cregan told Raw Story. “Our database shows that she is not a member.”

  40. 40
    map says:

    Having seen Kristen Breitweiser several times on television, I think she would be happy to debate anyone, anytime on any aspect of our pre-9/11 preparedness or what has happened in terms of homeland security since then. I don’t think anyone who supports the Bush Administration’s policies really wants that debate because she knows more about this subject than probably anyone else, including the 9/11 Commission. I don’t give her positions on anything more creedence because her husband died, I give them creedence because she really knows her shit.

    These women did what I hope I would have done in their place. They could have gone on with their lives, but they decided that they would do everything they could to try to make sure this never happens to anyone else. I can’t think of a better way to honor their dead loved ones.

  41. 41
    Krista says:

    And the more that people talk about her, the more of a voice she’s given. Can we please move on to other things? She should be given no more airtime than the crazy lady who lives near here who is planning to write a 58-page letter to the White House, complaining that airplane contrails and synthetic fabrics are poisoning our brains.

  42. 42
    Krista says:

    Ann Coulter, that is, not Kristen Breitweiser…

    Note to self: gotta start blockquoting when responding to someone…

  43. 43
    chopper says:

    For years ‘The President’ dragged out 9/11 and used it to shield his policies from criticism on a near constant basis. He used it as a club with which to beat Kerry in ‘04. He still flogs the worst terrorist attack in American history(which happened on his watch) for political points at every opportunity and so do the people in his administration. They’ve used 9/11 as an exscuse for everything from political stunts to Constitutional usurpations. They used the emotional appeal of 9/11 to drag us into a war for pleasure.

    “We need to counter the shockwave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates.” – GWB, 10/4/01.

    that’s right, less than a month after 9/11 the dude was trying to use it to pimp tax cuts. lame.

  44. 44
    Ancient Purple says:

    If Cindy Sheehan, the Schiavo parents, or the Jersey 4 have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

    Well, they did push for the 9/11 Commission and this administration has all but ignored the recommendations. So, where does one go to get better ideas than a 9/11 Commission?

    The ports and chemical plants are sitting ducks… still.

    Oh, that’s right. It’s Bush and Company.

    Never mind.

  45. 45
    Tom W. says:

    John – the ad reflects on you, sorry. You should ask to have it taken down. It’s your blog with your name. Further, you’re getting a % of sales from those wo would sell her drivel. You’re profiting – in however small increments, I understand – from her hate speech.

    What she has said about the 9/11 widows is bad – way bad – way worse than anything Michael Moore has ever said in his life. Not KKK bad, but close enough for real discomfort.

  46. 46
    salvage says:

    JoeTx that is freakin’ hysterical.

  47. 47
    Brian says:

    There is a distinct tendency on the Left to trot out sympathetic symbols, such as 9/11 widows or the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty or a war veteran being critical of the war, and use them as trumpets for changes in policy or laws, or against elected politicians. And when they justly receive criticism, because they are criticizing things that we should all have an opinion on because of the shared stakes, the critics are loudly and angrily shouted down as being insensitive to the inherent holiness of the liberal’s human props.

    Ann Coulter, in her tactless way, is calling out the Left on this, and I think people can see this after they cut through the din of media hoo-ha over a single quote in a boring interview with Lauer. Despite her style, she is usually very on-target in her criticisms, and this is what drives the Left insane, and drives book sales through the roof. I think she can accomplish both by not giving in to the Left with her ill-suited remarks.

  48. 48
    Tom W. says:

    It’s a quote from her book Brian – a book John is selling on this site, a book being peddled all over PajamasMedia.

    And yeah, the left is the only side using symbols of 9/11 – that’s just silly talk.

  49. 49
    ed says:

    John, you are back on your blogging A game. Thanks.

  50. 50
    Pb says:

    John Cole,

    This was intended as a joke, right?

    I wish it were. Were your Sheehan references intended as a joke? Infallibility isn’t expected, but respect is–something that Ann knows nothing about, which goes right along with your Sheehan posts.

  51. 51
    Pb says:

    Brian,

    There is a distinct tendency on the Left to trot out sympathetic symbols, such as 9/11 widows or the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty or a war veteran being critical of the war, and use them as trumpets for changes in policy or laws, or against elected politicians.

    Like Janet Norwood and Safia Taleb al-Suhail? I hate it when The Left stages fake Kodak moments at scripted events like that. Damned pinko commie liberal Bush administration…

  52. 52
    Brian says:

    It’s a quote from her book Brian – a book John is selling on this site, a book being peddled all over PajamasMedia.

    I’ve heard her interviewed elsewhere, and I’m not so sure you’re correct about that. But, then again, maybe you’ve read the book. I haven’t, and don’t plan to, even though it’s being advertised on PJM. But, so what? It’s a free country, isn’t it? Who the hell are you? It’s not like he advertising “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

  53. 53
    Pb says:

    Brian,

    It’s a free country, isn’t it?

    If it isn’t now, it was at some point. Hopefully it’ll become freer, despite the best efforts of the idiots in politics who you defend here on a daily basis.

    Who the hell are you?

    I reiterate: et tu, spoofe? Who the hell *are* you?

  54. 54
    Brian says:

    Like Janet Norwood and Safia Taleb al-Suhail? I hate it when The Left stages fake Kodak moments at scripted events like that.

    You see no difference?????

    Those you mention were one-time invited guests to a SOTU speech. Presidents have done this almost as long as media have been covering them, and people expect that.

    The ones I mention are used as political props, agitating for changes to American laws and policies (that affect us all) and using the claim of “moral authority” to fend of legitiamte criticism of their views.

  55. 55
    carpeicthus says:

    I disagree with CIndy Sheehan about Afghanistan. Wow, that was easy. I didn’t even have to get apoplectic or anything. Weird.

  56. 56
    Otto Man says:

    There is a distinct tendency on the Left to trot out sympathetic symbols

    Boy, thank the good Lord that President Bush never does anything like that. Can you imagine if he, say, had special guests sitting with his wife during the State of the Union address, people he could trot out to make emotional points? Thank God he’s never done that.

  57. 57
    Otto Man says:

    Those you mention were one-time invited guests to a SOTU speech. Presidents have done this almost as long as media have been covering them, and people expect that.

    It’s a practice begun by Reagan in 1982. I’m no expert, but I’m pretty sure the modern media covered the State of the Union address pretty well in the decades before that.

    I’ve never understood how conservatives can profess to be conserving a history they so clearly know nothing about.

  58. 58
    Tom W. says:

    It’s not like he advertising “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

    So that’s the tipping point, eh? Saying the 9/11 widows enjoy their husbands’ deaths is on the good side of the line…nice standards.

  59. 59
    Otto Man says:

    I disagree with CIndy Sheehan about Afghanistan. Wow, that was easy. I didn’t even have to get apoplectic or anything. Weird.

    I think your argument would be much stronger if you’d called her a nutcase or a slut. Or both.

  60. 60
    canuckistani says:

    Ann Coulter making vile ignorant political points is odious, but in a world with LGF and Michelle Malkin, I can shrug it off. What really upsets me about Godless is the attacks on evolution and science, and how liberals love Darwin because it excuses immoral behaviour.
    Given the shaky state of science in the US right now, that I think is going to be the really damaging thrust of her book. John, you’re welcome to support all political viewpoints in the interest of honest debate, but I have to say I would have drawn the line at someone who hates science and reason so much.

  61. 61
    SeesThroughIt says:

    airplane contrails and synthetic fabrics are poisoning our brains.

    I hear the contrails one a lot, but synthetic fabrics? That’s a new one. While I was working for the FBI, I had to take a written statement from such a crazy person. I kind of wish I had been able to get a personal copy because it was a real doozy. In a nutshell: Sean Connery and Madonna are the heads of an underground cabal bent on world domination, Dr. Evil-style. They use movies and music to take over people on the subconscious level, and the call to arms will be when they share a very large, very public kiss. So if you see those two smooch, understand that it’s on!

    Brian:

    There is a distinct tendency on the Left Right to trot out sympathetic symbols, such as 9/11 widows or the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty or a war veteran being critical of the war troops or purple-fingered Middle Easterners or war veterans, and use them as trumpets for changes in how awesome Republican policy or laws are, or against elected anybody who would dare challenge said Republican politicians.

    See how it works both ways? Ready to disavow the right-wing’s use of cloying emotional bullshit to get you to embrace ineptitude?

  62. 62
    BumperStickerist says:

    Is it okay for me to think that Anne’s over forty and never been married, she’s also childless and can’t possibly know what the fuck she’s talking about with regard to the widows and their grief given Anne’s demonstrated inability to hold or sustain a meaningful relationship?

    Would that be okay?

    fwiw, Anne doesn’t have friends .. she has allies.

  63. 63
    dagon says:

    what utter bullshit!

    coulter isn’t ‘on’ to anything john. i don’t have time to write up sufficiently angry rant right but BobcatJH over at du sums up my sentiments niceless in this journal entry

    Unless you’ve been hiding in a spider hole or an otherwise undisclosed location, you’ve been treated to a nice display by our friend Ann Coulter. Coulter, who published her latest bird-cage liner “Godless: The Church of Liberalism” Tuesday, has set her sights on, among others, the widows of those who died in the September 11 attacks.

    “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies,” Coulter writes. “I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.” While criticism of Coulter came fast and furious from the likes of the widows themselves and Keith Olbermann, there’s been a noticeable silence coming from the right.

    The overwhelming right-wing response has come in the form of coming to the defense of Coulter. And, by doing so, agreeing with the pundit and taking what she said several steps further into the gutter. Try as some Republicans might to halfheartedly distance themselves from Coulter, her cancer has completely overtaken their party. They’re all Ann Coulter.

    Think about what Coulter and her defenders are really saying. First, that if you’re in some way attached to a tragedy like September 11 or the war in Iraq, it’s fine that you speak your mind – if, and only if, we agree with what you say. Second, that if what you say dissents from our views, not only do you not have the right to say it, but it’s unfair for you to say it because for us to personally attack you makes us look like assholes. Well, if it looks like an asshole, sounds like and asshole and smells like an asshole, it’s probably an asshole. And assholes they are.

    Continued…

    http://journals.democraticunde.....obcatJH/83

    –this isn’t about using a tragedy to stifle criticism of their views. there’s plenty of that going around and it is more than acceptable. what coulter is really trying to say is that the sentimentality surrounding their situation makes it harder for people like her to call hurl nasty invective their way if they do’t come around to her way of thinking.

    so let me see…michael sciavo is a heartless philanderer who wanted to MURDER his wife, right. i don’t remember anything comparable directed at mrs. schiavo’s parents who although i believed to be clearly in the wrong, were spared similar accusations that they were hideous ghouls.

    so it’s not apples to apples JC. your cries of the universality of this ‘doctrine of infallibility’ don’t ring true; primarily because their is no such damn thing. just the pathological need of some to scar the psyche of their opponents when disagreement is not enough. and i’d happy to go a few rounds with you on which side the plurality of these individuals.

    peace

  64. 64
    Tom W. says:

    And it’s not like you’re saying “don’t mention Ann Coulter on this site” – it’s simply refusing to take her slimy hate money.

  65. 65
    Otto Man says:

    Well, I, for one, wholly support the Coulter ads.

    For one thing, I agree that it’ll be nice to have the target audience blow their money on her nonsense and busy themselves with the librul-hatin’ circle jerk.

    Plus, it would be great to have these people get their hands on a book that they don’t intend to burn. You know, just to try that out.

    And most importantly, whatever continues to make Ann Coulter the public face of the right is fine by me. Please, get her hatchet face on the Today show every single morning and let America look into her dead soulless eyes. Please.

  66. 66
    Brian says:

    et tu, spoofe? Who the hell are you?

    Me

    See how it works both ways?

    Dude, you don’t get it. Both you and Pb make illogical comparisons and present them as identical. I guess I should not be surprised, being that a characteristic of your political makeup is using pretzel logic to create equivalencies where they don’t exist.

  67. 67
    John S. says:

    See how it works both ways? Ready to disavow the right-wing’s use of cloying emotional bullshit to get you to embrace ineptitude?

    Never. Brian would sooner move to Iraq than admit that his precious right-wing would ever employ a similar tactic as the despicable left. As he has already said:

    You see no difference?????

    Because only Brian and his henchmen see a difference.

  68. 68
    Darrell says:

    There is a distinct tendency on the Left to trot out sympathetic symbols, such as 9/11 widows or the mother of a soldier killed in the line of duty or a war veteran being critical of the war, and use them as trumpets for changes in policy or laws, or against elected politicians

    No question about it. In addition, don’t ever criticize or question John Murtha or any other veteran on their positions if they tow the leftist line, even when they accuse Marines of “cold blooded murder” while an investigation is still open, before the marines have a chance to offer their defense.. because if you dare criticize them, no matter how legitimate the criticism, most leftists will tell you that you have “smeared” or “slandered” them. Oh, and criticism of leftist minorities must always be rooted in racism.

    Both sides do this, but the left does it far more often. I believe it’s because most of their arguments and instincts are rooted purely in emotion. John nails it with this:

    we, collectively, have got to stop using tragedy in attempts to make bad ideas somehow seem better. It is unseemly, it causes bitter divisions, and worst of all, it doesn’t let the best ideas come forward.

    Exactly

  69. 69
    John S. says:

    Brian further proving my point:

    I guess I should not be surprised, being that a characteristic of your political makeup is using pretzel logic to create equivalencies where they don’t exist.

    Because clearly, any of Brian’s sub-moronic mad-lib style epiphanies can only be applied to one end of the political spectrum.

  70. 70
    Otto Man says:

    Both sides do this, but the left does it far more often. I believe it’s because most of their arguments and instincts are rooted purely in emotion.

    While the right bases its arguments on such founts of logic like “They hate us for our freedom” and “Gimme your freedom or the boogeyterrorist will getcha!”

    And, of course, the domestic equivalent: “Marriage is a vital institution that should be embraced by everyone, which is why we must keep the fags away from it.”

    Such incredible logic. It’s like a party full of Spocks.

  71. 71
    John S. says:

    Goddamn, I must be Kreskin today, because right on cue here comes one of Brian’s favorite cronies to give him a reacharound:

    Both sides do this, but the left does it far more often. I believe it’s because most of their arguments and instincts are rooted purely in emotion.

    I love these mad-lib comments, because they might as well be fill in the blank. Too bad in praising John for ‘nailing it’, Darrell misses this:

    exactly the same as Cindy Sheehan was for ‘the left’ and Terri Schiavo’s parents were to the wingnut right

    I guess in fantasyland, ‘exactly the same’ means ‘more prevalent on the left’.

  72. 72
    mrmobi says:

    And when they justly receive criticism, because they are criticizing things that we should all have an opinion on because of the shared stakes, the critics are loudly and angrily shouted down as being insensitive to the inherent holiness of the liberal’s human props.

    Ann Coulter, in her tactless way, is calling out the Left on this, and I think people can see this after they cut through the din of media hoo-ha over a single quote in a boring interview with Lauer. Despite her style, she is usually very on-target in her criticisms, and this is what drives the Left insane, and drives book sales through the roof. I think she can accomplish both by not giving in to the Left with her ill-suited remarks.

    Brian, calling Ann Coulter “tactless” is like calling Pol Pot “insensitive”. This woman advocates the extermination of large groups of people, as well the murder of Supreme Court justices. Please don’t tell me it’s just her “shtick”. I’m an angry liberal, after all, and have no sense of humor. Personally, I’m happy for her to be perceived as the face of the Republican Party, but this creature is one armband and brown shirt away from being a Nazi.

    The Jersey ladies are merely advocating for changes which most people agree are essential in preventing or mediating the effects of the next attack. For their efforts, they are subjected to the scurrilous Ms. Coulter on national TV, and the Republican agenda remains…tax cuts!

    You guys really have a thing for Cindy Sheehan, don’t you? It must hit a soft spot or something, knowing that you advocated for an elective war that has produced very little but a great increase in misery, death and a degradation of our national security.

    What drives me crazy (a short drive, admittedly) is that there are lots of ideas out there about how to change the national security situation, but because we lefties are so “unseemly” our ideas are dismissed as “moonbat” nonsense. Rove says we want to offer “counseling to the terrorists”. The truth is we all want to find a way out of the wilderness here, but EVERYTHING is political to the Bushies, so no dialogue is possible, because they are too busy smearing anyone who dares to speak up.
    I nominate Ann Coulter for Republican Party Chair! Oh, and John, please be sure her ads appear on your site regularly, I agree with Jimmmmm, she should sell lots of books, because “Less money in the hands of stupid people is a good thing”.

  73. 73
    SeesThroughIt says:

    Such incredible logic. It’s like a party full of Spocks.

    ZING!

  74. 74
    Darrell says:

    exactly the same as Cindy Sheehan was for ‘the left’ and Terri Schiavo’s parents were to the wingnut right

    I guess in fantasyland, ‘exactly the same’ means ‘more prevalent on the left’.

    Obviously it went over your head that ‘exactly the same’ in that example referred to an equivalent example, not that both sides use this tactic equally. They don’t. And when was the last time anyone heard from Terri Schiavo’s parents btw? Even in that example, Schiavo’s parents had no monopoloy on sympathy in that case, unless you’re willing to overlook the other side using Michael Schiavo as the ‘torn spouse’ who was only looking to do what Terri wanted.

  75. 75
    Darrell says:

    While the right bases its arguments on such founts of logic like “They hate us for our freedom”

    There’s a helluva lot more truth in that statement than in “No blood for oil”, or my personal favorite, “Reality based community”

  76. 76
    capelza says:

    So, speaking of conservative values *cough* NRO outed Armando.

    Nice.

  77. 77
    kchiker says:

    I also have to disagree with you, John. Issue-politics through a messenger who actually has a personal stake in the issue is human nature. That someone is a widow does nothing to bolster their argument or make their points unrebuttable (odd that coulter was saying she was being prevented from responding to the widows while…she WAS responding to the widows). I disagree with MoDo in her ‘moral authority’ argument as well.

    It DOES make it look, well, slimy, to personally/unfairly smear a recent widow. And so be it.

  78. 78
    Darrell says:

    capelza Says:

    So, speaking of conservative values cough NRO outed Armando.

    Jeff Gannon style? Do you have a link?

  79. 79
    Otto Man says:

    There’s a helluva lot more truth in that statement than in “No blood for oil”, or my personal favorite, “Reality based community”

    Can you point to a single Democratic leader who’s made the “no blood for oil” comment? And the “reality-based community” nonsense comes straight from the White House. Thanks for providing another example of their logic.

  80. 80
    John Cole says:

    So, speaking of conservative values cough NRO outed Armando.

    Nice.

    Hunh? I have not read the corner in a while. What happened?

  81. 81
    capelza says:

    Darrell..I give you no links because I won’t link to NRO or the Corner ever again (besides Jonah Goldberg twittering away is enough to make me hurl on a good day), find them yourself (though to save you some steps, go to Tacitus).

    As for Gannon? I’ve seen the ONLINE pics of his 8′ cut. At his own sites even…ewwwwwwwwww.

  82. 82
    EL says:

    In other words- anything the Jersey 4 or Cindy Sheehan states, from a policy standpoint, should be listened to because they are coming from a position of personal sacrifice. If you refute (or try to) their arguments or their policy positions, why, you are attacking a ‘grieving mother!’

    I think we’re missing something else here, John. I think this tactic is used so often because of the tendency to personally attack the messenger, and the resulting desire to have credible spokespeople that are more difficult to personally attack. I disagree with Sheehan on many things, and have no problem saying so. I also disagree with Downd that anyone’s personal tragedy makes them absolutely right. I find it sad that many feel it’s open season unless the person is a victim of tragedy, in which case a personal attack looks mean-spirited.

    Look at some recent attacks when the person had expert knowledge – those like Richard Clark, or Paul O’Neill, etc. who were personally slimed. From what I’ve seen, if anyone has ever donated to a Democratic candidate or cause, the right feels anything they say doesn’t have to be taken seriously and answered. All the opponent has to do is say “he [she] donated to a democrat!” as if that invalidates the argument.

    From Darell

    In addition, don’t ever criticize or question John Murtha or any other veteran on their positions if they tow the leftist line, even when they accuse Marines of “cold blooded murder” while an investigation is still open, before the marines have a chance to offer their defense.. because if you dare criticize them, no matter how legitimate the criticism, most leftists will tell you that you have “smeared” or “slandered” them.

    Darrell, you want to disagree with Murtha? Go ahead, no problem. But what draws cries of “smear” and “slander” is the accusation that he’s unpatriotic or even traitorous. Is that what you mean by criticism? In view of his service, it looks a little silly.

  83. 83
    capelza says:

    John Cole…I found out about it at Tacitus…there’s a diary about it, and then went to Kos for the first time in ages, there’s a HUGE GBCW diary from Armando there…Spruiell did it?

  84. 84
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    It’s up on Tacitus, and DKos.

    You can find the link to the NRO discussion on Tacitus if it floats your boat.

  85. 85
    Steve says:

    John: I sent you an email about that last night, as a matter of fact. Check your BJ address.

  86. 86
    Pooh says:

    Both sides do this, but the left does it far more often. I believe it’s because most of their arguments and instincts are rooted purely in emotion. John nails it with this:

    Evidence? Or is your argument based on…emotion or preconception?

    Your ability to produce ‘arguments’ which to state them is to refute them is unparralelled. For that, I salute you.

  87. 87
    Pb says:

    Brian, Darrell,

    Normally I’d agree with you guys on this one, but 9/11 changed everything.

  88. 88
    McNulty says:

    I really don’t give a flying fuck about some blogger at Kos’ sexuality, but i can already tell exactly how this “debate” over it will play out.

    The left will be outraged at the outing and react with rigteous indignation, the right will, predictably, respond by pointing out the obsession so many on the left have with alledgedly gay/closeted gay Republicans, and then the left will, also predictably, respond by saying it’s different when they try to out gay Republicans because they’re merely doing it to point out the hypocrisy of being gay and being in a party hostile to them.

    If possible, it will get even more stupid from there.

  89. 89
    capelza says:

    Uh…McNulty..it wasn’t THAT kind of outing.

  90. 90
    TTT says:

    Hey, Brian? You said of Coulter:

    Despite her style, she is usually very on-target in her criticisms

    So is she on-target when she says that the ONLY bad thing about Timothy McVeigh was that he didn’t bomb New York?

    I repeat: 9/11 was probably the happiest day of her life, since it made her dream of murdered liberals and minorities and Clinton-voters come true. And I’m not being sarcastic, I really do think she is a sociopath who gets off on cruelty and death. She would be just as happy living in Communist Cuba or China, as long as she could write pamphlets denouncing enemies of the state or identifying them for the convenience of the secret police. Cruelty is her goal–the whys and wherefores make no difference.

  91. 91
    Darrell says:

    capelza Says:

    Darrell..I give you no links because I won’t link to NRO or the Corner ever again

    Funny, that’s exactly what the Tacitus post said. I couldn’t find anything on NRO after looking for several minutes or so. Doesn’t sound like NRO to me.

  92. 92
    John Cole says:

    I thought they meant that kind of outing, too, if that makes you feel any better, McNulty.

  93. 93
    JoeTx says:

    This bitch fest is like the officers of the Titanic arguing with the captain over whose fault it was that the ship struck the ice burge all the while ignoring the passengers who just WANT TO GET OFF THE F’ING SINKING SHIP!

  94. 94
    ppGaz says:

    So is she on-target when she says that the ONLY bad thing about Timothy McVeigh was that he didn’t bomb New York?

    Didn’t she say “the New York Times building?”

    She said it in reference to either the OKC or the 911 attack, I don’t remember which.

  95. 95
    capelza says:

    I’m sorry…John and McNulty. I didn’t even think about that. My apologies. His anonimity was taken from him.

  96. 96
    McNulty says:

    I thought they meant that kind of outing, too, if that makes you feel any better, McNulty.

    I followed the link to his resignation from Tacitus and i didn’t read all the comments (especially considering there were 968 of them when i went there) but like the first 20 comments were from being saying they were gay and being outed wasn’t as bad as it seemed.

    Oh well, regardless, i guess i take what i said before, then.

  97. 97
    tBone says:

    I thought they meant that kind of outing, too, if that makes you feel any better, McNulty.

    Me too. And a bunch of people on the Kos diary did as well.

  98. 98
    regardless says:

    What Anee is really talking about is………….humanism.

    She’s right.

  99. 99
    Ancient Purple says:

    Doesn’t sound like NRO to me.

    It is NRO. On their Media Blog. I won’t link to them either. It was vile and shameful.

    In essence, the blog writer got a tip from a troll over at dKos and put up a post that listed Armando’s full name and law firm as well as the name of his clients in an attempt to silence Armando.

    Then, another person tried to list the same information in the dKos wikipedia entry where it referenced Armando. That info has now been scrubbed.

    It clearly is harassment and intimidation in order to silence someone. This Pandora’s box has always been sitting there, and I am concerned that we don’t know if someone just took a peak in or does this mean more outings that will destroy blog anonymity.

    John and Tim F., I implore you to please take a very vocal stand on this and repudiate the NRO and anyone who would support this action, whether they be on the left or the right.

    It is awful and needs to be stopped right now.

  100. 100
    regardless says:

    Out raged, Out ing, Out ing.

    Yes, they went over who gave the order.

  101. 101
    yet another jeff says:

    That kind of outing? Does that mean that he had an advertisement posted and someone pointed it out?

  102. 102

    I don’t think John is going to take any stand on this, because the National Review didn’t sign the online integrity pledge, and besides… Armando is a troublemaker, so it’s ok according to all the exceptions.

    And yes, that was snarky.

  103. 103
    McNulty says:

    OK, I’m clearly missing something here. Can someone answer a couple questions?

    1) Armando is his real name AND the name he used as an anonymous blogger?

    2) If the answer to question #1 is yes to both, and he’s said while blogging that he’s an attorney and what city/state he practices, aren’t there websites and whatever that say the names of people admitted to the bar in each state?

    Granted it would take someone with entirely too much time on their hands to do so, but it doesn’t sound all that difficult to track down his “real” idenity.

  104. 104

    Cole on Coulter

    John Cole: “It kind of goes without saying that Ann went over the top, and made statements that were rude, offensive, and obnoxious. But what did you expect? It is Ann Coulter.”…

  105. 105
    Darrell says:

    It is NRO. On their Media Blog

    Thank you. I found it. Media Blog responds that they didn’t reveal anything new:

    His announcement was so unexpected to me because everything I wrote was based on information that Armando himself had shared with other web sites — his full name, his work affiliation, and his role as a blogger at Daily Kos are all listed together on these sites.

    From one

    Armando Llorens is a Guest Blogger for dailykos.com. He is an attorney who specializes in Intellectual Property and Media issues with the Puerto Rico firm…

    Not sure how hidden his identity was

  106. 106
    capelza says:

    McNulty, sure. Someone could track me down based on my comments here, but to do so and then publically “out” me are two separate things.

    Let’s take Thomas Crown over at Red State. I despise that guy, he makes Armando look like the Prince of Peace, BUT I would be just as appalled if he was outed. I mean that sincerely.

  107. 107
    KCinDC says:

    Does the fact that this can be viewed as a “marketing scheme” by Coulter indicate a difference between treatment of personalities on the right and left? As I recall, when Ted Rall attacked “terror widows”, his cartoon was dropped from a bunch of papers. When Coulter does it, she apparently not only suffers no ill effects, but John believes she actually benefits. IOKIYAR.

  108. 108
    Ancient Purple says:

    Does that mean that he had an advertisement posted and someone pointed it out?

    No. Armando has been listed by full name before. His law firm has also been listed.

    The difference here is that someone got ahold of his client list and has made a concerted effort to list that information in order to create stress on the relationship between Armando and his clients. Since Armando is very vocal and a progressive, the goal was to force conflicts of interest between himself and clients who probably do not share his political beliefs.

    So, what you get are clients who tell Armando to be quiet or lose their business. Or, you get a blogger who feels the need to stop blogging in order to keep his livelihood.

    Either way, someone is attempting to silence someone they disagree with and NRO was more than happy to provide the knife.

    Completely indefensible.

  109. 109
    capelza says:

    Darrel I believe that Media Blog knew exactly what they were doing. The feigned wide eyed suprise is especially ridiculous from a group that prides itself on it’s “intellectual” prowess.

    Like I said above, it wouldn’t be that hard to track down Thomas, but it would be wrong.

  110. 110
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, you want to disagree with Murtha? Go ahead, no problem. But what draws cries of “smear” and “slander” is the accusation that he’s unpatriotic or even traitorous. Is that what you mean by criticism?

    Well I’m not sure how patriotic it is to accuse Marines of ‘cold blooded murder’ before the investigation is over and before the Marines’ have a chance to offer a defense, but still, I haven’t read anyone calling him unpatriotic and certainly not a ‘traitor’. Did you make that strawman up yourself? I was accused of ‘slandering’ Murtha for criticizing him.

  111. 111
    yet another jeff says:

    Thank you, Ancient Purple.

    Quite a bit different…

  112. 112
    Darrell says:

    The difference here is that someone got ahold of his client list and has made a concerted effort to list that information in order to create stress on the relationship between Armando and his clients. Since Armando is very vocal and a progressive, the goal was to force conflicts of interest between himself and clients who probably do not share his political beliefs.

    Now that’s another story, going after his clients. How do you know that? Do you have a link?

  113. 113
    nyrev says:

    As for Gannon? I’ve seen the ONLINE pics of his 8’ cut.

    Eep. I think you meant his 8″ cut.

  114. 114
    capelza says:

    nyrev Says:

    As for Gannon? I’ve seen the ONLINE pics of his 8’ cut.

    Eep. I think you meant his 8” cut.

    Oh hahahaha…dang shift key…

  115. 115
    Ancient Purple says:

    Media Blog responds that they didn’t reveal anything new:

    Then they are lying. Read the original blog entry. NRO specifically names one of Armando’s clients and makes innuendo like “well, wouldn’t that client just love to know what its counsel writes about on his own time.”

    It is a tactic to silence people. And it worked.

    Kudos on a job well done.

    Now, who’s next?

  116. 116
    Ancient Purple says:

    How do you know that? Do you have a link?

    Please go to original blog post (not the one where they say this isn’t information that hasn’t been known). At the end of it, they specifically name one of Armando’s clients.

  117. 117
    tBone says:

    I was accused of ‘slandering’ Murtha for criticizing him.

    You did slander Murtha, Darrell:

    Murtha is actually suggesting that it might be the POLICY of our troops to murder innocent civilians.

    You back-pedaled on it later but you never owned up to your initial (completely inaccurate and disgusting) smear.

  118. 118
    Steve says:

    Well I’m not sure how patriotic it is to accuse Marines of ‘cold blooded murder’ before the investigation is over and before the Marines’ have a chance to offer a defense, but still, I haven’t read anyone calling him unpatriotic and certainly not a ‘traitor’.

    You must not read many righty blogs. Let’s take a sampling of comments from the awesome Redstate diary Murtha the Murderer, written after Murtha made his comments on the Haditha incident:

    Murtha has devolved from DNC hack to defeatocrat to open poltroon. His lying, anti-American swill needs to be shown the door.

    I openly question Murtha’s service. There, I said it.

    I think Murtha has reached that point and should be considered a traitor and turncoat by all veterans.

    At least Benedict Arnold had the character to turncoat and acknowledge his actions.

    His actions are far worse than those of the young Marines IF they are found guilty.

    Jack Murtha’s comments, not just these but his consistent comments over the last couple of years have been a planned and measured effort to undermine the US military and the war effort.

    Kerry’s treason was allowed to slide and I’m sure that Murtha’s will too.

    what he is doing is a thousand times worse than what those Marines did, IF they willfully murdered the civilians.

    Sheehan and Murtha are two peas in a pod. They are not people of “good will”, they are media whores who will use any excuse to promote long held agendas. They are pathetic. They are cowards. In times where people understood we are at war, they would be stoned. With rocks.

    Well, now you’ve read plenty of people calling him unpatriotic and a traitor. Those comments are over the line, right Darrell? Maybe Murtha acted inappropriately in making public comments before the investigation is closed, but you don’t consider it treason, right? You don’t think he is actually anti-America, right? You don’t think he should have rocks thrown at him, right?

    You don’t think that what Murtha did is a thousand times worse than what the Marines are accused of doing, right?

  119. 119
    Darrell says:

    Media Blog responds that they didn’t reveal anything new:

    Then they are lying. Read the original blog entry

    I did, and they provided proof which I linked to above. Here it is again. NRO Media blog said there’s plenty more links where that came from which list Armando’s full name and workplace along with a mention that he is a guest blogger at Daily Kos, but explain that they didn’t want to inflame the situation further by posting all of them. I’m not sure whether or not more such evidence exists, but the one link they did provide seems to cast doubt on how hidden Armando’s identify really was.

  120. 120
    Tom in Texas says:

    There is now a post on BJ concerning Armando. Perhaps we should direct our comments there.

  121. 121
    John S. says:

    Obviously it went over your head that ‘exactly the same’ in that example referred to an equivalent example, not that both sides use this tactic equally. They don’t.

    Of course that is your interpretation of what John was saying. Based on some of his posts in the past few days, I happen to think it is rather obvious that John is stating that both sides DO use the same tactics – contrary to your interpretation otherwise – because often they DO.

    John Cole, what is the verdict on this one? Did you mean to say that the examples are equivalent, or that the tactics were?

  122. 122
    Darrell says:

    Well, now you’ve read plenty of people calling him unpatriotic and a traitor.

    Plenty = 1 blog commenter, not from the original Diary post. Got others? Seriously, I’d like to see them if they exist. Two others at well trafficked right leaning sites would do. And yes, calling Murtha a traitor is way over the top. Contrast that one commenter to the large number of lefists minimizing the death of Zarqawi to get an idea what I’m talking about.

  123. 123
    Darrell says:

    You back-pedaled on it later but you never owned up to your initial (completely inaccurate and disgusting) smear.

    Yes, of course, here is my verbatim “back pedalling” jackass

    Murtha was clearly over the top with his suggestion that the military was so rife with coverups, that if we didn’t do something immediately, despite a full investigation being nearly completed at the time of his accusation, that it would look like civilian murder and coverup was official US military policy.

    Is/was there evidence that civilian murder and coverup of murders is so rampant to justify Murtha’s smear? No, Murtha was politicizing the investigation (which was in it’s final stage at the time of his comments) to promote his own selfish agenda..

  124. 124
    SeesThroughIt says:

    I haven’t read anyone calling him unpatriotic and certainly not a ‘traitor’.

    This one took me all of three seconds to find.

    Notice how the headline of the post calls him “Murtha (D-Enemy Propaganda), and then the end of the post says: “I’ve had it with this Murtha – he’s a damned traitor and there’s an end on it.” (emphasis mine)

    Wanna keep going with this Darrell?

  125. 125
    Steve says:

    Plenty = 1 blog commenter, not from the original Diary post. Got others? Seriously, I’d like to see them if they exist. Two others at well trafficked right leaning sites would do. And yes, calling Murtha a traitor is way over the top. Contrast that one commenter to the large number of lefists minimizing the death of Zarqawi to get an idea what I’m talking about.

    Uh, I quoted nine different comments. The original diary post called Murtha a MURDERER, how did you miss that?

    “Traitor” is one of the nicer things Murtha gets called in the righty blogosphere. I can’t believe you won’t just acknowledge this.

  126. 126
    Darrell says:

    Uh, I quoted nine different comments

    I searched on the word “traitor” and found 1 commenter calling him a traitor and one other saying that “at worst” he might be considered a traitor. I stand corrected on not acknowledging the title of the post, as that certainly is a valid point.

    I can’t believe you won’t just acknowledge this.

    I didn’t see any such thing on Powerline, Captain’s quarters, Blackfive, Instapundit, or Protein Wisdom, which are pretty much most popular conservative blogs out there. They weren’t happy with Murtha, but they certainly didn’t call him a ‘traitor’ from anything I read. If you can find a comment like that on those sites, from what I’ve seen, it would be rare. Now compare that with the number of blogs and commenters on the left who jumped all over our troops over the White Phosphorus ‘chemical weapons’ smear, or the number trying to minimize the death of Zarqawi to see what I’m getting at.

    The right isn’t pure, but it seem so when compared to the left.

  127. 127

    You didn’t all expect Darrell to apologize for his attacks on Murtha did you?

    He’s a righty. When they find out they are wrong, they just forget what they ever said in the past and try to change the subject.

  128. 128
  129. 129
    tBone says:

    Yes, of course, here is my verbatim “back pedalling” jackass

    Thanks for proving my point, Darrell. Can you spot the difference between:

    Murtha is actually suggesting that it might be the POLICY of our troops to murder innocent civilians.

    and:

    Murtha was clearly over the top with his suggestion that the military was so rife with coverups, that if we didn’t do something immediately, despite a full investigation being nearly completed at the time of his accusation, that it would look like civilian murder and coverup was official US military policy.

    Of course you can’t, because then you’d have to admit that your initial knee-jerk reaction (“Murtha said it’s our policy to murder civilians!!) was complete bullshit.

    Keep trying to squirm out of it, though.

  130. 130
    Darrell says:

    You didn’t all expect Darrell to apologize for his attacks on Murtha did you?

    What’s to apologize for? Seriously. Do you defend Murtha’s pre-trial, pre-investigative report public accusation that those Marines are guilty of “cold blooded murder”? Tell us Steve, as I’d like to see how extreme you really are

  131. 131

    To quote Keith Olberman….

    Appearing in Playboy and getting divorced ….neither of those being scenarios Ann Coulter is ever going to have to deal with in her life.

  132. 132
    Darrell says:

    Of course you can’t, because then you’d have to admit that your initial knee-jerk reaction (“Murtha said it’s our policy to murder civilians!!) was complete bullshit.

    Yeah? Murtha’s own words verbatim:

    So, there’s no excuse for not having this be more open and know exactly what — and the longer it goes, the worse it is for us, because it looks like it’s the policy of our troops to do something like this.

    Oh my

  133. 133
    chopper says:

    darrell, you’re an idiot.

    murtha says “because it looks like.” that isn’t him saying “looks to me like it’s the policy of our troops”, he’s saying “the longer it goes on, the more it looks to others like it’s the policy of our troops”. that keeping up cover-ups and putting off accountability makes it look as if this is policy.

    seriously, quoting people so far out of context is intellectually dishonest.

  134. 134
    tBone says:

    So, there’s no excuse for not having this be more open and know exactly what — and the longer it goes, the worse it is for us, because it looks like it’s the policy of our troops to do something like this.

    And Darrell read that to mean:

    Murtha is actually suggesting that it might be the POLICY of our troops to murder innocent civilians.

    You’re a dishonest fucking bitch, Darrell.

  135. 135
    Darrell says:

    You’re a dishonest fucking bitch, Darrell.

    tsk, tsk whackjob

  136. 136
    chopper says:

    truth hurts, darrell. you didn’t think that you could so wildly misquote the dude and you wouldn’t get called onnit, did you?

  137. 137
    Darrell says:

    murtha says “because it looks like.” that isn’t him saying “looks to me like it’s the policy of our troops”, he’s saying “the longer it goes on, the more it looks to others like it’s the policy of our troops”. that keeping up cover-ups and putting off accountability makes it look as if this is policy.

    And I said he suggested “it might be” official policy.

    Murtha was clearly over the top with his suggestion that the military was so rife with coverups, that if we didn’t do something immediately, despite a full investigation being nearly completed at the time of his accusation, that it would look like civilian murder and coverup was official US military policy.

    Is/was there evidence that civilian murder and coverup of murders is so rampant to justify Murtha’s smear? No, Murtha was politicizing the investigation (which was in it’s final stage at the time of his comments) to promote his own selfish agenda..

  138. 138
    tBone says:

    tsk, tsk whackjob

    Has whackjob taken the place of kook in your repertoire? I like kook better – more succinct, and it’s a palindrome.

    C’mon, no defense of your ugly smear of Murtha? You’re not admitting you were wrong, are you? Get that shovel out and keep digging.

  139. 139
    Darrell says:

    chopper Says:

    truth hurts, darrell

    Speaking of truth, why doesn’t even 1 of you whackjobs address Murtha’s comments accusing those Marines of “cold blooded murder”?.. Murtha made those accusations while the investigation was still open and before the Marines had an opportunity to offer a defense.

  140. 140
    Darrell says:

    Has whackjob taken the place of kook in your repertoire?

    I prefer your choice of words, speaking truth to power

    You’re a dishonest fucking bitch

  141. 141
    tBone says:

    And I said he suggested “it might be” official policy.

    Which is a complete misrepresentation of what he said. Which is why you tried to weasel out of it with your second quote.

    Thanks, man, I knew I could count on you. I hope you can still hear me down in that hole.

  142. 142
    tBone says:

    I prefer your choice of words, speaking truth to power

    They weren’t my choice of words, I was just quoting you from the other day. Remember? When Krista called you on some other dishonest bullshit you were trying to peddle.

  143. 143
    chopper says:

    Speaking of truth, why doesn’t even 1 of you whackjobs address Murtha’s comments accusing those Marines of “cold blooded murder”?.. Murtha made those accusations while the investigation was still open and before the Marines had an opportunity to offer a defense.

    murtha is a pipeline for information from high-ranking military. you can bet yer ass that he brought this issue out to do preliminary damage control for the marines.

    as to the marines offering a defense, wha? this isn’t a civilian trial, darrell.

  144. 144
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    I didn’t see any such thing on Powerline, Captain’s quarters, Blackfive, Instapundit, or Protein Wisdom, which are pretty much most popular conservative blogs out there.

    Free Republic, Blackfive, etc. And, rest assured, a dozen more after that. Now fuck off, ya thread queerer.

  145. 145
    Darrell says:

    When Krista called you on some other dishonest bullshit you were trying to peddle.

    I love how you lefties are so obsessed with your phony claims of having “called me” on bullshit, or having “smacked me down” with your truth, and other proclamations of ‘victory’. Hey, since you guys are the final judge, keep it up with that undefeated winning streak you’ve got going there.

  146. 146
    Darrell says:

    you can bet yer ass that he brought this issue out to do preliminary damage control for the marines.

    Preliminary damage control = accusing them of “cold blooded murder” before all the facts are in. Oh, and his agreeing that they are guilty of a My Lai type massacre was another masterful stroke of damage control too

  147. 147
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    I love how you lefties are so obsessed with your phony claims of having “called me” on bullshit, or having “smacked me down” with your truth, and other proclamations of ‘victory’.

    What do we need, a referee? Now back to time out for you. Seeing as how I already smacked you down with the truth and all. :)

  148. 148
    Darrell says:

    Free Republic, Blackfive, etc. And, rest assured, a dozen more after that. Now fuck off, ya thread queerer

    Everyone should read the Blackfive post.. it was excellent. One commenter out of maybe 20 called him a traitor. Is that the example which “proves” your point?

  149. 149
    chopper says:

    Preliminary damage control = accusing them of “cold blooded murder” before all the facts are in. Oh, and his agreeing that they are guilty of a My Lai type massacre was another masterful stroke of damage control too

    yes, it is. cause it makes it out like this was a small number of guys who went batty and the US is not gonna take even one second of that kinda sh1t.

    covering it up and going half-assed only makes it look like we don’t care, or it was intended. hearts and minds and all that.

  150. 150
    PeterJ says:

    …before the Marines had an opportunity to offer a defense.

    Wasn’t their defense that the Iraqis were killed by the IED?

    Or do you get another try each time your defense gets proven wrong?

  151. 151
    tBone says:

    Hey, since you guys are the final judge, keep it up with that undefeated winning streak you’ve got going there.

    What? I’m having trouble hearing you, my damn Leftie teammates hit me in the ear with the cooler when they were dumping the Gatorade on me.

  152. 152

    […] Ann Coulter’s Marketing Scheme […]

  153. 153
    ppGaz says:

    he suggested “it might be”

    Not the same thing as

    it would look like

    Both snippets are from your same post, which purports to represent them as being the same thing.

  154. 154
    Darrell says:

    covering it up and going half-assed only makes it look like we don’t care

    The investigation was in its final stages.. hardly a chance of a cover-up when Murtha made those accusations. And if inciteful accusations of ‘cold blooded murder’ and ‘My Lai’ type comparisons qualify as “damage control” in your book, then I can’t help you with the intellectual honesty issue you raised upthread.

  155. 155
    tBone says:

    And if inciteful accusations of ‘cold blooded murder’ and ‘My Lai’ type comparisons qualify as “damage control” in your book, then I can’t help you with the intellectual honesty issue you raised upthread.

    Run free, little jackalope, run free!

  156. 156
    Darrell says:

    Wasn’t their defense that the Iraqis were killed by the IED?

    I missed the trial. Was that the defense which they presented? oh, wait..

  157. 157
    Steve says:

    Okay, time for some basic truth here.

    Murtha did not say that “it might be” our official policy to cover up massacres. He said, as plain as day, that the longer the investigation drags on, the more it “looks like” it might be our official policy to do so.

    Looks like it TO WHOM? In context, obviously, it looks that way to those who dislike and distrust us. You have to think Murtha is a real piece of shit to believe he was actually trying to say “if this drags on much longer, it’s going to look TO ME like we have an official policy of covering up massacres.”

    Why did Murtha make these statements? What was his agenda? It’s pretty obvious to me. He believes that the investigation should be wrapped up ASAP, because the facts are already clear to everyone who’s looked at them (as shown by the fact that we’ve already compensated the victims’ families, for example) and it’s starting to look bad that the findings haven’t been announced. To my eye, that’s his agenda. He wanted to do his part to defuse the notion that it’s all being kept hush-hush and to publicly encourage the military to issue its report already.

    Do I see another side to the argument? Well, that depends on how it unfolds. If the Marines are actually innocent, I’d say it’s completely horrible to make the statements he did. Since I believe Murtha is a serious guy without an anti-American agenda, I don’t think this will happen. We’ll see.

    I also think that if the facts are seriously in dispute – if the Marines who were involved are going to argue they did nothing wrong – then it’s wrong to give a one-sided presentation. From what I’ve heard, though, the only thing being disputed is that certain individuals are claiming that they weren’t present or weren’t involved, not that the massacre didn’t happen as Murtha described it. Time will tell, of course.

    I accept the argument that we should wait and see what the investigation reveals, etc., but I think Murtha understands that argument too. He just disagrees. He believes the facts are already in and there’s just counterproductive foot-dragging going on, and he wants to encourage the release of the report before it starts to look even worse for the military, like they’re perpetrating a cover-up. You can disagree with his judgment but it doesn’t serve anything to misquote him.

  158. 158
    chopper says:

    The investigation was in its final stages

    ..forced by media reports. prior to that it was a revolving door of half-assed explanations and hopes that the issue would go away.

    in iraq our image needs as much help as it can get. and if some marines go off an a civvy killin spree, they need to be put away toot sweet or its gonna look worse and worse.

    if inciteful accusations of ‘cold blooded murder’ and ‘My Lai’ type comparisons qualify as “damage control” in your book, then I can’t help you with the intellectual honesty issue you raised upthread.

    well of course you couldn’t help me, because you’re so intellectually dishonest. you wouldn’t know it if it bit you in the face.

  159. 159
    chopper says:

    I missed the trial. Was that the defense which they presented? oh, wait..

    marines in a warzone don’t get a trial, darrell.

  160. 160
    Cyrus says:

    In other words- anything the Jersey 4 or Cindy Sheehan states, from a policy standpoint, should be listened to because they are coming from a position of personal sacrifice. If you refute (or try to) their arguments or their policy positions, why, you are attacking a ‘grieving mother!’

    Coming from someone else, I’d call that a strawman. As I’ve said, I would not have any objection to someone refuting (or trying to) their arguments or policy positions. But that’s irrelevant because that hasn’t happened. As I said at http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=5263#comment-58605 (sorry for writing it out, but the preview was weird and I figured better safe than sorry), all we get are personal attacks flying back and forth. Monkeys, or harpies in some cases, flinging shit.

    Furious- You may not try to do that, but there most certainly were large swaths of people who stated we were not allowed to say anything about Cindy Sheehan’s political opinions because she was just a grieving mother, but we were supposed to wholly subscribe to her suggestions regarding iraq, because, after all, she had made the ultimate sacrifice. So while you personally may not have done that, rest assured, there were a number of people who did…

    Examples?
    I strongly doubt it’s the majority of Sheehan’s supporters, but I could be convinced. And I don’t think I ever saw it myself. I’m not asking for what Brad was talking about in what you quoted, which isn’t quite the same thing, I’m asking for an example of the claim that an actual argument refuting her points should not be made, or should not have been made.

    What I have seen is a whole lot people people who are sick of the other side “questioning their patriotiszzz…”, and getting away with it (fill in your example from the other side here, if you want), and having it stick and making an impact. So when a Congressman gets voted out not because of his positions or his history but because his opponent ran an ad that showed him and bin Laden side by side, what’s wrong with looking for a spokesperson who’s harder to vilify?

    If Cindy Sheehan, the Schiavo parents, or the Jersey 4 have ideas, let’s hear them. But let’s quit pretending their ideas are better because of who they come from.

    I agree completely. LET’S TALK ABOUT THEIR DAMN IDEAS. Until the unofficial and official spokespeople in politics these days are willing to talk about the ideas of the people they disagree with rather than calling them names and generally treating them like shit, I have no qualms with looking for spokespeople to whom it’s harder to act that way.

  161. 161
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    One commenter out of maybe 20 called him a traitor.

    Fancy that.

    Is that the example which “proves” your point?

    No, it’s not ‘the’ example, although you apparently ‘missed’ it before–as I said there are easily a dozen more after that. Now stop interrupting our victory party, and go back to fucking off. Screw gatorade, I’m going for the beer…

  162. 162

    That’s Entertainment, Part DCLXVI

    For the time being, Abu al-Zarqawi’s death has eclipsed Ann Coulter in the news, which is as it should be. But I still don’t think I have managed to pin down the distinctions between entertainment, morality, and political discourse. As…

  163. 163
    Eural says:

    After bouncing around dozens of these boards for several years it never ceases to amaze me how so much “discussion” can result in so little actual content.

    Just to take one point – doesn’t it bother anyone that both sides make the same exact claims against the other while engaging in the same reprehensible behavior themselves? For example:

    Both sides do this, but the left does it far more often. I believe it’s because most of their arguments and instincts are rooted purely in emotion.

    This is exactly the complaint of many on the Left about the Right! And why is that both sides are so adament about the evidence when it points at the other but so willing to ignore or excuse it when it reflects on their “team”? And aren’t we all on the same team – TEAM USA?!

    I’m really starting to agree with this idea:

    This bitch fest is like the officers of the Titanic arguing with the captain over whose fault it was that the ship struck the ice burge all the while ignoring the passengers who just WANT TO GET OFF THE F’ING SINKING SHIP!

    Amen.

  164. 164
    ppGaz says:

    passengers who just WANT TO GET OFF THE F’ING SINKING SHIP

    Sorry, we can’t have passengers who just want to cut and run.

    I am Darrell and Mac, and I approve this message.

  165. 165
    John S. says:

    This is exactly the complaint of many on the Left about the Right!

    Not on this board. Thus far, many of us on the left are the ones purporting that overblown rhetoric and hyperbole exist on both sides. Our representatives on the right – Darrell and Brian – seem to think that such things are only found on the left, or are far more prevalent on the left.

    Unfortunately, a partisan wedge has been driven so deep into the heart of this country over the last 5 years that many of us have forgotten we ARE on the same team. This is especially difficult to grasp given that one ‘side’ keeps telling the other ‘side’ that they play for the opposite team every chance they get.

  166. 166
    SeesThroughIt says:

    You have to think Murtha is a real piece of shit

    And that’s exactly where the right wing is: Murtha’s a piece of shit because he dared question or be critical.

  167. 167
    tBone says:

    Our representatives on the right – Darrell and Brian

    Just Darrell now, I’m afraid. The Poster Formally Known as Brian has been send to the Naughty Step.

  168. 168
    Pb says:

    Eural,

    Personally, I don’t go for the “it’s really bad but everybody does it but we do it way less so it’s totally ok” style of reasoning either, especially when we’re talking about issues like murder and torture. Which is why I made fun of all the conservative apologists here who would talk about how we’re “better than Saddam” in Iraq. Yeah, that’s a real selling point there, go America, we’re better than Saddam! One might think that the party of ‘personal repsonsibility’ would–oh I don’t know–hold people accountable when they fuck up and try to improve things, but *no*, when you get to the heart of it, it’s all just a bunch of bullshit, which they apparently believe.

    This is not to say that there aren’t morons on the Left as well–there are morons everywhere, and they should all be ridiculed as such. But the Right seems to base their very identity their platform, their campaigning around it, catering to the biggest morons out there using the biggest lies about how all the gay abortion-on-demand commie limousine hippie illegal Mexican liberals are going to steal their jobs and raise their taxes or whatever the fuck lie it is this week, in the hopes that it will win them elections and allow them to keep robbing the country blind.

  169. 169
    ppGaz says:

    The Poster Formally Known as Brian has been send to the Naughty Step.

    DougJ will be back on with a new handle for “Brian” any day now.

    I propose “My Pet Goat” as the new moniker, but that’s really his choice.

  170. 170
    John S. says:

    Just Darrell now, I’m afraid. The Poster Formally Known as Brian has been send to the Naughty Step.

    Just caught that in the other thread. In the meantime, while someone conjures a new Brian, we have McNulty all too willing to fill those shoes.

  171. 171
    PeterJ says:

    I missed the trial. Was that the defense which they presented? oh, wait..

    Interesting. Does this, “you can’t criticize them until they have presented their defense at a trial”, only apply when critizing troops? Or does it also apply to others too? Even if they are _really_ unpatriotic?

  172. 172
    John S. says:

    Darrell-

    I just realized that Cole already blew a giant hole in your ‘lefties do it more’ theory – despite your assertion to the contrary:

    I don’t want you all to think that ‘the left’ is the only group that seems to do it- both political sides seem to be as cynically manipulative with this sort of thing. It just seems like this happens more now with ‘the left’ than ‘the right,’ which I would guess is because ‘the left,’ at the moment, is operating from a position of no power.

    Next time, learn how to read..

  173. 173
    Krista says:

    The Poster Formally Known as Brian has been send to the Naughty Step.

    Did John go all Supernanny on him? That’s actually kind of funny…

    Darrell, Darrell, Darrell…caught again, I see. When on earth are you going to learn that calling people dishonest does NOT distract from your own terrible habit of deliberately misinterpreting what other people say, and then lying like a cheap rug in order to avoid admitting culpability?

  174. 174
    Darrell says:

    I accept the argument that we should wait and see what the investigation reveals, etc., but I think Murtha understands that argument too. He just disagrees. He believes the facts are already in

    First of all Steve, I appreciate your attempt at civility.. Murtha damn sure better have some ‘slam dunk’ evidence, ala Rodney King type video to justify the flame throwing accusations that he’s made. I think anything short of that sort of video proof makes him a scumbag sack of sh*t for accusing them of “cold blooded murder” and comparing their behavior to My Lai before the investigation closed and before the marines could offer their defense.. irregardless of whether or not the Marines turn out to be guilty. If patriotism means anything, at a minimum it means giving our guys the benefit of the doubt. I believe there are few on the left which agree with that.

    I heard over the radio that Murtha didn’t want to give our troops credit for getting Zarqawi. If that is in fact true, that’s one more piece of evidence that Jack Murtha is willing to put party ahead of country. We’ll see

  175. 175
    Darrell says:

    Next time, learn how to read..

    Me not entiendo ingles, ok? Sounds like John acknowledges the obvious.. that the left is far more likely to be cynically manipulative. He just thinks it’s because you loons are out of power, rather than inherent in who you are as leftists.

  176. 176
    Darrell says:

    Next time, learn how to read..

    Me not entiendo ingles, ok? Sounds like John acknowledges the obvious.. that the left is far more likely to be cynically manipulative. He just thinks it’s because you loons are out of power, rather than inherent in who you are as leftists.

  177. 177
    Steve says:

    I think My Lai was brought up by the interviewer, not by Murtha, so it’s not like he volunteered the comparison out of the blue. I feel Murtha answered that question badly, and that he could have easily disavowed that characterization without minimizing the Haditha incident in any way. I won’t pillory the guy for it, but I think you can be honest about the incident – which is his whole point, we should be honest about it – without letting yourself be drawn into inflammatory territory.

    Like I said, if we find after the investigation concludes that there’s even a serious dispute as to whether the crimes occured, then I’ll agree it wasn’t right to make a one-sided presentation. But we’ll have to wait and see if it actually turns out like that.

  178. 178
    Darrell says:

    Apologies for the double post above

    And that’s exactly where the right wing is: Murtha’s a piece of shit because he dared question or be critical.

    No, barring video evidence, he is a sack of of shit for accusing those Marines of “cold blooded murder” while the investigation was still open.. very damaging and prejudicial statement to be made unless there turns out to be slam dunk evidence. Obviously, you think what Murtha did was honorable, without knowing any details.. What does that say about you and those who feel the same as you?

  179. 179
    Steve says:

    I heard over the radio that Murtha didn’t want to give our troops credit for getting Zarqawi. If that is in fact true, that’s one more piece of evidence that Jack Murtha is willing to put party ahead of country. We’ll see

    Well, here’s what I found at Technorati:

    Murtha [Jonah Goldberg]
    In an interview with CNN he stays on message. There’s no reason necessarily to think we needed troops in Iraq to get Zarqawi and “we cannot win this.” Video and transcript here.

    UPDATE: A reader writes: “Murtha actually said “we cannot win this militarily”. His qualification is crucial, and it’s dishonest to ignore that.”

    Fair point, though I hardly think I was being dishonest in pointing people to the video and transcript.

    Setting aside the pretty lame misquote by Goldberg, I’m going to take Murtha’s side 100% here. I’ve always been of the belief that our continued presence in Iraq serves to galvanize the homegrown insurgents against us, and that if we were to withdraw, Shia and Sunnis alike would get tired of Zarqawi butchering Iraqis pretty quickly and root him out. Now, that’s just my personal belief, but I never believed that Zarqawi, left to his own devices, had the ability to destabilize the new government with only his little group.

    Remember, too, Murtha’s plan called for redeployment of our forces to a nearby location where they would be available if necessary. This would include a situation where the Iraqis found out Zarqawi’s hiding spot and asked us for help in taking him out. So I think he’s making a very fair point to say that even if his plan had been adopted, it’s entirely possible that Zarqawi would still be a dead man as we speak. In any event, it’s a completely different point from “refusing to give our troops credit.”

  180. 180
    tBone says:

    No, barring video evidence, he is a sack of of shit for accusing those Marines of “cold blooded murder” while the investigation was still open.. very damaging and prejudicial statement to be made unless there turns out to be slam dunk evidence.

    Darrell, serious question: do you really think Murtha is out to hurt the Marines or the armed forces here? I’m genuinely curious about your thought process here.

  181. 181
    Darrell says:

    I think My Lai was brought up by the interviewer, not by Murtha, so it’s not like he volunteered the comparison out of the blue. I feel Murtha answered that question badly

    Had Murtha said something like “if this turns out to be the case” or another similar qualifier, no one would have said sh*t. But he didn’t give those Marines any possibility of innocence with his statements… none whatsoever. Did he make those accusations based on less than certain evidence? Like you said, time will tell. Based on what I heard Murtha said today (admittedly 2nd hand at this point), if those comments turn out to be true and in context, it seems he is too much of a partisan hack to be trusted

  182. 182
    Steve says:

    Obviously, you think what Murtha did was honorable, without knowing any details.. What does that say about you and those who feel the same as you?

    Speaking only for myself, it means I believe Murtha is an honorable guy who wouldn’t just make these allegations without a good basis. My opinion stands open to revision if we later find that the case is anything but clearcut. There’s nothing wrong with believing Murtha is a credible and honorable source, though – it doesn’t “say” anything about the left.

    Frankly, I probably disagree with the guy on a lot of political issues, but I look at him, I watch him talk, and I just don’t get the feeling that he’s some kind of partisan bombthrower. That’s my judgment.

  183. 183
    John S. says:

    Sounds like John acknowledges the obvious.. that the left is far more likely to be cynically manipulative.

    What part of “both political sides seem to be as cynically manipulative with this sort of thing” didn’t you understand you willfully deceptive gasbag?

    Yet somehow in your wormy little brain, that’s John indicting the left.

  184. 184
    Darrell says:

    Darrell, serious question: do you really think Murtha is out to hurt the Marines or the armed forces here? I’m genuinely curious about your thought process here.

    From what I’ve heard from Murtha, I think he really is willing to hurt armed forces in order to score political points. How else to explain his flame throwing accusations before the investigation was closed?.. or his attempts to undermine military recruiting. Do you seriously believe he has acted honorably?

  185. 185
    tBone says:

    Do you seriously believe he has acted honorably?

    Until/unless we learn otherwise, I’m inclined to believe the speculation that he’s acting as a conduit for high-ups in the Corps, so they can somewhat control the release of information. The guy was in the Marines for decades, and from what I know about him I have trouble believing that he would throw them under the bus for political advantage. There’s nothing in his reputation that would suggest that kind of cynicism. FWIW, the two Marines in my immediate family (one current, one former) agree.

  186. 186
    Darrell says:

    Speaking only for myself, it means I believe Murtha is an honorable guy who wouldn’t just make these allegations without a good basis

    My impression is the 180 degree opposite based on reasons I’ve stated. You may turn out to be right. If it turns out there was some sort of incredibly compelling evidence to implicate those marines, I’ll acknowledge my assumption was wrong. I’ll look to see what all Murtha said today later. If he’s been misquoted, then let’s hear everything he said in full context before coming to judgement. More benefit of the doubt than he gave those marines [/parting shot]

  187. 187
    Steve says:

    Until/unless we learn otherwise, I’m inclined to believe the speculation that he’s acting as a conduit for high-ups in the Corps, so they can somewhat control the release of information.

    To qualify this somewhat, I don’t believe there is some kind of coordinated strategy by Marine bigwigs to let the information trickle out through Murtha as a form of damage control. What I do believe is that there are some higher-ups in the Marines who are frustrated that the report hasn’t been released more quickly, and are worried about how the delay will look, and Murtha is channeling that sentiment. Just my read on a complex situation.

  188. 188
    Darrell says:

    There’s nothing in his reputation that would suggest that kind of cynicism

    How about his very public comments that if he were of age, he would not join the military? Help me understand how else to interpret those comments other than Jack Murtha trying to undermine military recruiting. What is the other possible scenario, the honorable scenario, to interpret those comments?

  189. 189
    Darrell says:

    What I do believe is that there are some higher-ups in the Marines who are frustrated that the report hasn’t been released more quickly, and are worried about how the delay will look, and Murtha is channeling that sentiment. Just my read on a complex situation

    Reasonable conclusion. What doesn’t fit however, are his accusations of “murder in cold blood” while the investigation was still ongoing. I could understand Murtha screaming over delays, but his accusations of guilt before trial, or even before the investigation concluded, is the real issue IMO.

  190. 190
    tBone says:

    What is the other possible scenario, the honorable scenario, to interpret those comments?

    That he was sharing his personal opinion? Or has Murtha been picketing recruiting stations while I wasn’t paying attention?

    I, personally, don’t think Murtha would disgrace his years of service by trying to smear the Marines. You can argue with his methods if you like, but I think his intentions are honorable.

    Steve – good qualification. I didn’t mean to imply there was a grand strategy at work, but I do think Murtha’s acting as a relief valve of sorts.

  191. 191
    Darrell says:

    That he was sharing his personal opinion?

    At a time of military recruiting shortfalls, he chooses to make public statements like that, and you excuse it as merely “sharing his opinion”? Please. I guess as usual, we’ll be waving at each other (or throwing rocks?) across that great divide.

  192. 192
    tBone says:

    I guess as usual, we’ll be waving at each other (or throwing rocks?) across that great divide.

    No rock-throwing. But I’m only going to wave with one finger. :)

  193. 193
    Pb says:

    Darrell,

    his attempts to undermine military recruiting

    You’re kidding, right? Jack Murtha is *so* serious about keeping our military strong that he did something that no Republican Congressman had the balls to do–he voted to bring back the draft.

  194. 194

    John, your analysis is flawed at its basis. You say (to paraphrase) the N.J. widows presume to speak with unassailable moral authority due to their sacrifice.

    Actually, those widows suffered loss of their loved ones. Unless some spectacular news has been withheld, they didn’t knowingly or willingly give up their husbands on 9-11.

    This is a distinction with a difference.

    What the fact these women have suffered such a personal loss does is provide some gravitas, lend some credence, to what they have to say.

    The supposition they’re attempting open-ended emotional blackmail doesn’t ring true. It strikes me as purely an “eye of the beholder” thing.

    From what I’ve seen of them, they are thoroughly decent, intelligent, articulate women. Like many who’ve been through loss of a loved one, they want the loss to count for something, to mean something. That’s understandable.

    Does it mean we all have to agree with them 100 percent? No, it doesn’t.

  195. 195
    PeterJ says:

    How about his very public comments that if he were of age, he would not join the military?

    Then at least he’s honest.

    What do you think the rest of the Congress would do if they were of age? Or the Senate? Or the President, the VP and the rest of the current administration?

    Obviously it’s a really hard job to second guess, but lots of them showed us their true colors during the Vietnam and Korean wars…

  196. 196
    chopper says:

    No, barring video evidence, he is a sack of of shit for accusing those Marines of “cold blooded murder” while the investigation was still open..

    so now reasonable suspicion necessitates *video evidence*? hell, now i’m gonna haveta change my opinion on the OJ verdict.

  197. 197

    Coulter goes around slitting throats and the only thing that happened to her was that her Adam’s apple was shaved.

  198. 198
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    There are times when I’ve been firmly convinced that Ann Coulter is pulling our legs. There have been other times when I’ve been equally firmly convinced that we’ve finally found out what happened after the Bad Seed grew up. Andrew Sullivan’s blog entry today (“Cracking the Da Bitchy Code”) may finally answer the question.

  199. 199

    Here’s an idea. Go to your public library. Ask about their policy on reviewing and banning obsence materials. Have Coulter’s books pulled for being ‘offensive’ to community standards. It might start a censorship war, but you know something? Her books are offensive: they’re sloppy, poorly sourced, and intentionally insulting and derogatory of others.

  200. 200
    Jon Swift says:

    I completely agree that liberals are always trying to appeal to emotions while conservatives like Coulter try to have a rational discussion about ideas.

  201. 201
    J. Allexon says:

    Coulter is correct. If a person says anything in a public forum what they say is open for debate, support and criticism. If these widows didn’t want to be criticised they should not have made public statements.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. That’s Entertainment, Part DCLXVI

    For the time being, Abu al-Zarqawi’s death has eclipsed Ann Coulter in the news, which is as it should be. But I still don’t think I have managed to pin down the distinctions between entertainment, morality, and political discourse. As…

  2. […] Ann Coulter’s Marketing Scheme […]

  3. Cole on Coulter

    John Cole: “It kind of goes without saying that Ann went over the top, and made statements that were rude, offensive, and obnoxious. But what did you expect? It is Ann Coulter.”…

Comments are closed.