The Coulter-Edwards thing
Alright, it's not worth wasting a lot of space on, but there just a few things worth noting about this.
First off, I'm glad Elizabeth Edwards called in to MSNBC defend her husband. Not only did it make Ann Coulter look like an even more petty and callous individual than she already is, but it also revealed how weak she is as she resorted to merely shouting over a presidential candidate's wife on national TV. Anyone with any morsel of class would have just taken it, politely rebutted what she felt was necessary and be done with it.
Second, while I am glad Edwards had the gumption to stand up to the bully, it's also rewarding Coulter for her absurd comments. However popular she might be among some segments of the GOP base, it's also clear she's someone that no candidate should take seriously. All this does is keep her and her antics circulating a bit longer in the media, sell a few more books for her and give her attention she neither deserves or warrants.
First off, I'm glad Elizabeth Edwards called in to MSNBC defend her husband. Not only did it make Ann Coulter look like an even more petty and callous individual than she already is, but it also revealed how weak she is as she resorted to merely shouting over a presidential candidate's wife on national TV. Anyone with any morsel of class would have just taken it, politely rebutted what she felt was necessary and be done with it.
Second, while I am glad Edwards had the gumption to stand up to the bully, it's also rewarding Coulter for her absurd comments. However popular she might be among some segments of the GOP base, it's also clear she's someone that no candidate should take seriously. All this does is keep her and her antics circulating a bit longer in the media, sell a few more books for her and give her attention she neither deserves or warrants.
posted by Jmac at 7:27 AM
4 Comments:
No fan of Coulter am I, but I was shocked when I actually saw her comments on GMA. Not because they were so mean-spirited, but because they WEREN'T. Over and over, I had been hearing she wished Edwards dead in a terrorist attack, and that's not even close to what she actually said. I mean, it's not even close.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2258.html
And is Elizabeth Edwards now politic's answer to Brenda Warner?
I'd have to know who Brenda Warner was to answer your question.
Listen, I don't like Coulter and I think she's become more of a cartoon character than anything else, but the primary problem I have with Elizabeth Edwards calling in is that it's solely to help raise money for her husband's campaign. Not that that's wrong or terrible, but it's just that she's using Coulter's lunacy to further her ends as well.
The whole thing is preposterous, and while I don't blame her for defending her husband (I even applaud her somewhat), the better thing to do would have been let it lie and move on.
It's a bummer that well-intended 'Net lefties, who are starved for red meat because we're so high-roady by nature, are spamming this clip all over the place with titles that are variations on "ELIZABETH PWNS ANN!" It's really just more high-roading and "Have you no decency"-ing. You can feel the folks waiting for that knockout zinger that never comes. Hillary would've ripped her a jagged new one.
JMac, Brenda Warner is quarterback Kurt Warner's wife. She hasn't been shy about fighting his battles in the press for him.
jmac, I have to agree with you in one sense; Ann Coulter does not help conservatives (for the most part.) More often than not, this is not because of WHAT she says but because of HOW she says it. This dust-up is a perfect example. She was right in her intended message: that Bill Maher should not have made his comment about wishing Dick Cheney had been killed by terrorists and that the media was wrong for not holding Maher to task for it. She was trying to do what Rush Limbaugh says he does in some cases, i.e., illustrate absurdity by being absurd. Her underlying point was a solid. Her delivery, however, was less than helpful (as usual.) That having been said, both sides do the same thing, i.e., pick and choose when to be righteously indignant about some absurd statement from the other side while conveniently ignoring equally absurd statements made by people on their own side of the aisle. That is a problem both sides need to address.
Post a Comment
<< Home