As does your analysis of the situation, I’m afraid.
Coulter’s point wasn’t that “Someone said something bad about Cheney, so I’m justified in saying something bad about someone else”. Her point was that after Maher expressed his wish that Cheney had died, no one in the media made a big deal of it; therefore, apparently, instead of commenting on Edwards’ hair, she would be better off in terms of lack of media outrage to wish Edwards’ dead…unless of course the media were to appear hypocritical, which of course it does.
It doesn’t appear to me that she was advocating Murtha be fragged, only that behavior such as his has been known to result in it.
But, having said that, look, I’m not defending Ann Coulter in toto; I’m taking issue with some of the comments made about her in this thread. Coulter says a lot of outrageous things, many of which I don’t agree with and many of which I couldn’t blame anyone on the left for taking offense at.
But mostly I’m pissed that a perfectly good Pit thread about Nancy Grace ran out of steam because so many comments were being made about Ann Coulter.
“Former senator John Edwards, D-N.C., has raised his own expectations by squeezing every iota of sympathy – at least the kind that can be turned into dollars – out of Ann Coulter’s not-quite attack. This will look either, A) inspired, or B) desperate, and the answer will depend on whether he tops $10-$12 million for the quarter (no matter how many times the campaign insists the real goal is $9 million, remember that he raised $14 million in the first quarter).”
Your own post stated “The Hill mak[es] it look like Coulter “wished Edwards was dead” with absolutely no context in regard to Maher’s comments about Cheney, which inspired Coulter’s remark.”
There is no “context” that justifies Coulter’s remarks. Maher saying something about Cheney has nothing to do with Coulter wishing Edwards would be assassinated, because there is no connection whatsoever between Edwards and Cheney or Edwards and Maher. She is bringing Edwards into a fight that didn’t involve him, solely to attack Edwards, and NOT to attack Maher or the “liberal media.”
Even if she attempts to fob it off as an example of “liberal media hypocrisy”, that again is a false comparison, because Maher is a comedian with a little-watched cable show, and Coulter is feted and promoted by the GOP and Fox News, and sells millions of books.
Of COURSE it’s a bigger deal when Coulter wishes death on someone than when Maher does it, especially when the person she wished death on had absolutely ZIP to do with Maher vs. Cheney. And it has nothing at all to do with liberal bias.
You still don’t get it. That context is irrelevant in this case. The Hill article has nothing to do with the reasons why Coulter said something nasty about Edwards. It’s only about how Edwards used the fact that Coulter said something nasty about him to goose up his campaign fundraising with “Coulter cash”.
Coulter’s motivations for her nasty remarks are no more relevant, in the context of this story, than the facts that she has blond hair and is 45 years old, both of which also went unmentioned in the Hill article.
Now, if you were complaining that Edwards’ campaign literature was biased, because he played up the nasty things Coulter said about him without explaining the context that makes them seem slightly less nasty, you’d have a point. But do you really expect the campaign propaganda of any politician, of whatever political stripe, to tell both sides of any story?
Pretending that the Hill article ought to have provided the mitigating context of Coulter’s nasty remarks, when it was entirely irrelevant to the point of the article, doesn’t make the media look biased: it just makes you look stupid.
Au contraire! This is unmitigated hooey on your part. The Hill article was crafted in such a way as to change the context of Coulter’s remarks to make it look like she in point of fact wished that Edwards were dead. This is not the case at all, and while I certainly understand the motivation of the Edwards campaign to make hay of her remarks, it is my contention that The Hill took it a step further and deliberately phrased its reportage to distort - and therefore dishonestly portray - the intent of Coulter’s remark with the intent of villainizing her (even more than she does herself ;)).
It was more relevant to the point of the article than was the dishonest way in which her comments were taken out of context to make it seem she expressed wishes that she hadn’t. Or is it merely your contention that The Hill is little more than a PR outlet for Edwards and therefore the expectation of honesty and proper context is naive?
Well, now, you’re making me blush! Still, it’s always nice to get a compliment from one of the ilk. Thanks.
This twisted interpretation does nothing but illustrate your own anti-liberal bias. We already know from your posting history that you see liberal media spinners under every bed, but you don’t make your feeble case any more convincing by adducing such ridiculously distorted instances.
Once again, the Hill article was reporting on what the Edwards campaign was saying about Coulter’s remarks and how they were using them to inspire sympathy and donations. The context of why Coulter said what she said about Edwards is simply not relevant.
Note that the headline is “Once again, Edwards camp turns to cash cow Coulter”. The only point of the article is the fact that the Edwards campaign is exploiting Coulter’s remarks for its own propaganda.
If the headline had been something like “Edwards and Coulter mutually hostile” or “Presidential campaigns getting nastier with death-wishing attacks”, then you’d have a point in arguing that the article should provide background about what was said and why it was said. But in the circumstances, your silly accusation doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Kimstu, please italicize words or phrases you wish to emphasize. When you underline them they look like links and I truly do feel stupid trying to click on them.
Why do the straight line gods only smile on me while I’m at work?
ETA: Actually, underlining is better than italicizing in the following respect: The emphasis does not go away when the post is quoted.
Maybe we should all agree to add emphasis with bolding. bolding? Who’s he? Or she? And what did bolding post that his/her name is being brought into it?
We really must remember that people like Coulter, Moore, Limbaugh, Franken, Stewart, and others are entertainers (I know–Franken’s trying to get serious). If they can generate emotion with what they do, whether that emotion be amusement, rage, or bemusement, then they have succeeded. Bland prose about your political opinions may work if you’re a presidential candidate, but if you want to earn the big bucks with books, movies, speeches, and TV shows, then you’d better entertain people!
Coulter may or may not have a cohesive political agenda that she believes in strongly. It doesn’t matter. If she gets outrageous enough, people will remember her, and to an entertainer all publicity is good. The looks, the mannerisms, the outrageousness of her speech–it’s all part of a carefully-crafted veneer that makes her a memorable caricature of a real conservative political pundit. If someone’s in a bookstore looking for a conservative political book, they’ll recognize her name and/or her picture, and that’s step one in getting them to fork over their twenty bucks.
Really, folks. Do you take her seriously? Doesn’t she make you laugh?
Do you ever wonder whether “pundits” like Coulter are actually intentional backlash-generators? It’s like defacing your own campaign posters to make it look like your opponent is a jerk. Perhaps she’s actually a Kerry supporter, and she’s trying to help him by generating sympathy and making conservatives look bad.
I don’t actually believe this, but it does make you think, doesn’t it?
Do you find rage and amazement at another’s callousness entertaining? Because I sure don’t.
Not to a good entertainer. Do you see Meryl Streep making sex videos to get extra publicity? Does Ian Holm feel the need to rant and scream against other actors he doesn’t like if one of his movies tanks at the box office? Even good shock jocks know that (a)There’s a limit and (b)Whatever you say had better have some substance behind it. That’s why Howard Stern is still making millions on the air while Don Imus is off somewhere feeding his horses in enforced retirement.
People with real talent and real insight don’t have a problem selling political books without generating outrage. George Will has sold millions of books, for example, and if you’ve heard of Ann Coulter, chances are you’ve heard of George Will, too. And yet, reading Will’s books, I might disagree with him, but I don’t feel the urge to get my religion back just so that I can pray for God to bring out-of-control Mack trucks into his life.
Even Al Franken, as much as he annoys me, makes his case very well, to the point where he’s changed a lot of my political beliefs. He uses humor to make his point, and he can go too far, but not as often and nowhere near to the extent that Coulter does. This is because Al is intelligent and funny (even when he does go too far, and because he’s a genuinely better person than Coulter is. I don’t see Ann entertaining the troops overseas. In short, Al Franken is a good entertainer, and Ann Coulter isn’t.
