The Story
By the way, his 16-year-old son Wade died in 1996.

The giraffe woman really stuck her neck out on this one, what a bitch.

There's nothing heartless about that column. She's mocking people who exploit personal tragedies for political gain. If you can see past the bias, it's actually pretty funny.

I'm in agreement with TomFord. If this was such a tender and sore subject, we would not hear about it from Edwards, and the same goes for other candidates who use situations like this to gain votes. It's not A. Coulter that's sick. The actions of the candidates who do that remind me of criminals crying crocodile tears trying to get the jury to feel sorry for their plite. Call me heartless, but I vote on issue not sympathy.

I agree with the article. It's repulsive for Edwards to talk about this, just as it was repulsive for Gore to talk about his sister's death from cancer and son's near-death in a car accident, and Bush, Sr. talking about his daughter's death from leukemia. Even if their hearts are in the right place, even if it is genuine, it's impossible to talk about it to a wide audience without it seeming like it's being exploited for craven political purposes. I understand the dislike a lot of folks have for Coulter, but in this case I think we should separate the message from the messenger, because she's right on in her observations.

Actually, the word I use to describe her is CeeCee, which means C.C. Which stands for Coulter C**t.

eek!

I refuse to believe a word that comes out of that venemous bitches mouth! What a c**t!

So was it repulsive when George H. W. Bush talked about his daughter who died young? What was her name? I don't mean Doro.

No, because if your a republican you get a free pass on stuff like this, much the same with DWI's, cheating on your wife (youthful indiscretions) ect.

Fantomas - I think you were in such a hurry to cast stones that you didn't read my post very carefully. If you reread without a jaundiced eye, you'll see that it singles out Edwards, Gore AND Bush, Sr. for using personal tragedy to political advantage. Here is the exact text from my post:

>>>>It's repulsive for Edwards to talk about this, just as it was repulsive for Gore to talk about his sister's death from cancer and son's near-death in a car accident, and Bush, Sr. talking about his daughter's death from leukemia.....<<<<

So, yes, I do think it's repulsive and said so.


Razor - See above. How you get from what I wrote that I've given anyone a free pass is beyond me.

BTW, the deceased Bush daughter was named Robin; she died at age four.

[ January 28, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

Don't forget my three favorite words, "Neil Bush--herpes"

I assume you're suggesting that GHW Bush used or exploited the death of his daughter as some sort of campaign tool, since I can't imagine you or anyone else would find it "repulsive" that a father would at some point in time, in some situation, mention his late daughter to someone. If exploitation is in fact what you're suggesting, when did 41 exploit his child's death for campaign purposes? Do you have any specific examples? Just curious.

A few things, for what it's worth:

1. I don't think its a bad thing necessarily to mention, in a campaign setting, that you've had a child or relative who died. To paraphrase Max Fisher in Rushmore, "We all have dead people in our families." But to harp on it or use it to try to whip a crowd into an emotional fervor for the sake of political performance is, I believe, unfortunate and exploitative.

2. Obviously when 41 was running for and was President, Ann Coulter wasn't quite the public figure/media whore she is today.

For one thing, I don't think that criticizing a current candidate for their current campaign strategies requires one to retroactively criticize any and all candidates from your own party that might have used similar strategies in previous elections at some point in history.

Also, I suspect that AC is/was no fan of 41, that he was a bit squishy ideologically for her tastes, and that if she had in fact been an almost omnipotent media fixture during the 1988 and 1992 campaigns she would have found plenty to criticize in his style, platform, etc.

At the risk of starting a sub-thread titled "Famous Herpetics," you mean like Robin Williams?

And yes, I love every word Ann Coulter writes and think she's one of the few really original political satirists writing today. :cool:

If you are going to start talking about how much you love Ann Coulter, then, yes, please, let's do start a sub-thread!

If Robing Williams' brother becomes President and starts sanctimoniuosly talking about values and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, then yes let's start such a thread.

To paraphrase the Bible, which Shrub supposedly reads every day--clean up the herpes in your own house before you worry about the values in mine.

Hey gmg, welcome back!

The last I remember of seeing you everyone was trying to get your LCR opinion on Cheney supporting a presidential push to ban same-sex marriage. As ususal, you wouldnt answer you just bashed the messengers.

"We can run and hide or stay and fight."
Your choice was obvious.

What do you think about your brilliant president wanting to alter the constitution to ban gay marriage? Oh wait, never mind, Im wasting my time, you wont answer, you're to busy "working within", good job, its going great!!!

P.S. Did you "love" this:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
Ann Coulter 6/20/01

The "wisdom" of Ann Coulter the self-described original long-haired blonde...
The Idiot Link

Ah, yes, George W. Bush is obviously responsible for his brother Neil's getting herpes, and therefore has no standing to comment on any issue related to the family.

Yuck! Didnt know they were into that, oh well, to each his own.

Good one, Raze!

Look! They are both bitches!

The one on the right is beautiful! So I suppose the one one the left is Ann :confused:

What, are we on a playground or something? I made my way through elementary school many years ago, but now I'm having flashbacks. "She's ugly!" "She's a meanie!" "Your brother has cooties!" Alas, these are some of the more mature and well-reasoned arguments I've heard from the left in quite some time.

Hey Bobby thats not fair to compare that dog to a giraffe.

Agreed.

I'm sorry to compare the dog (the one on the right) to a giraffe with an adam's apple. My bad.

And in an intelligence test, the dog would STILL wing.

Actually, William, I would hope that as an adult you could see the distinction. Saying "you're brother stinks" and "you're brother has herpes" are entirely different in the context of the Sanctity of Marriage discussion. Shrub says that two loving, caring committed men or women who want to ratify that commmitment are destroying heterosexual unions. I seriously doubt that Sharon and Sally in Topeka had anything to do with Neil Bush screwing Asian hookers and contracting herpes.

In the law, it's called "proximate cause". You'd be hard pressed to prove that gay marriage (or even the threat of) caused Neil Bush's marriage to break up. It most likely had more to do with the whoring and the cooties (a/k/a herpes) that you seem so eager to dismiss.

Logical enough for you? Now, let's see if you can logically refute that or if you'll resort to right-wing rhetoric.

BTW, Neil Bush has herpes!

No, your majesty, I'm not impressed with your mastery of logic, though I like the way you set yourself up as the unchallenged king of rationality (i.e. any failure to take your claims as gospel equals mere right-wing rhetoric). Sorry, but any conversation that lunges from John Edwards' kid dying to Ann Coulter's ugliness to herpes is absolutely impossible for me to take seriously. I admire your comfort with such low standards, though.

That's right. If you can't refute it, then dismiss it.

That's too easy. Comfort with low standards = George W.
I'm not even gonna try to be humorous. But thanks for the softball.

[ January 29, 2004, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

I always find it a bit odd that there are gay people who "love" anything about Ann. I heard her a couple of weeks ago on Matt Drudge's radio program saying all sorts of noxious things about gays. The woman is vile.

As opposed to liberals' favorite tactic: If you can't refute it, hurl personal attacks and insults against a person.

Good Lord! Ann Coulter taking action figures??? eek!

What is this world coming to? :confused:

Oh, there's a better one. A few weeks ago, QVC was selling George W. Bush action figures, in the ondeck flight uniform he wore declaring the war in Iraq to be over. I started calling people around the country, because it was TRULY something you had to see to believe. eek!

Hey, "we're a rainbow," right? All sorts of opinions allowed, even those you disagree with! What's so "odd" about that? :confused:

I follow Ann pretty closely and have yet to hear her opine anything that offends me. That's ME, not "me as a gay person." I can readily recognize, if not understand, how some - gay, straight, whatever - may disagree with her and, lacking the ability to argue dispassionately, become "offended" or "hurt" and therefore resort to name-calling and other childish tactics like posting silly pictures of her. That's their right, of course, just as it's everyone else's right to ignore them and deny them the credibility they've yet to earn.

Thank you for proving your point. Consider yourself ignored and denied of any credibility from this point onward. I think posting links (as I do ALL the time) to commentary I make as establishing credibility. Just goes to show that you have no idea what you are talking about...gee, thanks for nothing. If you want to discuss lack of credibility, how about this Bushie administration. Ignore and Deny button activated.

[ January 30, 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

I guess Ann isn't the only heartless witch, gmginsfo. Maybe you two can form a coven and leave us heartful and NICE people alone.

Here's a different perspective on it.

I was speaking to a buddy of mine who is a lawyer for a newspaper. We got onto the subject of American columnists, and who should be printed up here.

His opinion on the Coulter C**t?

She couldn't be published up here as most of her columns violate Canada's hate laws, and the regulatory body would ban her, as well as fine the paper tha printed her.

Gee. Maybe we are more advanced.

Yet another reason to move to Canada until November 2004.

Her writing would violate your "hate laws"? I wouldn't call that advanced. I'd call it frightening.

Christ. She uses exaggeration for effect.

[ January 30, 2004, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

A tactic she'd picked up from the Bush intelligence agencies.

"We will find WMDs!"
"Mission Accomplished!"
"Bring it on!"
Yep, looks like exaggeration works!

No, a tactic that satirists have used for centuries.

Like when she says that all Democrats are traitors and should be shot?

Or when she says that all gays are disease ridden and need to be confined to camps?

Or when she says that Hillary Clinton was the greatest enemy the US has ever seen?

Or when she said that if you were'nt a Republican you shouldn't be allowed to vote or have citizenship?

All of those things she's said in the past 3 years.

And if that's exaggeration for "effect", then I'm a virgin.

The lady is a dangerous right wing-nut wacko.

And I for one, am glad she would be banned in Canada. Don't forget, our laws do NOT guarantee "free speech at any cost". Our laws guarantee free speech, so long as it doesn't violate hate laws, or is in violation of the criminal code.

BIG difference.

Big deal. She's funny. You don't like her/get it. That's no reason to trot out hate laws. Turn the page and move onto something you can grasp.

Or in other words, "she lies." Check out Franken's chapter on her where he exposes numerous lies (or maybe you'd like to call them "mistakes" or "misunderstandings") from her writings.

It's a bitch having to verify your information before being taken seriously, huh?

Oh yeah. She's a laugh a minute. Vile hate-filled ***.

Hey Ann -- Elvis Costello, Spike, Track 7, baby.

But I agree with TomFord and others -- Hate crime laws are a bad idea. They are oppressive. Freedom means even the freedom to be a vile hate-spewing ***. It's called a paradox, Canada. Deal with it.

[ January 30, 2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Skiguy ]

Fussing about getting a fact wrong here and another wrong there isn't what this is about. You don't read AC to find out just how many babies were killed by abortionists in a given week, or exactly many Iraqis died in a certain period. This isn't about how her facts are incorrect the way, say, Paul Krugman's facts can be found to be incorrect. This is about her work as a satirist. It's a bit muddleheaded to shout, "Oh, smack, she said it was 10,000 when it was only 1,000!" when we're talking about an opinion writer whose point isn't much changed by a correction of her facts. Read her columns. They're not exactly fact driven...which isn't to say they're without merit. They're not governed by certain facts, the debunking of which would unravel the whole. So whatever inaccuracies he finds, they're beside the point.

You have to have some sense of a satirist's rhetorical point to understand the satire in it. Take a column on airport security. The main point is to mock what she terms liberal approaches to airport security that would have, say, old white women and handicapped black men checked at the same random rate as men from the Middle East. And then she'll list all the terrorist attacks of the past decade, noting how every single one of the long list was committed by men from the Middle East. She'll have a throwaway line about how, if we really wanted to take airport security seriously, we wouldn't let men from the Middle East board our planes.

Which is the exaggeration for effect: because, honestly, if we were to take a rigorous approach to airport security, it would be absurd not to target the very type of people responsible for an overwhelming number of terrorist attacks. It's the logical extension of what we know from a long list of terrorist attacks: the number one most likely suspect is a man from the Middle East. But it's all for effect--she seriously isn't saying let's stop men from the Middle East boarding our planes.

Some, however, will see that line and choose to read it as an attack on people from the Middle East. Which would make her a right wing nut on par with, well, with the worst sort of people.

But the point of the column is how ineffective our well-meaning but absurd solutions to airport security are. And how the end result is not safer air travel, but just idiotic inconveniences for all travelers.

Some, however, will go on to quote the line about how men from the Middle East should not be allowed to board our planes as proof that she's a right wing nut. She's crazy! And ugly! She has hateful views! And she's not fit for print in Canada for fear that she's inspire hate or some other rubbish. Which completely misses the point. Again, you have to have some sense of a satirist's rhetorical point to understand the satire in it.

The same goes for the column that started this thread. She didn't write it to heartlessly poke fun at Gephardt's dead 16 year old son, as Bobby would have it. She's mocking people who exploit personal tragedies for political gain. And she does it in a funny way, lining up example after example of Democratic candidates for president whoring out death and illness in their family to win the sympathy of their idiot followers. But you have to have some, I don't know what the word is, to get her.

[ January 30, 2004, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: TomFord ]

I believe the word is GULLIBLE. wink

I thought there was a difference between Opinion pieces and Satire (Dave Barry), but that's just me.