Elizabeth Edwards confronts Coulter

June 27, 2007

In the highly unlikely event you haven’t seen it, I hope readers will take a moment to watch Elizabeth Edwards, John Edwards’ wife, call into MSNBC yesterday to confront Ann Coulter during her “Hardball” appearance.

Yesterday on ABC’s Good Morning America, Coulter said, “[I]f 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 has previously called Edwards a “faggot.” In 2003, she wrote a column claiming that John Edwards drove around with a bumper sticker saying “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident.”

During an hour-long interview with Coulter today on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews announced that Elizabeth Edwards was on the line. Edwards referenced the attacks above, saying, “I’m the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you…you’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.” The live audience cheered.

Of course they did. When class confronts tastelessness, class tends to fare pretty well.

Whenever Coulter’s name comes up, readers encourage me to ignore her. I generally find that persuasive, but I can’t help but equate Coulter with some kind of social cancer. As with real cancer, ignoring it won’t make it go away; it tends to make it worse.

TV producers, desperate for viewers, apparently believe it’s worthwhile to broadcast her disgusting tirades, which in turn spreads the cancer further. The goal, then, isn’t to ignore Coulter, it’s to somehow convince responsible “news” outlets that she should no longer be considered part of the civilized American discourse.

Just as an aside, Coulter’s response to Elizabeth Edwards was noteworthy, too.

When her first two attempts to spin the situation faulted, Coulter then launched into another baseless, personal attack, accusing John Edwards of “bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries…doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies.”

So, as far as Coulter is concerned, juries in North Carolina are made up of “illiterate” people.

I hear talk on the right that the left reflexively looks down on Southerners, but as Rick Perlstein noted, “I’ve never heard a liberal say an entire Southern state’s jury pool can’t read.”

If there was ever a right wing shithead who truly lived up to the old Texanism,”she needed killin'”, Bitch of Belsen Coulter is it.

  • Steve, your very last sentence may be the best reason to not just ignore Coulter. Like all of these shrill rightwing blowhards, all of that bully’s courage falls away in a tantrum when they are actually confronted. Baiting Coulter gets her to say increasingly stupid things – things that can then be used to tar her allies on the right. Her insult to everyday citizens of North Carolina should be on the tip of the tongue of every progressive so that any time we get accused of anti-Southern elitism, this is the counterpunch. One of two things ultimately happen, both good: either people begin to see the right wing as the elitists they really are, or the actual politicians and officeholders have to distance themselves from Coulter – which leaves her irrelevant (and that is what will finally deprive her of airtime).

  • the problem is that there is no longer anything on american television that can be called “responsible” news; it’s gone.

    so there’s no way to convince the purveyors of “responsible” news that ann coulter doesn’t belong on the public airwaves, because these people don’t exist.

  • Zeitgeist:
    Anne’s only saying about Southern Jury Pools what southern right wing radio talk show hosts say all of the time (check out Neal Boortz for a national version). Coulter is not offending anyone on her side, they believe juries are idiots, too. Oh yes, and by idiots they mean “poor and black.”

    There is simply no reason to encourage that woman to speak.

  • What about the sponsors for the shows on which this “person” appears? Perhaps they should know how people feel about seeing the moral equivalent of the KKK?
    Also, cancer is a very good analogy for Coulter & co., but I prefer parasite. The creepy insect-like image fits better for me, as I get disgusted every time I see a picture of this gaunt, bile-filled creature.

  • All Ann is doing is saying what the majority of the right wing thinks but are too afraid to say themsleves. It’s almost as if people (not journalists mind you) like her and Glenn Beck, Brit Hume, or any other Fox ‘News’ personality are making a concerted effort to NOT be politically correct, which in their minds is the ultimate rejection of liberalism.

    It’s a sad commentary on the intellect of a large portion of the American citizenry.

  • The more I think about it, with the national mood for the rantings of Coulter and her ilk beginning to finally fade — at least for now — and Coulter herself starting to look so ghoulish that even several layers of stage makeup can’t hide it, perhaps she should be paraded out on national TV as often as possible, as a living (?) example of what happens to people whose sole motivations in life boil down to greed, narcissism, and fear and hatred of one’s fellow man.

  • One additional note: Even sadder still is the fact that the hate they spew may or may not even reflect their true opinions; they have just been so brainwashed by 30 + years of conservatism villifying the democrats and liberalism that they view Americans with different viewpoints as enemies. that speaks VOLUMES about the poisonous attributes of conservatism.

  • Steve, count this as a vote against ignoring Coulter and her fellow travelers; I think one of the great under-reported things conservatives have done is make liberals run away from their own identity by identifying them with unpopular causes/images/people and lampooning them, and for some reason (well, a *number* of reasons), we’re shy about returning the favor, even when there are a *number* of reasons to do so.

  • It was interesting to see the interaction between Coulter and Edwards and to realize how Edwards didn’t really realize what she was asking Coulter, and I’m not taking Coulter’s side at all on this. If you watch the video, Coulter kept coming back to saying, “You want me to stop writing books.” Meaning, she thinks she’s a one-act pony, and she won’t have anything worth reading to write about politics if she gives up making nasty personal attacks. At the point I realized that, I almost felt kind of sorry for Ann Coulter. She should just try having an opinion without it include a lot of ad hominem b.s./clowning.

  • Nothing is more representative of the double-standards applied to guests on talking head shows than Coulter. She says people should be killed, are gay, or some other outlandish comment that we all know would get a progressive outlawed had he/she said the exact same thing. That person would have been subjected to the modern-day version of being tarred and feathered, and would never be asked again to be on TV.

    Yet, Coulter lives by this M.O. And they keep asking her back on, time after time, to say more of it. Coulter is simply emblematic of the non-existence of ‘fair and balanced’ in the media.

  • Well, watching it myself, I thought Edwards was weak. She was stumbling over her words initially, and in the end only managed to make a pathetic plea that Coulter stop using “personal attacks,” which Coulter treated with contempt while launching smoothly into another set of attacks. Rhetorically, Coulter ran rings around Edwards, getting in yet another attack on John Edwards manhood (“Why is it you are calling and not him? Can’t he speak for himself?”) Edwards failed again and again to reply to obvious opportunities, and so, overall, the call just reinforced the notion that Dems are too wimpy to respond effectively to attack (the subtext of all of Coulter’s approach.)

    A better approach would have been to A. have at least the initial questions well enough rehearsed that Edwards could get through them without stumbling and B. address most of them to Matthews and not Coulter. “Chris, this woman, by her own admission, has nothing to offer but baseless and dishonest personal attacks. Why are you giving her an hour today? Why do you give her any time at all?” When Coulter asked the obvious question about why John wasn’t the one making this call, a better reply would have been “My husband has better things to do than talk to someone like you.” Put Coulter down and build John Edwards up. When Coulter started in on money, note Coulter’s own speaking fees. Etc.

    You may say this is “getting down into the mud” with Coulter. You’re right, it is. But that’s what you’re doing if you call and reply to her in any case. If you’re going to mud wrestle, don’t let yourself get pinned. IMHO Elizabeth Edwards did just that.

  • I happened to catch the segment when Edwards called in, and while I agree with Zeitgeist, that “Baiting Coulter gets her to say increasingly stupid things,” I also thought Edwards’ follow-up was pathetic.

    Dems across the board must learn to stop letting right-wing wackos squirm out of indefensible positions by changing the subject, launching counter attacks, denying they ever said what everyone heard them say, etc. We all need a weeklong seminar on “Propaganda Techniques and How to Defeat Them” if we’re to be effective at marginalizing the rabid dogs among us.

  • I just watched it and I’m nauseated.

    Coulter’s a monster, always has been, always will be. Her “jokes” are the sort of opinion-making that opens the door for dehumanization of entire groups and leads to cultural black marks like McCarthyism,,, and worse.

    Then there’s Elizabeth Edwards, who might be the person I revere most in public life. What she’s gone through, who she is, what she says, how she’s lived… this is a woman that my centrist father described during the ’04 campaign as “a fucking rock star.” I couldn’t agree more. And I wish she hadn’t sullied herself by engaging with the beast.

    That isn’t to say that you can ignore monsters. But send out someone whom you don’t mind seeing in the mud. Because of her superb characeter, Elizabeth Edwards has to go into that fight with one hand behind her back. Let David Brock do it, or Chris Lehane, or, I dunno, Maryscott O’Connor… some other right-thinking person who’s willing to wallow and fight dirty.

  • Let David Brock do it, or Chris Lehane, or, I dunno, Maryscott O’Connor…

    None of them would have got on the program. Matthews let the call through because it WAS Elizabeth Edwards.

  • Couple of things. Edwards could have been more articulate, but I think that allowed her humanity to shine through, and Coulter’s continuing to kick Edwards showed that Coulter’s humanity deserted her a long time ago.

    One of the hallmarks of the way the right-wing tend to argue their points is to just talk over whatever anyone else is saying, and to not have the courtesy of allowing others to speak without interruption. When Edwards said she was calling in because she doesn’t have many opportunities to speak with Ann, that they don’t hang out with the same people, Coulter muttered under her breath, “I don’t have enough money.” And then later, as noted in the post, she attacked Edwards for making his money as a “shyster lawyer.” Thi sisn’t about money.

    I think the thing that really creeps me out about Coulter – among many things that creep me out about her – is the pleasure she gets from kicking people when they’re down. Of mocking their grief or their loss or their situation; I was waiting for Coulter to make a mocking and sarcastic comment about Edwards’ health.

    Coulter has a right to speak, but we have no obligation to listen, and the media has no obligation to give her a forum to disseminate her opinions. She is a shallow, bitter and very unhappy person, and rather than allow her to spread that around, we ought to be isolating her so that it can finally eat her up completely.

    And, finally – as someone named Anne-with-an-e, I would love it if people who do have to mention Coulter’s name would spell it as she does, without the e.

  • You may say this is “getting down into the mud” with Coulter. You’re right, it is.

    I disagree.

    If Mrs. Edwards were to get down into “the mud” with Coulter, she would’ve called her Mann Coulter, asked Coulter how often she has to shave her back, and then asked for someone in the audience to punch Coulter in that adam’s apple of hers.

    What Mrs. Edwards did was stand on the bank and watch as Coulter flung around in the mud as everyone else watched. And considering the crowd’s reaction, that’s what people want.

    My great-grandmother was an expert at that — she could verbally undress anyone with a few calm words, and then watch as they fell apart. It’s a learned skill to do well (as Edwards’ verbal stumbling showed) but it can work. And well.

    IMHO, that’s exactly how the left should respond to twits like Coulter — calmly, reasonably, and with just enough force to cause the other side to collapse from their own hatred and stupidity.

    No need to sink down to their level — after all, they’re already so damn low a gentle push will send them under.

  • And, finally – as someone named Anne-with-an-e, I would love it if people who do have to mention Coulter’s name would spell it as she does, without the e.

    Sorry about that. I feel your pain. Many people add extra letters to my last name.

  • In 04, a friend who drove truck for years and got sucked in by Limbaugh, went to a rally where Edwards was working the crowd after a speech and Elizabeth was sitting by herself. He went over to say hi and she asked him to sit. They talked privately for 15 minutes! He still talks about it and is now supporting Edwards.

  • what jimBOB said.

    The best thing Edwards could have tried to accomplish would be to shame Tweety on national TV for giving free airtime to such a nasty person. He should have been treated to some of the nasty shit she’s said over the years, and then asked pointedly why he would invite such a ghoul onto his show. She could have had a Jon Stewart Crossfire moment, with the crowd cheering the guest for impaling the host (and by extension the entire media shitfest).

    Coulter loves to be hated by us. She thrives on it. We should Ignore Coulter, and go after her enablers, the media whores and especially their advertisers. They really don’t like getting caught supporting jerks who insult large numbers of their customers for fun.

    Whenever Coultergeist acts up, call the advertisers. IT WORKS.

  • I’m a North Carolinian and I found her statement about jury pools here breathtaking. If ever there was a statement that reeks of the type of elitism that those of Coulter’s ilk like to tar democrats with, that is it. I hope that every democrat in my state uses that one statement to tar every republican who refuses to denounce Ann Coulter and her hatefulness.

  • TV is about making money not exploring ideas etc. Ann is good for ratings
    so she gets attention and people watch. So what! that’s really my take, Right Wing radio is more entertaining then the left or middle so people listen, this is not about ideas or even politics but about entertainment which American’s are to say the least hungry for all the time. If you watch political driven shows on TV don’t expect any exploration of new ideas or a drill down into the details.
    This is why Blog’s have become so popular will will over time change the nature of media by expanding the platform for information.

  • Racex says “We should ignore Coulter and go after her enablers.”

    I think you meant to say “embalmers.”

    Otherwise, great point you made: contact the advertisers of these hate-fests and let them know, in clear direct language, that you will not be buying their products as long as they sponsor Coulter, and offer direct quotes from her hissing lips in your emails and letters.

    Advocating the assassination of an Amercan presidential candidate? Who would “sponsor” that?

  • Buzzmon is absolutely right. She is a deciple of the greenback. Her last rant got her into trouble with her sponsors and newspapers cancelled her columns…..we didn’t smell her for a while did we? Now the stench is back and it’s time to once again to remind her financial backers that it’s time to remove the cancer, and the boil and stink that comes with it. Matthews and GMA should pay for their bad judgement in pulling back the flaps of the GOP Freakshow tent. I’ve said this before..the public needs to be reminded that she is a leading Spokesperson…sorry…Spokesthing for your father’s GOP…well at least my father’s GOP 🙂

    Ronald

  • How come the Bitch of Belsen gets to sit for an hour with Chris Matthews on prime-time teevee — in front of children, no less, like some demonic stick insect — when a thousand more worthy and inspiring personalities are given no time at all? Don’t tell me there’s no conspiracy. This cancer has gone metastatic.

  • If Ann Coulter were playing a role in a movie or TV show, we could all call that “entertainment,” because she would be reading from a script and it wouldn’t be “real.”

    But making comments in your own name about wishing that a real person had died in a terrorist assassination plot, or suggesting someone who lost his son in a terrible car accident had a bumper sticker that said “ask me about my dead son,” is neither entertainment, nor is it entertaining.

    But as long as shows like Hardball, and hosts like Matthews, continue to give a purveyor of hate and bitterness an open forum to sell her wares, and as long as people continue to watch, you can count on continuing to see it and hear it.

    Coulter will die friendless and alone, with nothing to show for her life but invective and hatred – there will be no one left hehind whose life she made better. How sad is it to realize that one’s death will make the world a better place – and not in a martyr-like way?

  • Coulter’s malfeasance lies not in her choice of words but in the lack of both content and the misuse of context when making her comments. Anyone can use bad language to harrass another person. Coulter’s use of language is no worse nor better than any other middlebrow on the right that I have heard or read. Coulter’s shtick involves making specious arguments to distract from the real issues under discussion, to obfuscate rather than clarify. Ignoring her won’t help because she’ll just make more outlandish statements to draw attention to herself again and then continue the cycle. The best way to handle a propagandist is to argue on the merits of the argument. You’ll notice this is when she falls apart everytime – when you call bullshit on her arguments and demand she back them up substantively.

    • Comments are closed.