Sage NBC Reporter Defends Insightfulness of Ann Coulter
By Mona
.
Americablog has video and sums up NBC’s David Gregory, who tsk-tsks that one simply needs to learn to understand that Ann makes oh-so-very serious points, and it is short-sighted for Elizabeth Edwards or anyone else to focus on Ann’s hateful rhetoric:
Because, you know, if you strip away the fact that Coulter advocated the assassination of a leading presidential candidate, and mocked his dead son, there’s really such an important message buried inside.
The Klan is very good on the issue of gun control; is there anything else you need to know?
« « Just in: Lugar Isn’t Going to Be NRO’s MVP! | Main | What caliber for hunting giant tropical penguins? » »
Comment by cfw —
June 28, 2007 @ 2:31 pm
Perhaps it would be helpful to build a chronology and exhibit list and witness list re Coulter. Publicize her background at least through law school. Point out she is trained to debate without sensational attacks like “faggot” and “he uses his dead son like a bumper sticker” and “wish he had been murdered.”
She chooses to get in the gutter to sell books and then projects her negativity and harridan (read: bitch) status on others like E. Edwards.
Gather a library of all the writings, and who bought them, so her 5 NYT best sellers claim can be debunked or put in perspective.
List the folks who employ her and contract with her, or who have done so, and get their comments on the record about “this is good” or “she should do it again” or not. Find out who does her legal work, her CPA and her publicist. Reconstruct, from public records, what she has in the way of cash flow (income and expense) from her ventures and lifestyle. Collect and publicize pictures and video, as allowed by law.
Then those who might want to cross swords with her or interfere, legally, with her prospective economic advantage (or her enablers) could do so with minimal effort.
Those who oppose AC need to build the allegory (story or talking points) that puts AC in her place. After all, that is what she does for Edwards – turn about is fair play. If she cannot take the heat, etc.
Same “flyspeck the history” treatment is logical for Rush and Hannity.
Comment by Jim —
June 28, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
“List the folks who employ her and contract with her, or who have done so, and get their comments on the record about “this is good†or “she should do it again†or not. Find out who does her legal work, her CPA and her publicist. Reconstruct, from public records, what she has in the way of cash flow (income and expense) from her ventures and lifestyle. Collect and publicize pictures and video, as allowed by law.”
-quoted from cfw
In other words, use any legal means to destroy her because you don’t like what she says. It appears that the word “legal” is the only thing that separates you from Pol Pot, Stalin or Mao. The Proletarian revolution has begun. Kill the bourgeoise!
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
June 28, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Gregory is right. Even if some people express it in distasteful ways, the cold, hard fact remains: Michael Moore really is fat. There’s just no getting around it.
Comment by Davebo —
June 28, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
Wow! Talk about melodramatic! Pol Pot?
I’d say there’s a big difference between pushing Anne’s financial supporters to comment one way or another on her ramblings and killing 2 million people.
But that’s just how I roll….
Comment by Uncle Kvetch —
June 28, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Ann Coulter is exactly like that guy who stood in front of a tank in Tienanmen Square. Only braver.
Comment by Mona —
June 28, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Yeah, I agree and so can only wonder where my priority-o-meter got the gauging effed up.
And Unc Kvetch, yes, she is many magnitudes braver. We all know that, so please stop stating the obvious.
That is all.
Comment by Underpants Gnome —
June 28, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Urging boycotts and putting pressure on the folks who do business with someone whose words are deemed offensive… isn’t that exactly what the Right has done to… the Dixie Chicks, Jim Zumbo, Rosie O’Donnel, rappers like Ice-T and Sistah Souljah, and numerous others I’m forgetting?
And to clarify, I think that’s fine. Nothing wrong with a good shunning, either social or economic. It’s non-violent, and it’s free-market.
Comment by sglover —
June 28, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
This is sarcasm, right? Because as a straight comment, it’s unhinged.
Comment by Glaivester —
June 28, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
That is all.
Mona – have you been reading my blog?
and mocked his dead son
Technically, she mocked what she saw as his exploitation of his dead son, althoug that was still a subject that it was in poor taste to bring up.
One problem I noticed with Coulter during that Chris Matthews interview is that she wasn’t willing to defend the suubstance of her remark. If she wasn’t going to take back what she said, she should haveat least been willing to defend it.
If she had said “listen, I’;m sorry that your son is dead. But I think that your husband was exploiting his death for political gain, and I cannot in good faith take it back. Perhaps I could have been a little less flip, but you should be angry at him, not me,” at least she would hav been seen to have the courage of her convictions.