... John Edwards (desperately needs a new way to drum up cash) and Ann Coulter (has a book coming out just now in paperback)?
Here's what I'm not talking about.
MORE: TRex -- who mocks Coulter for incoherent raving by incoherently raving about drug use -- seems delirious with glee that to announce that Coulter's book ("Godless") declined #85 to #98 on Amazon’s Top 100 Non-fiction Politics top sellers list at one point yesterday. But today, it's #25. Unfortunately, kicking up a storm on TV actually does sell books.
YET MORE: "Coulter's Words Help Edwards Raise Cash."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३२ टिप्पण्या:
While running against Ann Coulter may be generating a bit of cash for the Edwards campaign, I doubt that it is a viable long term strategy. Outside of certain segments on the left, I suspect that most Americans recognize the reality of Ms. Coulter, that she is a gadfly and represents one thing, and one thing alone - her own commercial interests.
I do find it interesting though that both seem to be relishing this conflict, the Edwards campaign to raise contributions, and Ms. Coulter to apparently sell her new book (though it also probably helps her keep visible as a talking head on TV). You would almost suspect that the Edwards campaign were paying her.
I look and listen to that skank and feel like I need to shower. Paris Hilton move over.
I don't really understand the use of the word "symbiotic".
Coulter, as shown by the Clip, is upset at the attacks on her. She wants people to talk about her BOOK not Edwards.
Edwards on the other hand is finished as a presidental canidate. Once you sent your wife out to attack commentator while you hide behind her skirts make you appear incredibly weak.
Another thing, the column about the Son was published in 2003 - 4 years ago -why are we hearing about it now.
And Coulter is right. It is brillant. Her is the part on Edwards:
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 Karl Rove would be willing to stipulate that the death of a son is a terrible thing.
I don't care for the sort of overstatement and simplicity that can make a whole book out of something like "Godless". Whatever core of truth it just wouldn't sell if it were thoughtful. Thoughtfulness doesn't sell because it comes out sounding wishy-washy and unimportant.
I don't avoid Coulter only because that would take effort. Her style isn't my thing.
But I've watched a couple clips of Coulter today and apparently a whole lot is in the eye of the beholder. Take the site Ann linked to. What they said that the clip there showed... I just didn't see it. It must have more to do with preconceptions than with what is happening right there. And the assumption that she called Edwards a fag. As if she actually did.
I think she's right when she says no one wants to talk about ideas. That might be partly (or even mostly) her fault but people are saying that she called Edwards a fag and that she said she wished he'd die in a terrorist attack when what she was talking about in both cases was how some things must not be said by some people.
Quite frankly, I think that pointing out the bizarre event that someone was referred to (or suggested they ought to or something) psych care for calling someone a faggot was probably something that needed to be pointed out. Bait and switch, "Coulter called Edwards a fag!" Um... okay.
And pointing out that someone (Bill Maher?) can apparently say with all seriousness that Cheney should be a victim of terrorism without getting in trouble for it so maybe she could have said *that* about Edwards without getting in trouble for it...
Well, she couldn't.
Because when it comes to speech it matters who you are.
It gets tiring after a while. It's not just Coulter but there have been other people who were actually saying something relevant and even thoughtful only to have their statement taken out of context and everyone up in arms about their hatefulness when *in* context the meaning was the opposite. Something like going on about how Arnold is all hostile to Hispanic culture and demanding people give it up when what he *said* was how to learn English faster.
After a while this blatant dishonesty is going to have people like me doing weird things like posting in defense of Ann Coulter.
And it *definitely* makes Edwards look weak. Can't he roll his eyes and laugh... haha, well you know Coulter... ? No, he has to act like her words matter and send his wife to battle for him.
And now? Now Coulter called a lovely woman dying of cancer a harridan.
You think this wasn't the plan?
hdhouse said...
I look and listen to that skank and feel like I need to shower. Paris Hilton move over.
I wish you wouldn't verbally persecute Courageous Elisabeth like that.
Besides having to raise money by endlessly talking about how losing a son in a car accident was a politically enlightening epithany that and milking it for sympathy that others suffering similar tragedy (2.4 million deaths in America anually) never quite "get" - You also have Elisabeths other "Victimhood" fundraising letters.
She has one on how Crusader John, champion of the poor, a millworker's son if you didn't know - took on the mean old doctors and got millions for a half dozen poor schmucks (all mock jury-tested telegenic kids carefully prepped in heartstring pulling by Johnny & culled from the piles wishing to sue and refused by Crusader John as not renumerative enough) to "live in dignity". And Courageous Elisabeth has not shrunk from using her own "quiet struggle against her disease" repeatedly for fundraising, along with regular updates about it on her Website sometimes wishing whe didn't have to help Crusader John work so hard - if donations came in faster, it would be easier for Courageous Elisabeth (hint: if you care about her, donate!).
It is a queasy feeling when some skank tries using some family tragedy to try and get something from you, or use it to pretend that their tragedy gives them "absolute moral authority" over others.
But calling Courageous Elisabeh a skank simply for trying to exploit vulnerable, dumber people to open their wallets is just her lawyer training kicking in, not real trailer trash skankitude.
A real skank is someone like the Durham Whore that falsely accused 3 Duke players of rape hoping for a big payoff.
Because when it comes to speech it matters who you are.
Word.
(No Coulter fan here either; just a reminder.)
Well, that's the line that Ann Coulter is pushing, Ann. As she completely dismissed the substance of Ms Edwards' comments. Style over substance wins again.
What's happening is a Dem campaign standing up to the hatemongers of the right. Let's see a lot more in thic campaign. We need to push back hard on their Swift boat attacks, their lie lines, the haircut fascinations and other base and demeaning tactics.
LOL.
Like Arnold hates immigrants.
Like Bennett wants to abort black babies.
Like... you're telling me that talking about hair cuts is hateful? Silly maybe, but hateful?
And Swiftboat vets aren't allowed to be annoyed at someone who insisted that he throw away his medals and have them too?
The Dem campaign isn't to stand up to the hatemongers the Dem campaign is to label everyone they don't want to answer as hatemongers. Hatemongers need not be answered, only condemned.
Win-win.
Of course the Blithering Misogynist Idiot isn't "talking about it."
Coulter's her role model. She'd give up box wine before she dissed her.
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.
God forbid you should love your dead son. want to remember him, and do something for society in his name. Edwards should take a page from Brit Hume - hate the dead kid and never fucking talk about him.
That's family values!
dave: God forbid you should love your dead son. want to remember him, and do something for society in his name
Except thats not what Edwards is doing. He is using his son's corpse as a political prop. Kinda sick and pathetic of him.
I don't know why you bother to defend him anyway - even *Kerry* says he's not ready for prime time and had regrets for choosing him as a running mate.
Synova: No, he has to act like her words matter and send his wife to battle for him
That does seem to be his pattern - send the cripple kid out to fight for him. His dead son. His cancerous wife. Bets that he'll be "diagnosed" with some deadly malady before the primaries, if only to sinch up the sympathy vote.
Alpha: We need to push back hard on their Swift boat attacks, their lie lines
I'm always amused when the Left uses "swift boat attacks" in that context. The Swift Boat Vets were never refuted. Its also why Kerry refused to sue them - he was afraid of a legal term called discovery.
AlphaLiberal: What's happening is a Dem campaign standing up to the hatemongers of the right. Let's see a lot more in thic campaign. We need to push back hard on their Swift boat attacks, their lie lines, the haircut fascinations and other base and demeaning tactics.
Jesus Christ, Alpha. Buy a friggin mirror.
Cedarford ... your comment indicates you are both a fool and an idiot and in no particular order.
Coulter leaves a trail of slime. Elizabeth Edwards is a class act.
I never suspected you knew the difference
Elizabeth Edwards is a class act.
What makes her a class act? The fact that she, tragically, has cancer? Please, even assholes get cancer and other serious illnesses.
Geez. Edwards can't shake that shiny pony image on YouTube, where he primps forever, while "I feel pretty" plays in the background.
That ain't Coulter's fault.
He speaks of "Two Americas" like it's still 1935 and grown women are selling apples on every street corner in New York. Fine. But then he spends $400 bucks on haircuts and charges them to the campaign (else we'd never have heard of it), and builds some freakin' Shangrila house with his trial lawyer money (made while channeling a dead child in the courtroom).
That ain't Coulter's fault.
In my view, she's too smart to play these stupid games and to say stupid things just to get on the teevees. She's unserious when seriousness is required. Mencken knew how to do it, Dennis Miller does, too; she doesn't
But jayzus on roller skates, Edwards is not just a poor candidate, he's the worst possible candidate ever: weak, irresolute, waffling, cowering, unmanly, ineffectual, unadult, elitist, and an unapologetic ambulance chaser who dares you to criticize him ...don't you know my son died and my wife has cancer????.
Criminey, someone needs to put butter on that man; because he's toast.
The fact that many who read this website defend Ann Coulter and attack Elizabeth Edwards is proof that this is nothing but a right wing echo chamber. It like defending evil (coulter) against good (elizabeth edwards) As well as all of the nasty comments by Althouse and the rest of the commenters about anything about the democrats shows this is anything but an independent or moderate blog. The blogger is entitled to her views but to call herself an independent is dishonest. Just because you say you are pro choice or pro gay rights is hardly courageous and moderate.
I started coming to this website because Althouse claimed to be an independent or moderate blogger, hoping to be enlightened or entertained or stimulated-my mistake.
For Althouse or most of her readers to claim to be independent is really quite striking. The examples are endless of the bias against "liberal" ideas or democrat candidates from support to supreme court nominees to cutting down every democrat candidate from little or no constructive questioning or dispute regarding the current admin or current republican candidates.
I also don't enjoy going to most "liberal" sites as I don't want to hear everyone say, "yes I agree with you too". I hope for a little enlightening debate. You won't find that here though.
After coming here for approximately 6 months I am not planning on returning. I try to seek out sites that spark my interest and entertain me and are not so conservative or pro republican. Again, not an issue, but don't claim to be an independent or moderate when in fact that is not the case.
Fortunately, I have found some interesting sites recently that seem to be of more interest to me and no they are not "liberal, moonbat" sites as they are more diversified in thought and content.
Not that it matters to Althouse but she has just lost a reader. I actually do feel bad about this too because I wanted to give this blog an opportunity with the hope that it would be a good source of interest for me.
Now the entire site can go off on me and call me a "dick" and "moonbat" and "defeatocrat" and "faggot" and "wimp" and "gutless" and "massachusetts liberal"
No hard feelings though, good luck with the site Althouse. You seem to enjoy what you do and put out quite a bit of material and that is what is important.
Bye.
At the risk of grievous harm to my brain (in the proud tradition of well-intentioned mad scientists the world over), let’s go for the Friday morning Maxine/dave™© combo:
Of course you’re not talking about it! That’s what passive-aggressive, blithering idiot, misogynistic, fair-complected, Capricorns do.
Lady, you really ought to renew your subscription to Glamour magazine and let your hair grow longer. And try a lighter shade of lipstick. That way you won’t leave dark lip prints on that box of wine.
Peace and hate, Maxine/dave™©.
(Done, . . ., and now I've got a headache. Great. That's just what I deserve for messing around with the laws of nature. Now to find some acetaminophen, wash it down with a tumbler full of booze, and find a toothless prostitute to massage my liver.)
"It [is] like defending evil (coulter) against good (elizabeth edwards)"
I agree... this place is no forum for such subtle and nuanced viewpoints, b70.
Well, now we know how Ann's going to promote her books with Imus off the air.
Once you sent your wife out to attack commentator while you hide behind her skirts make you appear incredibly weak.
I think it makes E. Edwards look strong, and doesn't really say much at all about J. Edwards. J & E apparently have a fairly strong marriage wherein they look out for each other -- not surprising given what they've endured.
What is so threatening about a strong-minded well-spoken women in a marriage that causes the Commentariat to call her husband weak? If Laura Bush called Al Franken on his show to berate him for his talk-radio piffle (Is he even still on? I have no idea), would you think George Bush was therefore some kind of wimp?
...would you think George Bush was therefore some kind of wimp?
I would.
Really, how embarrassing. It's got a ma, he's bein' mean ta me vibe. What Edwards needs is to show that he's got a pair.
Coulter? Oh, yeah. The lady who writes books intended for the discount bin. Oh well. I guess it gets her on TV, so she's got that going for her. I wish her well.
Then it's over and done.
Instead, he confirms one's suspicions that he can't fight his own battles. If he's scared of Ann Coulter, how can I trust him when jihadis say mean things to him?
Ann Coulter rocks and I bet she could kick the intellectual stuffings out of most Dem men including dolts like Trex and hdhouse.
I absolutely cannot understand how a strong independent woman reflects poorly on the man in a relationship. And I can see I'm not going to agree with many here. Wow.
I wonder if Ann Coulter or Elizabeth Edwards move their arms when they walk. Can we have an Elaine Benes/Raquel Welch type catfight?
Edwards appears weak for 2 reasons:
1) He's attacking a Commentator for goodness sakes!
Other than Clinton attacking Limbaugh, I can't think of a single Presidental canidate that has ever singled out a commentator and engaged in a feud with them.
If Edwards was a serious canidate he'd be feuding with Obama/Clinton not Coulter.
And yes, wifey certainly is a strong woman. But she's not running for President, John Edwards is. And her strength makes Edwards look weak.
2) Its perfectly acceptable for a wife to complain about unfair attacks on her husband. But we don't expect the candidate and his wife to engage in feud with a politlcal commentatior.
Tuesday at 9:52 I posted this:
Prediction:
Ann wants to weigh in on the Hardball Coulter-Edwards encounter....driven to separate herself from her liberal millieu...Ann will be searching or attempting to construct an angle that places the media, liberals, and/or dems in an unfavorable light.
Seven Machos said...
Ann Althouse is not a conservative.
But Mindsteps: you are a nut case. You make it sound like you have devoted your life to trying to figure out the phenomenon of this person with a blog.
This actually represents an improvement in Ms. Althouse's analysis in that it acknowledges the systemic nature of the current troubles dogging our political system (although I believe that Ann presents the dysfunction in an overly dramatic and unclear fashion). Typically, Ms. Althouse presents material indicating that the left wing is comprised of a bunch of smug, self-aggrandizing, predatory, sociopathic, phoneys (personally, I believe making such sweeping generalizations borders on political bigotry) while the right wing poops ice cream. By claiming that the relationship between Coulter and Edwards is less then perfect (deliberate understatement), is Ann analogously calling the relationship between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party a "sick symbiotic" one?
The most favorable way to view this for John Edwards is that its a fund raising ploy. (I mean the idea that a serious presidential candidate would not control their spouse's activities enough to avoid spontaneous and controversial national TV exposure does not speak well of his organizational skills)
Problem is John Edwards can raise billions of dollars however he wants, it does not make him a good candidate.
And anyone who thinks comparing Ann Althouse with Ann Coulter makes any sense, really doesn't have a clue or is just looking for a fight.
Bruce Hayden said...
Outside of certain segments on the left, I suspect that most Americans recognize the reality of Ms. Coulter, that she is a gadfly and represents one thing, and one thing alone - her own commercial interests.
AJ Lynch said...
Ann Coulter rocks and I bet she could kick the intellectual stuffings out of most Dem men...
Coulter's commercial interests wouldn't be so well met if she didn't have a rabid following. As AJ illustrates, the idea that she doesn't represent anybody is wishful thinking.
But I suspect people put off by her hatred outnumber those rallied by it. It's clear to me that at this point, she's an asset to the Democratic party.
What if she is a leftist performance artist? This thought first occurred to me years ago, after hearing her on the radio promoting her book "TREASON!!!"While I don't quite believe it, I don't rule it out. It's just shy of plausible that she is a "meta-political" operative, her career a complex put-on intended to caricature the excesses of the angry right, drive moderate voters away, and of course, make a bundle off the ignorant.
My husband really regrets having said "Brin 'em on!"
Boston: After coming here for approximately 6 months I am not planning on returning.
Boston drops by to write us yet another this time I'm really leaving. Bye bye.
Its hysterical how you lefties troll her blog to force her into spouting the Party Line. Good commies all.
I also love how Boston sets himself up as some kind of martyr for inevitably being labeled a "massachusetts liberal" as though he hasn't repeatedly bashed midwesterners. Priceless.
It's not about defending evil against good.
I really have nothing (much) against Elizabeth but I actually *watched* the segment where Coulter supposedly attacked Edwards by saying he should be the victim of terrorism and she said no such thing. A case could be made that she had previously called Edwards gay without actually calling him gay, but that it was her intention. A case can't be made that she was using a back door way of saying she wished he was a victim of terrorism. She just didn't.
It's not about defending evil and attacking good. It's about the truth.
Oh, she wasn't *nice* to him. She did say that calling him gay was an insult to gay people so she would never do that... because it would be mean to gays.
No, she's not worried about being mean to Edwards. She's mean to Edwards on purpose.
Are we now not supposed to be harshly critical of those people running for president?
Of course we can be harshly critical of people running for president and Edwards has a lot to criticize.
Who we *can't* be harshly critical of is ladies dying of cancer.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा