Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

[Rosebud]

I sort of wish that a class act like Elizabeth Edwards wouldn't stoop to speak to a slimeball like Ann Coulter, but at the same time, I love her for telling Ann where to go.

Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/NEWS09/706280382/1056)

Elizabeth Edwards said Wednesday that she hopes other Americans will do what she was trying to do when she confronted conservative pundit Ann Coulter on national television this week. Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, said in an interview that it's time to put the brakes on the hateful speech spewed by people like Coulter. "It may take a while, but if we don't start, it'll take forever," she said.

The confrontation came Tuesday while Coulter was appearing on MSNBC's "Hardball." Elizabeth Edwards called the show and asked Coulter to refrain from using insulting language. Coulter laughed and accused Edwards of telling her to stop speaking.

Among other things, Coulter has referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" and recently said she wished he had died in a terrorist attack. In her call to the show, Elizabeth Edwards said Coulter once wrote that John Edwards probably had a bumper sticker on his car saying, "Ask me about my dead son." That was a reference to the Edwardses' teenage son, Wade, who was killed in a traffic accident. Coulter smiled and wondered aloud why a candidate's wife was making such a call. Edwards responded: "I'm the mother of that boy who died."

[sublime311]

Ugh, Coulter makes my blood boil. I hope there is a special place in hell for that hate monger.

ETA: Oops, did I come across as a hate monger, myself!?

[isign]

I think it's sad that people (on both sides) go to this extent. Seriously, argue the issues, the candidates positions, but quit attacking them on personal levels. While I don't particularly care for Edwards as president, or his views, I would never wish a person dead.

[camberne]

I can tell you that I'm not the only Republican who very much dislikes Ann Coulter. I honestly had never heard of her until the political forums on WC and CC. Like they say ~ ignorance is bliss!! I wish someone would muzzle both her and Pat Robertson!!

[artist]

First of all, I am SOOOOOOOOOO glad that some of the Republicans here on CC don't like Coulter either! (To those of you who posted here so far, my level of respect for you has just increased about a million times! :) I've seen other Republicans on here and on WC say things like Ann Coulter is "sharp as a tack"! :rolleyes: Wow!)

Ugh! I already knew I couldn't stand Coulter, but the more that bigot talks, the more I can't stand her! Why ANYONE in their right mind would even agree with that hate spewing venomous beast is beyond me.

Thanks for posting that link. I just e-mailed it to a LOT of my beloved Democrat friends.

ETA:
Oh, and thanks for giving me yet ANOTHER reason to love the Edwards family!

[Rosebud]

None of my Republican friends like Coulter, either. She's pretty far out there and I think most people don't respond to that kind of hateful rhetoric.

[artist]

None of my Republican friends like Coulter, either. She's pretty far out there and I think most people don't respond to that kind of hateful rhetoric.

Lucky you! I've known some Republicans who I think actually DID like her. I guess I chalk that up to the fact that unfortunately there is still a LOT of disgusting hatred and bigotry that exists in the world and MANY more battles to be fought.

However, as for Coulter, I think she goes beyond bigotry. To say she wishes Edwards would have died in a terrorist attack is just plain evil and disgusting! In fact, I would argue that makes HER a terrorist! She oughta be locked up in a prison camp with a black bag over her head for that! What an insane thing for her to say! Who paid her to say that bullshit anyway? Cheney? Yuck!

[Asha]

i don't consider her a serious republican. i consider her a hateful political entertainer.

[artist]

i don't consider her a serious republican. i consider her a hateful political entertainer.

Good point!

[meatpie]

None of my Republican friends like Coulter, either. She's pretty far out there and I think most people don't respond to that kind of hateful rhetoric.

None of my Republican friends do either. I can't stand her.

[Niobe]

Coulter smiled and wondered aloud why a candidate's wife was making such a call. Edwards responded: "I'm the mother of that boy who died."

Ouch. I bet Coulter didn't even have the grace to look a bit ashamed at that. :rolleyes: Words cannot express my absolute disgust and hatred of that nasty little creature.

[amew]

Ann Coulter is just a bad, bad person.

Sadly, several of my Republican friends do like and read her (including my two friends who work in the Bush Administration), though I think even they see her as more of an entertainer than a serious political figure. I do actually know someone who named their baby Coulter after her. IMO, it would be hard to imagine a worse name sake, but to each their own, I suppose.

[greenbunny]

She is no more a Republican than Fred Phelps is a Christian.

[Sarah]

Yeah- she's an entertainer, not a real political figure. I can't believe she said that to Mrs. Edwards; she has no shame.

[pocket]

i think i am going to start spending a little time every day hoping that ann coulter's hair falls out. what a bitch.

[rubyredslippers]

I bet she would crunch just a like a cockroach if someone stepped on her.

[Anna Low]

How anyone could consider this person an "entertainer" and pay them money is beyond my comprehension. What part of her vile filth can in any way, shape, form or fashion be described as "entertaining", worthwhile or of value? I believe one of her recent slurs was something about a bumpersticker and the Edward's deceased child. How could any parent, regardless of their political views, find any humor in such a comment?

Curious - none of her defenders have offered any commentary about what happened.

[Gatsby]

Ugh. She's awful. I actually went to hear her speak a year or so ago just to see if she was really crazy - she is. She spent the entire time heckling the hecklers and telling the Young Republicans group that brought her to the school that they should be beating the asses of the hecklers. It was embarrassing. Oh, and yes, she does look like this in person:

http://images.stockxpert.com/pic/m/k/kl/klikk/475166_50486229.jpg

[Dally]

Annalow--ITA. I really don't understand how people find such hateful speech entertaining. To bring someone's dead child into her nasty speech is beyond vile. I will never understand why some people like that.

[sublime311]

Here is the YouTube clip of the exchange: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6BBDcZqSF0

[artist]

Ann Coulter is just a bad, bad person.

Sadly, several of my Republican friends do like and read her (including my two friends who work in the Bush Administration), though I think even they see her as more of an entertainer than a serious political figure. I do actually know someone who named their baby Coulter after her. IMO, it would be hard to imagine a worse name sake, but to each their own, I suppose.

Poor child! I've heard of people naming their babies Reagan. I always thought THAT was really dumb/sad too!

[wendalah]

I kind of like the name Reagan :o

[isign]

My cousin is Reagan. I don't think we really could compare the two names, or even the people. Totally different categories.

I do find it interesting that no one has spoken to her defense yet.

[Southlooper]

Wasn't Reagan a character in a Shakespeare play?
Reagan was also Lind Blair's character's name in The Exorcist.

My SIL worked with Ms. Coulter back when she was working for Spencer Abraham. From all the stories I heard she seems very angry and self-hating.

Pity her...

[Esq.]

I know for certain that there are several ladies on CC who are Coulter fans. I would love to hear from them re: the Edwards/Coulter exchange.

[wendalah]

I would love to hear from them re: the Edwards/Coulter exchange.


What for? So you can rip them to shreds? I'm sure you wouldn't take what they had to say seriously.

I'm not a fan, btw. I occasionally used to find her funny in a shock-jock way, but lately she's just being ridiculous and seeing how far she can go.

[LyLMyssChaos]

I know for certain that there are several ladies on CC who are Coulter fans. I would love to hear from them re: the Edwards/Coulter exchange.

As one of the "Coulter fans" that you speak of, I think that one needs to first of all, put the entire conversation into context.

She said:
"Though about the same time Bill Maher said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word.

[snip]

But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

She didn't say that she wished him dead, but rather that the next time she is going to say something negative about him she'd say something like that because Bill Maher seemed to be able to "get away" with saying such a thing about Dick Cheney.

[Niobe]

Yeah, seeing a larger cut of the conversation isn't making it look much less awful. I like her defense of not calling Edwards "the f-word". So basically, she would have called Edwards "the f-word" but she might get in trouble. Yup, that's a lot better!

What's the context of "ask me about my dead son"? That was from something Coulter said in the past, right? Is there any context in which making fun of someone's dead child is appropriate?

ETA: I found the context for the dead son comments. full article here (http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119)

If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.

Man, I SO do not blame Elizabeth Edwards for finally going off on Coulter.

[kimbyj]

BTW, was anyone as surprised as I was to see how bad EE looked? The news kept saying she looked "robust" - HUH? I thought she looked terrible. IMO, she has lost weight and aged quite a bit since re-announcing her bout with cancer. I hope she'll be okay.

[Asha]

How anyone could consider this person an "entertainer" and pay them money is beyond my comprehension. What part of her vile filth can in any way, shape, form or fashion be described as "entertaining", worthwhile or of value? I believe one of her recent slurs was something about a bumpersticker and the Edward's deceased child. How could any parent, regardless of their political views, find any humor in such a comment?
uh, i was the one who originally called her an entertainer. just bc i categorize her as an entertainer doesn't mean i think she is entertaining. at least, i hope that's not what you thought. there are lots of forms of entertainment out there that i find vile and disgusting, but its still there.

[Sarah]

How anyone could consider this person an "entertainer" and pay them money is beyond my comprehension. What part of her vile filth can in any way, shape, form or fashion be described as "entertaining", worthwhile or of value? I believe one of her recent slurs was something about a bumpersticker and the Edward's deceased child. How could any parent, regardless of their political views, find any humor in such a comment?I don't actually find her entertaining- what I meant is that she is just there to make money and shock people, not to provide any intelligent or insightful commentary.

[Esq.]

What for? So you can rip them to shreds? I'm sure you wouldn't take what they had to say seriously.

Unfortunately, I have no choice but to take what they say seriously. When they say they respect her, and think that she is "sharp as a tack", I take that at face value and recognize that, albeit it quite shocking to me, there are people out there who take her seriously. And I take that seriously.

And why do I want them to post a viewpoint? Bc I don't understand AT ALL how anyone can admire and respect her.


ETA: Wendy, you have stated on many occasions that you don't understand why liberals get all worked up about her. You have said that you don't take her seriously, and that no one really takes her seriously. But there are people who do, and some of them are on CC. Don't you want to hear from someone who take AC seriously, or do you just not care that some people really do ascribe to AC's "point of view"? See, i find it disturbing that some people ascribe to her point of view, and I take them, and her, seriously.

[wendalah]

Don't you want to hear from someone who take AC seriously?

We have, many times, on here. The only reason I can think of as to why we'd want to hear the minority opinion here on her again is to have the satisfaction, or whatever, of telling these posters how wrong they are. When the majority of people here are using words like "vile" and "bitch" and "filth" and "hatemonger," I really don't think you're going to get a nice, calm discourse going with those who do like her.

I don't have any issue with the strong feelings against her. I just get bored of the "let's get the minority to speak on this again so we can freak out!" game.

BTW, I never said *nobody* takes her seriously.

[wendalah]

BTW, was anyone as surprised as I was to see how bad EE looked?

On a different note--yes--I think she really needs to pull a new look out of her bag of tricks. The skinny, long-blond-hair thing is beginning to look shopworn.

ETA: Oop! I thought you were talking about AC, not EE. I didn't think EE looked that bad, but that was probably because I was too busy sitting there thinking that AC needs to cut her hair or try something new.

[Anna Low]

uh, i was the one who originally called her an entertainer. just bc i categorize her as an entertainer doesn't mean i think she is entertaining. at least, i hope that's not what you thought. there are lots of forms of entertainment out there that i find vile and disgusting, but its still there.

Oh no -- definitely didn't mean you!! You are right - she is categorized as an "entertainer", which is pretty darned insulting to those who actually entertain us.

[Anna Low]

What for? So you can rip them to shreds? I'm sure you wouldn't take what they had to say seriously.

I'm not a fan, btw. I occasionally used to find her funny in a shock-jock way, but lately she's just being ridiculous and seeing how far she can go.

What for? I personally would like to know what exactly they consider appropriate political commentary (even in a "shock jock" kind of way) and what they consider to be crossing the line and going too far. Clearly, she hasn't yet gone far enough, and that is very scary to me.

[gayle]

I really don't have a vile enough vocabulary to describe what I think of Coulter.

Good for EE for calling her on her shit, openly. More people (Republicans included) should be doing the same.

[jnettie]

I enjoyed watching AC squirm. For as "smart" as she thinks she is, she really couldn't say anything to remotely defend herself.

And for once, AC is right...if she stopped saying hateful things, she wouldn't be able to speak or write her books. And that would be fine by me.

[artist]

I kind of like the name Reagan :o

My cousin is Reagan. I don't think we really could compare the two names, or even the people. Totally different categories.


Wasn't Reagan a character in a Shakespeare play?

Reagan was also Lind Blair's character's name in The Exorcist.


Huh! Add that (the bit about Shakespeare) to list of "things I didn't know" and "what I learned on CC today"!

FWIW, I have a niece with Kennedy as a middle name. However, the middle name is because Kennedy is a family name. She was not named after the political family even though I know my sister does like the Kennedy family! I have a cat named Chelsea, but she wasn't named after Chelsea Clinton. However, my other cat Vincent really WAS named after Van Gogh!

Sorry for the tangent!

[wendalah]

I personally would like to know what exactly they consider appropriate political commentary (even in a "shock jock" kind of way) and what they consider to be crossing the line and going too far.

And what will you do with that knowledge?

[moderngal]

I bet Coulter didn't even have the grace to look a bit ashamed at that.
No- she didn't. She had a disgusting smug smile on her face while Mrs. Edwards said "I'm the mother of that dead boy."
I'm all for political debates, but leave the personal attacks out. The John and Elizabeth have been through one of the worst things a person can possibly go through and to have that thrown in their face and to suggest that they would use it to their benefit is disgusting. No politician, Rep or Dem, should have that kind of thing said about them.

[jennylou]

I'm not an AC fan to begin with, but she's now what I consider to be the lowest of low. To bring a tragic passing of the Edwards' son is beyond any words.

Steam would be coming out of my ears if someone would have the nerve to bring up my son in an argument. I'd not be nearly as classy as EE was, but that's because I tend to have somewhat of a potty mouth when I get angry. ;)

[Anna Low]

And what will you do with that knowledge?

Why should it matter to you?

[littlebear]

Coulter is simply the most vile, despicable person. She makes me so angry everytime she gets on TV spouting her trash and garbage. Then she has the nerve to claim that she's a Christian. She really needs to examine the Bible more closely if she believes that her words are Christ like.

[msnicolea]

People seem to be confused about the difference between assertiveness and aggressiveness, and between being intelligent and well-informed and spewing vitriol.

[Esq.]

As one of the "Coulter fans" that you speak of, I think that one needs to first of all, put the entire conversation into context.

She said:
"Though about the same time Bill Maher said - and by the way, I did not call John Edwards the F-word. I said I couldn't talk about him because you go into rehab for using that word.


I don't see the difference. Probably bc there is none.

Do you have a different context for the comments about the Edwards' son? I find it hard to believe that there is a context in which it would be appropriate to mock the death of someone's child, but I am willing to give it shot.

[jennylou]

I don't see the difference. Probably bc there is none.

Do you have a different context for the comments about the Edwards' son? I find it hard to believe that there is a context in which it would be appropriate to mock the death of someone's child, but I am willing to give it shot.

No, I think it's safe to say that there isn't a context to which it would be appropriate.

[ysolde]

Oh, Ann. Please be quiet, so the GOP can gain respectability again.

Sincerely,

Moi

[wendalah]

Why should it matter to you?

Well, I was curious, since you already chastised a poster for neutrally classifying AC as "entertainment."

[chefker]

I heard about the exchange, but I can't even bring myself to watch the YouTube clip. I don't want to see the smug and haughty Colter laughing over something so personal and painful to the Edwards family.

I never thought I'd say this, but I think I'd prefer to listen to Andy Rooney yammering on about nothing, than listen to ANYTHING Ann Coulter has to say.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Do you have a different context for the comments about the Edwards' son? I find it hard to believe that there is a context in which it would be appropriate to mock the death of someone's child, but I am willing to give it shot.

I don't see it as mocking the death of someone's child. She is mocking the hypocrisy of political candidates that make comments like "I'm not going to use the fact that X happened to me to gain support/sympathy from the public." While the mere mention of such a terrible thing happening extracts sympathy and support from the public.

I also think it would beyond horrific to mock the death of someone's child, however, I don't see this comment as doing that.

[msnicolea]

LMC--you have to be kidding me. Obviously, there is nothing she can do/say that you won't defend. She has no right to even MENTION their loss, let alone accuse them of milking it. I wonder how you'd feel if Hillary Clinton said she thought Mitt Romney was using the fame/clout of his dead father to get ahead? Would THAT be ok? I'm betting not.

[Noniitis]

I also think it would beyond horrific to mock the death of someone's child, however, I don't see this comment as doing that.

So you don't see saying that someone has a bumper sticker that says ask me about my dead child is mocking the death of a child.

Interesting. None so blind as those that won't see.

[chefker]

How is this comment of Coulter's:

In her call to the show, Elizabeth Edwards said Coulter once wrote that John Edwards probably had a bumper sticker on his car saying, "Ask me about my dead son." That was a reference to the Edwardses' teenage son, Wade, who was killed in a traffic accident.


NOT mocking the death of the Edwards' son? :confused:

(x-posted with Noniitis, but on the same wavelength)

[LyLMyssChaos]

Here is the part of the article (http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119) that was written in 2003 where Ann Coulter made that comment:

John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.
I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing.


I really don't see the mocking in those comments. She was telling him that if he doesn't want people to feel badly for him and give him sympathy votes, then he should stop mentioning it. Could there have been a less confrontational manner to convey that message? I'm sure that there is, but if she was less confrontational, would anyone be talking about her and making her money? I doubt it and that is her chosen career; to get attention and be paid for angering people.

[Asha]

how could you not ever mention the loss of your teenage son just bc you are politician and you are afraid that people will think you are trying to win sympathy votes? losing a teenage son so tragically has to permeate your mind every single day no matter how long ago it happened. to make them "shut up" about it is cruel.

fwiw, i didn't even know edwards had lost a son. guess, i have never driven behind him in traffic.

[ysolde]

In all fairness, while I rarely talk about my father, I do wear his old tie pin as a lapel pin on my coat, and I carry his dog tags on my key chain. I don't think, in doing so, I am opening up a conversation about my father. I am simply honoring him in a discreet manner.

[littlebear]

I don't care what context you put her vitriol in. She is a vile, hateful b-tch. I suppose next she'll say that Elizabeth speaks about her cancer for political gain. IMO, Edwards actions are those of a father who misses and still very much grieves for his son not those of someone who is trying to win an election.

[LyLMyssChaos]

how could you not ever mention the loss of your teenage son just bc you are politician and you are afraid that people will think you are trying to win sympathy votes? losing a teenage son so tragically has to permeate your mind every single day no matter how long ago it happened. to make them "shut up" about it is cruel.

fwiw, i didn't even know edwards had lost a son. guess, i have never driven behind him in traffic.

I don't think she is telling him to "shut up" about it. I think she is saying that if he's going to mention it, he needs to at least admit that he is doing it. He makes claims that he is above pulling at your heartstrings for votes, but then turns around and pulls at your heart strings.

I don't think there is anything wrong with commemorating the loss of a loved one or even to always have something that reminds others of it. If you are going to do that though, you should embrace it and do it proudly. Particularly if you are in the public eye. I say use it to educate others, but not for sympathy votes. Perhaps even pointing out the many other reasons someone should vote for you. Something along the lines of "Please, I don't want your sympathy, this did happen to me and it has affected me, but that doesn't qualify me for the job. However, there are things that DO qualify me for this job and they are X,Y,Z, etc."

[LyLMyssChaos]

I don't care what context you put her vitriol in. She is a vile, hateful b-tch. I suppose next she'll say that Elizabeth speaks about her cancer for political gain. IMO, Edwards actions are those of a father who misses and still very much grieves for his son not those of someone who is trying to win an election.

That's your opinion. And I don't think that Elizabeth speaks about her cancer for her husband's political gain, but rather to educate other women of the dangers and to encourage them to be proactive rather than reactive.

[littlebear]

She was telling him that if he doesn't want people to feel badly for him and give him sympathy votes, then he should stop mentioning it.

I don't think she is telling him to "shut up" about it. I think she is saying that if he's going to mention it, he needs to at least admit that he is doing it.

So which is it?

[LyLMyssChaos]

So which is it?

John Edwards is the one who has made comments about not wanting to be like other politicians and mentioning his son's death to get votes.

That's what she is talking about. Do not say that you don't want to mention X to get votes, while you are very cleverly mention X in that very statement.

Look, I'm not Ann Coulter, so I do not know why she would say these types of things, but I do know that there are many people who at the very least appreciate what she says because she has made quite a bit of money.

And in this instance, I do not see what people are getting so worked up about, particularly after seeing it in it's full context.

[littlebear]

It boggles my mind how anyone who has experienced motherhood (or anyone who has experienced any type of a loss of a family member for that matter) could refuse to see how hurtful those remarks would be to a mother who had lost her child. :confused:

[msnicolea]

LMC--you are out of your league here. I suggest you move on.

The fact that she makes a lot of $ isn't a testament to her qualifications/skills/talents, but rather to the # of idiots we have in this country.

[LyLMyssChaos]

LMC--you are out of your league here. I suggest you move on.

What is that supposed to mean? What is out of my league? Are you suggesting that I'm not intelligent enough to post my opinions and support them? Everyone keeps saying how they "can't understand how anyone could like Ann Coulter after her comments" and I'm trying to explain the point of view of someone that does like her.

[LyLMyssChaos]

It boggles my mind how anyone who has experienced motherhood (or anyone who has experienced any type of a loss of a family member for that matter) could refuse to see how hurtful those remarks would be to a mother who had lost her child. :confused:

I do see how those comments could be hurtful and I did say that there were much better ways to get her message across. However, I do appreciate the message she was conveying, just not so much the manner it was presented in.

[msnicolea]

The thing is, she's full of it on MANY levels. I have RARELY heard Edwards bring up his son--he talks about him in his book and mentioned him maybe once or twice on the last campaign. In fact, a political reporter @ Slate WHO FOLLOWED THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN actually commented on how he was surprised he mentioned him at one event, as he NEVER hears him mention Wade:

I was touched to hear Edwards mention his son Wade, who died in a car accident eight years ago and whom he writes about with grace in his book Four Trials. I don't recall hearing Edwards ever say the word "Wade" in public before. I once saw him tell a voter that he had four children, and then he named only three: Cate, Emma Claire, and Jack.

What is he supposed to do? Pretend like he never existed? How would he be portrayed then, but the "family loving" Right?

[msnicolea]

And you don't even have to look at this latest assault on Edwards to see what a bigot she is: she referred to Al Gore as a "total fag" on Chris Matthews, although she immediately says it's "just a joke."

She's HILARIOUS!

Even Michelle Malkin thinks she's a bigot--and THAT is saying something.

[Sarah]

I don't like AC at all, nor do I identify as a republican, but I don't think it's fair that many people asked for someone who likes AC to come explain why, or to talk about these comments, and then LMC did so, and was told to leave the thread. I found ACs comments to be offensive and rude and all the rest, and I find her ridiculous and rather disgusting, but I don't think LMC should be told to leave because she disagrees.

[thedoorchick]

I don't like AC at all, nor do I identify as a republican, but I don't think it's fair that many people asked for someone who likes AC to come explain why, or to talk about these comments, and then LMC did so, and was told to leave the thread. I found ACs comments to be offensive and rude and all the rest, and I find her ridiculous and rather disgusting, but I don't think LMC should be told to leave because she disagrees.
I agree (well, except for the "not identifying as a Republican" part). Why, again, did anyone invite AC supporters to elaborate here?

Wendy, I can't imagine why you would think people had anything but rational discussion in mind when they asked for supporters to add their two cents to the thread. ;)

[wendalah]

I don't think it's fair that many people asked for someone who likes AC to come explain why, or to talk about these comments, and then LMC did so, and was told to leave the thread.

LOL, that was my point earlier. What's the use of asking someone who likes her to come in here and talk about it? There's no real point in doing so except for the pleasure of roasting them. The overriding opinion of her here is too strongly negative to invite any sort of real debate. (Esq., as you were the person who originally asked, I will say you have been quite civil.)

[jennylou]

I do see how those comments could be hurtful and I did say that there were much better ways to get her message across. However, I do appreciate the message she was conveying, just not so much the manner it was presented in.

Hmmm, so if someone brings up a dead child they're automatically trying to engage sympathy? I mean, that was her message, right?

Yeah, that's crap. I talk about my son because his all too short life touched my life in a way that can never be measured. His short life changed me to the very core, so naturally, I talk about him.

[Dally]

I agree with JennyLou. I think it's unfair to just buy AC's reason for Edward's occasionally mentioning his late son. What makes AC fans think she is right about this? Can a father not ever mention his late son? I think it's pretty clear that Edwards does not "use" his son for political gain. But of course he mentions him sometimes. There's no reason to think that's unusual or untoward.

Would AC rather Edwards say, "I'm not going to mention that which I'm not going to mention for political gain." I mean, really. :rolleyes:

If you want to make a political point, why not just make it without the nastiness? It is possible, after all.

Personally, I think it's sad stuff like this is popular. I see it as people who are so desperate to have validation for their views (such as disliking whichever political candidate), that they love any mud slung at that person. AC is the worst, but this stuff happens on both sides of the fence. It's like playground antics, but grown up in a horrible way. Yuck.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Hmmm, so if someone brings up a dead child they're automatically trying to engage sympathy? I mean, that was her message, right?

Yeah, that's crap. I talk about my son because his all too short life touched my life in a way that can never be measured. His short life changed me to the very core, so naturally, I talk about him.

No, that's not her message. Her message is that if you don't want people to focus on those things that they shouldn't be frequently mentioned. Sort of like how Mitt Romney doesn't want people to focus on his being a Latter-Day Saint, so he doesn't mention it. And when others do mention it, he changes the subject to something else.

[Asha]

but i thought it was said that he rarely brings up his dead son?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

No, that's not her message. Her message is that if you don't want people to focus on those things that they shouldn't be frequently mentioned. Sort of like how Mitt Romney doesn't want people to focus on his being a Latter-Day Saint, so he doesn't mention it. And when others do mention it, he changes the subject to something else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Edwards does mention his son frequently, does he? Certainly not more than any parent who's lost a child!

[chefker]

but i thought it was said that he rarely brings up his dead son?

That's correct. But it sounds like Coulter feels Edwards is talking about him 'all the time' in order to garner sympathy. Um, whatever.

[ysolde]

To be perfectly honest, I had no idea Edwards's son had died until the Coulter incident.

[LyLMyssChaos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Edwards does mention his son frequently, does he? Certainly not more than any parent who's lost a child!

I don't really know. I honestly have never heard a single thing that John Edwards has said. I can't speak for AC's position on what she feels is "too much." In my opinion, it would never be "too much."

[Anna Low]

LMC, first of all, I have to give you props for coming in to share your POV and for hanging on with this discussion.

For me personally, I know the political process is dirty and nasty. I get that. Then, there is this, which for me goes far beyond the nastiness of actual politics. It is something that is so intensely personal and appears to be designed more to cause pain rather than cause political harm. There just isn't a good way to spin it. I'm not quite sure if I have personally heard anything that quite rivals the anger and hate that this woman continually spews. Unfortunately, her current target is John Edwards and his family. Who is next? What other hurtful things can and will be said against another candidate who isn't a member of her party? How far will society allow her to go?

My hope continues to be that we all, regardless of our political leanings, can take some of the indignation we have felt in the past when when we have heard others make hurtful remarks and have the courage to say "enough". When will we reach that point?

[jennylou]

No, that's not her message. Her message is that if you don't want people to focus on those things that they shouldn't be frequently mentioned. Sort of like how Mitt Romney doesn't want people to focus on his being a Latter-Day Saint, so he doesn't mention it. And when others do mention it, he changes the subject to something else.

And even though you don't agree with her message (as stated in another post that you don't think you can never speak too much of a dead child), you are defending her on this. Why? You could have simply stated, I like AC, but I think she was wrong this time.

[LyLMyssChaos]

And even though you don't agree with her message (as stated in another post that you don't think you can never speak too much of a dead child), you are defending her on this. Why? You could have simply stated, I like AC, but I think she was wrong this time.

Because I really don't think her underlying message is wrong. I think that what happens in a candidates personal life should have no bearing on whether or not we vote for them. I do think her methods on this were wrong, but I understand what she was "getting at." That frequently happens with AC. I dig through her rhetoric to get to her underlying issue. And those things I agree with even if I dislike her rhetoric.

[villanelle75]

Hmmm, so if someone brings up a dead child they're automatically trying to engage sympathy? I mean, that was her message, right?

Yeah, that's crap. I talk about my son because his all too short life touched my life in a way that can never be measured. His short life changed me to the very core, so naturally, I talk about him.


I disagree with AC on nearly everythign and think she is vile. I also think her delivery was disgusting. But soem poster's seem to be so caught up in hating her that refuse to understand her point. Agree with it or, what she was saying, basically, is that she thinks it is hypocritical for someone to say, "I never talk abotu my service to this country during the Vietnam war, includign the Medal of Honor I received for demonstrating on the battle field the kind of charcter needed to run this country, in a way that I am exploiting it for political gain." By bringing it up, even if you bring it up to point out that you never bring it up, you are, well, bringing it up. (How's that for a doozy of a sentence.)

It seems to me to be a basic logical fallacy to say, "I never talk about X'. because by making that statement, you are in fact talking about X. That seems to be AC's point. If her delivery was less personal and hateful, she might have a fair argument.

[Dally]

But why do you think AC is right that Edwards is using his son for political gain? THere seems to be no evidence of it. Just AC's accusation. LMC said: I think that what happens in a candidates personal life should have no bearing on whether or not we vote for them.

Also, I do think that what happens in a candidate's personal life always means something to someone. For instance, a lot of people like that George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. Isn't that something that happened in his personal life: he went through his party time, and then found God?

Political candidates are affected by their personal life, after all. It shapes them.

[Dally]

villanelle--I think her point is pretty clear. But I just don't see where her accusation is coming from. Edwards didn't say anything like your example (even the quote AC mentioned was straightforward and not full of efusive detail). And you do need a subject of a sentence for it to have context and meaning. Add to that the loss of a child is a very sensitive issue and that AC was nasty and sophmoric in making her point, and you start to get why people are reacting the way they are.

[LyLMyssChaos]

It seems to me to be a basic logical fallacy to say, "I never talk about X'. because by making that statement, you are in fact talking about X. That seems to be AC's point. If her delivery was less personal and hateful, she might have a fair argument.

Thank you. That's what I tried to say in one of my posts, I just don't think it made sense the way I said it.

[Dally]

Originally Posted by villanelle75
It seems to me to be a basic logical fallacy to say, "I never talk about X'. because by making that statement, you are in fact talking about X. That seems to be AC's point. If her delivery was less personal and hateful, she might have a fair argument.

Are you saying that Edwards goes around saying this a bunch with no context? For instance, he's not responding to a reporter's question? I've seen no evidence of that.

To me, AC's point (not her delivery, which remains horrible) can only make sense if Edwards is constantly bringing up the issue himself, with no prompting from reporters, etc. I don't think that's the case.

[villanelle75]

But why do you think AC is right that Edwards is using his son for political gain? THere seems to be no evidence of it. Just AC's accusation.

Also, I do think that what happens in a candidate's personal life always means something to someone. For instance, a lot of people like that George W. Bush is a born-again Christian. Isn't that something that happened in his personal life: he went through his party time, and then found God?

Political candidates are affected by their personal life, after all. It shapes them.

I do think maybe he's using this, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad think. I agree with you that any politician's personal life shapes who he or she is and how he or she will lead. And pointing it out isn't always a bad thing. Saying, when I lost my son, it forced me to reevaluate my priorities and really hold my family close, and it made me a more compassionate person", is a perfectly valid statement, IMO, and I guess it is also "using" that incident for political gain. I have no issue with someone doing that because in many cases, including this one, it seems relevant. But to me, since he has brought it up on occasion, he is probably using it, and yet he claims he isn't. My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that he initiated mention of Wade, not a question ('Do you use your son's death on the campaign?" No, I don't' use my son's death for personal gain."). So I don't feel like he can then say he doesn't use it as an issue.

villanelle--I think her point is pretty clear. But I just don't see where her accusation is coming from. Edwards didn't say anything like your example (even the quote AC mentioned was straightforward and not full of efusive detail). And you do need a subject of a sentence for it to have context and meaning. Add to that the loss of a child is a very sensitive issue and that AC was nasty and sophmoric in making her point, and you start to get why people are reacting the way they are.


I totally understand why people are reacting the way they are. Any issue that relates to the loss of a child is touchy so even someone known to be sensitive will have a difficult time bringing it up in any critical way without being offensive, let along someone like AC. The fact is that AC has said so many disgusting thinks in so many vile ways, time and time again, that she's shot any chance at credibility she ever had. On the most rare of occasions when she may make a valid point, no one will take her seriously or see past the cretin that's doing the speaking. And that's her own bed and I'm not a bit sad that she has to lie in it.

[msnicolea]

I didn't "invite" in defenders of Ann Coulter, though as always, I believe anyone may/should post wherever they'd like--and since I'm the only one who suggested LMC take a hike, I don't think anyone here is guilty of what you describe, Sarah and TDC.

[phoenics]

I don't actually find her entertaining- what I meant is that she is just there to make money and shock people, not to provide any intelligent or insightful commentary.

It's still pretty bad of her. She's no better than any of the other shock jocks and there's no excuse for her behavior. It's ugly and vile. I HOPE she doesn't profess to be a Christian. What a horrible example she's setting if she does claim that.

I think EE hit it on the head when she said that when she first moved to the south, racist comments were commonplace because no one stood up (within the inner circles) and confronted it and denounced it. Then, people - in the inner circle - started doing that and now the racist comments aren't as 'accepted' (yes we have a ways to go).

Ann Coulter will never go away until conservatives stop making excuses for her and start holding her accountable for her hateful speech. She can have freedom of speech all she wants - but we don't have to excuse it.

[phoenics]

Coulter is simply the most vile, despicable person. She makes me so angry everytime she gets on TV spouting her trash and garbage. Then she has the nerve to claim that she's a Christian. She really needs to examine the Bible more closely if she believes that her words are Christ like.

Oh I am fuming that she claims that! Just fuming! Ugh - she makes it SO HARD on the rest of us working really hard at being the best Christians we can be!

*throws something against the wall*

[jennylou]

Because I really don't think her underlying message is wrong. I think that what happens in a candidates personal life should have no bearing on whether or not we vote for them. I do think her methods on this were wrong, but I understand what she was "getting at." That frequently happens with AC. I dig through her rhetoric to get to her underlying issue. And those things I agree with even if I dislike her rhetoric.

So, GW should never mention that he's a Christian again? Because, that's his personal life and we know that did have bearing on people voting for him.

[phoenics]

Here is the part of the article (http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119) that was written in 2003 where Ann Coulter made that comment:

John Edwards injects his son's fatal car accident into his campaign by demanding that everyone notice how he refuses to inject his son's fatal car accident into his campaign.
Edwards has talked about his son's death in a 1996 car accident on "Good Morning America," in dozens of profiles and in his new book. ("It was and is the most important fact of my life.") His 1998 Senate campaign ads featured film footage of Edwards at a learning lab he founded in honor of his son, titled "The Wade Edwards Learning Lab." He wears his son's Outward Bound pin on his suit lapel. He was going to wear it on his sleeve, until someone suggested that might be a little too "on the nose."
If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers? Edwards is like a politician who keeps announcing that he will not use his opponent's criminal record for partisan political advantage. I absolutely refuse to mention the name of my dearly beloved and recently departed son killed horribly in a car accident, which affected me deeply, to score cheap political points.
I wouldn't want John Edwards to be president, but I think even [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing.


I really don't see the mocking in those comments. She was telling him that if he doesn't want people to feel badly for him and give him sympathy votes, then he should stop mentioning it. Could there have been a less confrontational manner to convey that message? I'm sure that there is, but if she was less confrontational, would anyone be talking about her and making her money? I doubt it and that is her chosen career; to get attention and be paid for angering people.

If I had a son who died in a horrific accident - a senseless one - I would be DAMNED if I let ANYONE shut me up about it, politics or NOT! Think about your own children and how you'd react to this as well - I don't think you could be so cavalier about it.

[phoenics]

I don't think she is telling him to "shut up" about it. I think she is saying that if he's going to mention it, he needs to at least admit that he is doing it. He makes claims that he is above pulling at your heartstrings for votes, but then turns around and pulls at your heart strings.

I don't think there is anything wrong with commemorating the loss of a loved one or even to always have something that reminds others of it. If you are going to do that though, you should embrace it and do it proudly. Particularly if you are in the public eye. I say use it to educate others, but not for sympathy votes. Perhaps even pointing out the many other reasons someone should vote for you. Something along the lines of "Please, I don't want your sympathy, this did happen to me and it has affected me, but that doesn't qualify me for the job. However, there are things that DO qualify me for this job and they are X,Y,Z, etc."

Our heartstrings would be pulled anyway - but not because he mentions it. It's a pretty sad situation and it's not like the press wasn't all over him to talk about it anyway.

I can't imagine losing a child and then having hateful vitriol spewed your way. just because you mention it.

What you're saying is that you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the REASON Edwards ever mentioned his son is because he's using the heartstring card. What proof do you have of that? NONE, right?

All you know is that he's mentioned that he's not trying to use that card - but that he still mentions his son. Well - that doesn't mean he's using that card - it just means that he misses his son and that it permeates his being. It's totally normal. My aunt lost her daughter and eventually ended up joining the ministry. Does that mean that in church everytime she mentions her daughter's death that she's USING it for some nefarious purpose? NO! It's part of her testimony.

What happened to Edwards' son is part of HIS testimony and it's cruel and inhuman to use that against them as a political tool - which is what Ann is doing.

[sublime311]

I don't really know. I honestly have never heard a single thing that John Edwards has said.

So, when you said this, you were just taking AC's word?

John Edwards is the one who has made comments about not wanting to be like other politicians and mentioning his son's death to get votes.

That is what scares me about her fans, that they take the spewing as fact.

[phoenics]

I do see how those comments could be hurtful and I did say that there were much better ways to get her message across. However, I do appreciate the message she was conveying, just not so much the manner it was presented in.

The problem is that you have to believe that Edwards was mentioning his son's death to benefit politically - which I don't believe.

Basically - you can't be all that open-minded about his intentions because you believe ill of him from the start. It means that because of politics, you're inclined to believe that he's mentioned his son for political gain - when there is another explanation.

It simply means he's damned if he does for some people and damned if he doesn't.

If you don't like Edwards, you'll believe that he's using his son's death for political gain. Thus, anything Ann says about it is FINE - because she's only pointing out Edwards (who is wrong in your eyes - or perhaps you're afraid he might actually become popular in the polls)...

Frankly I find this all kind of funny. It seems people who support Ann Coulter on this are afraid that Edwards will somehow dupe all of the voters in America into voting for him - as though voters can't think for themselves - thus necessitating the need for comments from people like Ann - to cast aspersions on an decent Democratic candidate...

The point is, you don't KNOW if Edwards mentioned his son for political gain. I think people like Ann HOPE he did - because it gives them something to attack him for - since they can't debate him on the issues.

[phoenics]

No, that's not her message. Her message is that if you don't want people to focus on those things that they shouldn't be frequently mentioned. Sort of like how Mitt Romney doesn't want people to focus on his being a Latter-Day Saint, so he doesn't mention it. And when others do mention it, he changes the subject to something else.

But Edwards doesn't mention his son frequently - you're just taking Ann's word that he does - which, as it turns out, isn't true.

[Sarah]

I don't actually find her entertaining- what I meant is that she is just there to make money and shock people, not to provide any intelligent or insightful commentary.
It's still pretty bad of her. She's no better than any of the other shock jocks and there's no excuse for her behavior. It's ugly and vile. I HOPE she doesn't profess to be a Christian. What a horrible example she's setting if she does claim that.
The quote from me was in response to someone who asked how anyone could find her entertaining. If you read my earlier post, I agreed that her remarks were innappropriate, and that I am no fan of her. However, as rude as she is, I find it hard to get upset about what she says, because she is so clearly not a real journalist.

I actually doubt that she is being solely supported by conservatives. I think as much as many conservatives love her, many liberals love to hate her, and give her tons of controversy and attention, which is what fans the flames.

[LyLMyssChaos]

No, that isn't what I said at all. I'm not afraid of anything with Edwards. If he gains momentum in the polls, that's fine. I still won't vote for him. He doesn't represent my desires in a President. There is nobody on the other side of the aisle that represents my desires and the choice is very limited on this side as well.

I truly don't hope that he was using his son's passing for gain. In my eyes, that would be beyond disgusting.

As for "taking AC's word" I didn't take anything. I really don't care if he did it or not. I mean, the comment that AC made? Was made back in 2003 when Edwards was running for VP. Why was it brought up now? Who knows? I cannot and will not claim to know what motivates political leaders to do/say the things that they do.

[phoenics]

Because I really don't think her underlying message is wrong. I think that what happens in a candidates personal life should have no bearing on whether or not we vote for them. I do think her methods on this were wrong, but I understand what she was "getting at." That frequently happens with AC. I dig through her rhetoric to get to her underlying issue. And those things I agree with even if I dislike her rhetoric.

But her underlying 'thesis' is WRONG! Edwards doesn't mention his son often at all - thus Ann is directing her rhetoric at the WRONG person...

You don't see anything wrong with that?

That would be like me yelling at some poor radio shock jock that his frequent comments about black people means that he's a racist - even though he never said anything racist or did anything racist... but because racism is wrong, that makes me right? No it wouldn't.

There is a time and a place for everything, but what Ann has done is build up this fake situation with Edwards (they call these a strawman) and then debate THAT in the press instead of Edwards himself.

All it does is prove that she's simply incapable of direct debate about reality. She has to create a FAKE reality in order to be heard. That's pretty pathetic. Sure, it's not good to use something like the death of a son for political gain. But as Edwards is NOT doing that - then Ann's comments are misdirected.


But she doesn't care - because she's not making these comments as a stand against using emotional situations for political gain - she's making these comments to ATTACK Edwards. If she really wanted to take a stand against the former, there are plenty of OTHER politicians she could go after... on both sides.

[Esq.]

As for "taking AC's word" I didn't take anything. I really don't care if he did it or not. I mean, the comment that AC made? Was made back in 2003 when Edwards was running for VP. Why was it brought up now? Who knows? I cannot and will not claim to know what motivates political leaders to do/say the things that they do.

I hope you are not meaning AC when you use the term "political leaders."

[phoenics]

As for "taking AC's word" I didn't take anything. I really don't care if he did it or not. I mean, the comment that AC made? Was made back in 2003 when Edwards was running for VP. Why was it brought up now? Who knows? I cannot and will not claim to know what motivates political leaders to do/say the things that they do.

It's brought up now because she's still talking about it.

And you did take her word because you said you agreed with her stance on using emotional situations for political gain, even agreeing with her comment about Edwards' frequent comments on his son meant that he would get flack for it.

But then you admitted that you never heard what Edwards said - thus, by your standing up for what Ann was saying - the apparent 'principle' of what she was saying - you're also taking her word that Edwards mentioned Wade 'a lot'.

But that's untrue.

[LyLMyssChaos]

It's brought up now because she's still talking about it.

And you did take her word because you said you agreed with her stance on using emotional situations for political gain, even agreeing with her comment about Edwards' frequent comments on his son meant that he would get flack for it.

But then you admitted that you never heard what Edwards said - thus, by your standing up for what Ann was saying - the apparent 'principle' of what she was saying - you're also taking her word that Edwards mentioned Wade 'a lot'.

But that's untrue.

I do agree with her stance on "using emotional situations for political gain." I have no first hand knowledge of the example she used though. And what I was defending was the message of how it is wrong to use emotional situations for political gain while claiming not to.

On another topic mentioned in the same conversation, how do people feel about AC taking what Bill Mahr said and using it to apply to John Edwards instead of Dick Cheney?

[LyLMyssChaos]

I hope you are not meaning AC when you use the term "political leaders."

No, I do not refer to her as a political leader. What I was referring to was that I do not know the motives behind the things that politicians do/say.

[phoenics]

I do agree with her stance on "using emotional situations for political gain." I have no first hand knowledge of the example she used though. And what I was defending was the message of how it is wrong to use emotional situations for political gain while claiming not to.

On another topic mentioned in the same conversation, how do people feel about AC taking what Bill Mahr said and using it to apply to John Edwards instead of Dick Cheney?

I'd need to see what Bill said - rather than accept AC's take on it, as she's proven to be a bit of a liar.

LMC, do you agree that Edwards used emotional situations for political gain? Or do you only believe that people shouldn't do that? And since AC has been proven wrong that Edwards' mentioned his son 'a lot' - do you think that means that he was NOT using his son for political gain? And further, do you think that Ann was actually standing on principal or was she trying to fabricate a strawman to attack Edwards?

I agree it's wrong to use emotional situations for political gain. But that is not what I believe AC was 'standing up against'. She was fabricating a strawman to attack Edwards and I believe that's wrong too. Do you?

[ginadc]

Of course, Ann Coulter seems to have no actual loved ones or emotions (other than anger and bile), so I guess it would be easy for her to assume that any and all mentions of loved ones or emotional situations must be for political gain. After all, that's what she'd use them for--if she had them.

Seriously--this is one bitter, lonely woman. She rants about the 9/11 widows "enjoying their husbands' deaths." She rants about the Edwardses exploiting their son's death. Is it just me, or does she seem to reserve a lot of her hate for people who have lost loved ones--maybe because they had people who loved them in the first place?

[MLA]

LMC -- A lot of people have asked you very directly if you think that Bush should stop talking about his Christian faith, since that's part of his personal life. You've not answered that. I'd like to know what you think.

[MLA]

Is it just me, or does she seem to reserve a lot of her hate for people who have lost loved ones--maybe because they had people who loved them in the first place?

Damn! I think you may be on to something there. . .

[Delta]

I feel like EE, as a (long-shot but) possible First Lady, should not have lowered herself to the level of AC. It only serves to legitimize AC even further. However, I can certainly understand why EE did it. It would be hard for such an outspoken person like EE to contain herself in a situation like that.

I also think that at one point, many years ago, AC had some good thoughts and ideas. I think to some extent she still does. But her crazy and offensive rantings have totally discredited her and I think she makes most conservatives cringe. I know she does me.

There were some AC supporters standing behind her while she was on Hardball, most of whom seemed to be young, female, conservative hill staffer-types. One of them had some major nipple-age going on too, and all you could see behind AC in that clip was this chick's boob w/ major headlight.

And the next day on Hardball, still at their location outdoors, Chris Matthews had on Al Sharpton and Christopher Hitchens. It was extremely hot outside and they were all melting. By the end of the show they were all sweaty messes and it was just too gross to watch, especially Christopher Hitchens. CM should just stay in the studio.

[LyLMyssChaos]

LMC, do you agree that Edwards used emotional situations for political gain? Or do you only believe that people shouldn't do that? And since AC has been proven wrong that Edwards' mentioned his son 'a lot' - do you think that means that he was NOT using his son for political gain? And further, do you think that Ann was actually standing on principal or was she trying to fabricate a strawman to attack Edwards?

I agree it's wrong to use emotional situations for political gain. But that is not what I believe AC was 'standing up against'. She was fabricating a strawman to attack Edwards and I believe that's wrong too. Do you?

I don't know if Edwards was using emotional situations for political gain. I have never seen him speak, so I really can't comment on that. I was looking at it more as that I believe that people shouldn't do that. If in fact he doesn't mention his son "a lot" which is really hard to quantify because that is such a subjective phrase, then yes, it was a strawman and it was wrong of her to resort to such tactics instead of focusing on real issues. I personally am defending the belief that politicians shouldn't use emotional situations for political gain. With AC, I really do try to look past the surface of what she says to dig out what she is really standing on.

As for the questions about Bush discussing his religion, I don't believe any candidate should discuss their religion. Being a specific religion shouldn't be a qualifier for a political figure.

[msnicolea]

You think the point of AC's comments was that she was standing on the principle that polticians shouldn't use emotional situations for personal gain, and NOT merely exercising an attack on Edwards? Seriously? AS if all of a suddent THAT"S her personal calling/ her cause du jour?

[LyLMyssChaos]

You think the point of AC's comments was that she was standing on the principle that polticians shouldn't use emotional situations for personal gain, and NOT merely exercising an attack on Edwards? Seriously? AS if all of a suddent THAT"S her personal calling/ her cause du jour?

When viewing political pundits, I always try to get to the core of the point that they are making. And in this instance, I do agree with the principle that I viewed to be at the core of her arguement. Do I know for sure what her motives are? No, I don't. Not any more than anyone knows what John Edward's motives are for mentioning his child. To even wager a guess is merely speculation.

AC's career is to offer political commentary and that's what she did, like it or not. She's got everyone talking about her and that's how she makes her money. I'd say she plays this game very well, wouldn't you?

[villanelle75]

I'd say she plays this game very well, wouldn't you?

Lol! That's bit like saying someone who steals money from the bank and wins at Monopoly every time "plays the game well". I guess it depends on how you define "well", but if your definition stops at "victorious" or "makes a lot of money and gets famous", then yes, she plays it quite well. If your definition is muddied by taste or ethics, maybe not so much.

[pocket]

what conservatives really like about AC is that she is one of the only people left who still makes liberals froth at the mouth. in a political environment where the president can commute the jail time of a member of his staff after swearing up and down that he would fire anyone connected with the leak of a CIA agent's secret identity we are very close to unshockable. and yet AC goes there again and again. she is willing to stoop lower than pretty much anyone. if a new low is set by someone, you can bet that AC will go just a bit lower within a few weeks.

[artist]

For those of you who can't stand Ann Coulter, you might find this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GmGvSUx2bs&mode=related&search=)entertaining! (Homophobic Ann Coulter is played by a man in drag...and I swear he does a better Ann Coulter than Coulter herself! :D)

[artist]

what conservatives really like about AC is that she is one of the only people left who still makes liberals froth at the mouth. in a political environment where the president can commute the jail time of a member of his staff after swearing up and down that he would fire anyone connected with the leak of a CIA agent's secret identity we are very close to unshockable. and yet AC goes there again and again. she is willing to stoop lower than pretty much anyone. if a new low is set by someone, you can bet that AC will go just a bit lower within a few weeks.

She's not the only one who makes ME froth at the mouth! :D

I can't stand ANY of them! Coulter, O'Lie-ly, Hannity, Tucker Carlson and his dorky bowtie, Bush himself, the entire Bush administration...and from a local perspective...Pawlenty.