"Debate" Over Coulter Reminiscent of "Debate" Over Whoopi in 2004

[JABBS]

The debate, of course, is not about free speech. Coulter has a right to her opinion. Crown Forum has a right to publish it.

<snip>

The same conservative pundits and politicians who were quick to denounce Michael Moore and his docu-ganda, "Farenheit 9/11," are generally keeping quiet now.

It reminds me of July, 2004, when some conservatives were up in arms over dirty jokes that comedian Whoopi Goldberg told at a John Kerry fund-raiser, but generally remained silent a week later when comedian Dennis Miller, introducing President Bush at a Wisconsin rally, implied John Kerry and John Edwards had a gay relationship.

Then, as now, the debate was not about freedom of speech. It's about the double-standard among conservative pundits and politicians.

***

To read more, go to JABBS.

[NYCGirl]

1. Ann Coulter is a comedian? I just don't buy that. NT

[JABBS]

2. according to Time, she is ...

Check out the bottom half of this JABBS post on the subject, from last May.

[NYCGirl]

4. Then how come she isn't playing clubs or doing HBO specials?

Dennis Miller is. Or headlining Hollywood Squares (if it's still on)? Or making comedy albums? Maybe she should be doing a tour to help out GOP candidates if she's a comedian.

[JABBS]

6. don't you understand

(donning my sarcasm hat)

Part of the conservative mythology is that liberals don't have a sense of humor, and thus don't appreciate Coulter for what she is.

And since Time magazine did a huge article on her last year, and repeated this conservative myth, it must be true, right?

Essentially, when Coulter suggested poisoning a Supreme Court justice, then ended the sentence with "just kidding," we were supposed to laugh. Just like that other comedian, G.W. Bush, when he joked about not being able to find WMD (at the 2004 WH correspondents dinner). We should have laughed along with all those "liberal" media types in the audience that day.

Al Franken is a hatemonger. Stephen Colbert went over the line. But Coulter? She's hilarious. Time magazine said so -- so it must be true, right?

[NYCGirl]

9. My point is that she cannot be compared with Whoopi Goldberg —

even though the response to Whoopi's routine was overblown and frankly wrong. My biggest problem with Whoopi's routine was that it was obvious.

[Jade Fox]

10. Last time I checked.....

if you are actually funny, you don't have to tell your audience that you are ("just kidding").

(yes, I know you were being sarcastic)

Conservatives don't understand that when we say "mean" things about their leaders, it is because those leaders have done atrocious or simply stupid things. What have the 9/11 widows done that was atrocious or stupid? Coulter speculates that their husbands might have been planning on divorcing them. Wha???? Never mind remarks I could make about Coulter never having been in the position to be left by a husband, how in the world is her speculation about the Jersey Girls' marriages remotely relevant, forget funny?

Liberals take actual situations and behavior, and make humor. It's based in reality. That's why it's funny. Coulter's vicious fantasies are funny only to those who share them.

[originalpckelly]

3. No, she is a real nut...

After someone on DU told me to listen to Drudge, with her on the show last night, I listened.

She said she is real.
Drudge said she is real.
That does settle it.
She is an "authentic" bitch.

[zbdent]

12. Well, when you consider that these are the same people who agree

with Robin Williams on "furren policy" (actually a much-debunked spam which only has one line attributable to RW) . . .

:eyes:

[baldguy]

5. Of course there's a double standard.

Normally when someone calls for the deaths of Americans, necrocons call them a terrorist and drop bombs on them. But if when a Conservative pundit that does it, they give them million dollar book deals and put them on the teevee.

[gratuitous]

7. A couple of other minor differences

When Michael Moore says something about someone, like say that Charlton Heston and the NRA were inappropriately celebratory in the wake of a couple of gun-related massacres, he provided footage and quotes from the parties involved. The viewer might disagree with Moore's conclusion, but the video footage was there for people to see for themselves. Moore also follows up as often as possible with trying to talk to the persons involved. But Heston just walked away from him, and Dick Clark couldn't jump in his limo fast enough. I don't see any footage of Coulter talking face to face with Cindy Sheehan or the women widowed by 9/11.

The other minor difference is that when Moore says something that the major media object to (depending on how it's trimmed and caricatured to fit their straw man argument), every Democrat on every show is buttonholed, presented with the Michael Moore straw man, and pressed to deny or disparage whatever words the talking chucklehead puts into Moore's mouth.

Nobody on the GOP side, as far as I can tell, is presented with Ann Coulter's actual verbiage and asked to comment on it. The tactic used for Coulter is to soften her odious opinions, change it around a bit, and presented as "doesn't she make a good point if you stand on your head, put it in a mirror, change it around to this more palatable interpretation, and ignore what she actually said?" For example, her opinion that it would have been better had Tim McVeigh parked that rental truck outside the New York Times building in New York instead of the federal building in Oklahoma City -- a hateful, bileful thing to say. But once the talking chuckleheads get done with it, the opinion turns into "Isn't it true that sometimes the Times makes conservatives mad? And aren't they within the bounds of humanity and decency to object when that happens?" Well yes, Neil. But Coulter isn't just objecting; she wants to blow up the Times building on a weekday morning without warning. It's not quite the same thing now, is it?

[JABBS]

8. also

Mediamatters quotes Bill O'Reilly and David Horowitz talking about how Coulter might be a bomb-thrower, but she doesn't lie. Mediamatters then listed a whole slew of lies Coulter has told.

See JABBS from February, 2005 and May, 2005 for examples of Coulter lying.

If I were a moderate Republican -- a Chafee, Collins, Stowe, Specter, etc. -- I would denounce Coulter's bomb-throwing.

[Jade Fox]

11. Mary Matlin was asked to comment on....

Coulter's anti-9/11 widow diatribe, and said something to the effect that she agreed with Coulter's "larger point". What the hell was the larger point in Coulter's hateful comments?

Matlin then went on to compare Coulter's words with when Liberals call conservative Fascists, etc. The difference is the GOP is acting in a Fascist manner! It's a response to reality, not just inner hatefulness.

[gratuitous]

13. And you can bet . . .

That a Democratic commentator on Michael Moore who tried to address "the larger point" or to address what Michael Moore actually said instead of what the talking chucklehead said Moore said would be stopped in mid-sentence, interrupted, cut off, or otherwise brought back to whatever unrelated caricature of looniness the interviewer was trying to put across.

But I agree: What "larger point" is there to a hateful attack on grieving widows and mothers? Perhaps Ms. Matalin would be kind enough to let us know just exactly when that's appropriate. I have a few invectives I'd like to toss at Ted Olson.

[Jade Fox]

16. Apparently Matlin provided.....

a "larger point" for Coulter. (see post 14 and 15)

Nice of her, huh!

[JABBS]

14. matalin

was talking to Imus, and she said she hadn't read the book so she couldn't comment.

the larger point, I'm guessing, is that the widows have become celebrities and supporters of Democrats, which Coulter thinks is wrong. In Coulter's world, the widows should have shut the hell up.

of course, if the widows had become proud supporters of bush's war on terror, I doubt coulter would have targeted them. coulter has said that's not true, but I don't believe her.

[Jade Fox]

15. But,......

when did Coulter say anything about the Widows being supportive of Democrats? If she did, I missed that part. And I suspect everyone else did too, only hearing the comments about those women becoming millionaires (another outrageous assumption on Coulter's part that has gone unquestioned) etc.

I think Matlin was trying to give Coulter's comments a serious content they didn't actually possess.

[JABBS]

17. speaking with Matt Lauer

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to> No-No-No. We always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die--

From Crooks & Liars.

[gratuitous]

18. And Ann Coulter's self-refuting point

"How about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to." Didn't Coulter just write a book, for which she was paid a lot of money, responding to the 9/11 widows? Called them a lot of names, as I recall. How is that not being "allowed" to respond to them? And does she have any "response" of a similar nature to the widow of the "Let's Roll" guy, a widow who is also being paid a lot of money to promote her book?

But aside from Mary Matalin, why don't the talking chuckleheads ask Sen. Frist what he thinks of Coulter and her bilious words? Why isn't Denny Hastert being asked about Coulter's book? Why isn't Mitt Romney being buttonholed to either deny or defend Coulter's mean-spirited tripe?

[JABBS]

20. that was Rahm Emanuel's point

... on the House floor.

Of course, the mainstream media isn't asking that question. Their "story" is "look how controversial Ann Coulter is."

To be fair, I think that was the crux of their coverage of the "Michael Moore" story, although it seemed other stories made big news, pushed along by conservative talk radio and cable chatfests.

I'm waiting for Chris Matthews to weigh in on this.

[Jade Fox]

19. Thanks. What's interesting here....

is that the 9/11 widows, being actual victims of 9/11 have a legitimacy found no where else. Same with Cindy Sheehan. That's what Coulter is pissed about.

I guess the Right's doctrine of infallibility is Patriotism. If you question us, you're Un-Patriotic. Nice that their doctrine of infallibility requires no sacrifice or messy loss of blood, only name calling.

[JABBS]

21. name calling

is a centerpiece of conservative debating tactics. anyone who listens to conservative pundits knows that it's much easier to smear someone than to actually debate an issue, point by point.

I don't know how many times I've heard conservative pundits (or callers) say, "We all know that liberals side with the enemy" or "Liberals want the troops to die so that they can score points against Bush."

How do they come up with this notion that "liberal" = "un-American"? From conservative pundits.