Helping Ann Coulter achieve pariah status

Guest Post by Morbo

This week the Carpetbagger asked what it takes for a conservative pundit to achieve pariah status. How about an active campaign to put him or her there?

Ann Coulter’s grotesque attacks on four 9/11 widows will be forgotten next week — unless the progressive community takes a page from the right wing and acts like a pit bull on the pant leg of opportunity.

We have the opportunity. Coulter had made an indefensible statement that most Americans find appalling. Her jugular is exposed. Let’s go for it. Here’s what we need to do: Somebody in the progressive community must pull together some money and launch a campaign to put not just Coulter on the defensive but the entire conservative movement.

What I am proposing is simple: Every conservative columnist, TV pundit, blogger and radio talk-show host should be relentlessly hounded until he or she publicly answers this question: Do you agree with Ann Coulter that four 9/11 widows are grand-standing publicity seekers, that they are “harpies” and “witches” who are glad their husbands are dead?

How do we force the right-wing noise machine to take this seriously? Two or three full-page ads in USA Today and The New York Times should do the trick. You see, the ads themselves become part of the story. Ideally, once the media starts hounding guys like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, John Gibson, Michael Reagan, etc., they will have to say something.

Coulter is a prominent conservative pundit. Thus, if her rhetoric is deemed shocking and offensive, it is incumbent upon conservatives to distance themselves and their philosophy from it. Silence is not acceptable. If they disagree with her, all they need to do is say so.

What I’d like to see is a Web site with a running tally. It will list the conservatives who say they agree with Coulter. It will list those who say they don’t. It will list those who dodge or refuse to answer.

Those who say they don’t agree with her will be asked to back that up by endorsing a short public statement, just so there will be no doubt. They will be asked to affirm that Coulter’s remarks are hurtful and appalling and not welcome in the conservative community.

No quibbling. No equivocation. No gray zones. Coulter said that four 9/11 widows are money-grubbers who are glad their husbands are dead. If Michael Moore said such a thing, I would have no problem publicly signing an ad condemning him for it.

Bill O’Reilly has already criticized Coulter for her comments (though he later regressed and said Coulter raised a “valid point” about the widows). Where are the other conservative voices? This one is a no-brainer. Let them speak out. If they won’t do it spontaneously, it’s up to the progressive community to prod them — and keep score over where everyone stands.

And just so everyone is absolutely clear here, this campaign will not advocate censorship. We will make it clear that Coulter has a constitutional right to say any fool things she likes — but that decent people have the right, indeed an obligation, to stand up and denounce her for it.

I wouldn’t pay a plug nickel for Coulter’s book. But the last thing I want to do is censor it. She has devolved into a one-woman freak show, and I love nothing better than tying her “hate America” rhetoric to the conservatives. It only underscores the intellectual bankruptcy of that movement. I want her to keep talking.

Now for the hard part — paying for those ads. Does anyone have George Soros’ phone number?

One indispensible part of this is to hit Coulter where it really hurts – the purse. If all of the gnashing of teeth about her comments merely results in bigger sales, she wins.

I think progressives need to go after Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart has rejected numerous books and CDs for not being “family friendly,” including Jon Stewart’s award-winning America. So lets call out Wal-Mart: you claim to be for values — do you endorse saying widows of terrorist attacks “enjoy” their husband’s deaths? Do you endorse calling grieving women trying to prevent further tragedy “harpies”? If not, prove it by refusing to stock Coulter’s book. Otherwise, we’ll lump Wal-Mart in the group of those giving comfort to the enemy by slandering their American victims.

Frankly, I think this could really put Wally in a tough spot, but once they break and show their cultural gate-keeper can cut against either party, we have put a big dent in the right-wing echo chamber’s armor.

I also believe going after sellers is the only way to really rein in Coulter. Every other tactic risks inavertently helping her out.

  • Put Mary Matlin on your list.Imus confronted Matlin about Coulter’s statements. Matlin shifted the debate away from Coulter’s language and defended the innocuous paraphrase:

    I take her larger point that in the absence of being able to make persuasive arguments you throw out messengers that — can’t be — it’s politically incorrection to argue with, you know the verbiage is a little, a little stressful.[…]
    What do you think about her point? Her point that you can’t — you know Cindy Sheehan — if you throw yourself in the political arena, then you should be able to address political issues, and people should be able to speak back to you.

    Certainly that is Coulter’s underling point and it is a legitimate one to debate. That isn’t the problem. It is the inflametory language in which she expressed it. Matlin would not condemn the language.

    IMUS: But i’m surprised that you won’t condemn her for these repugnant remarks.

    MATLIN: I don’t know her. I haven’t read the book.

    She then managed to twist Imus’ words in order to condemn liberals for their inflammatory language.

    IMUS: You don’t have to know her. You know what Hitler did. Did you you him? You condemn what he did.

    MATLIN: Are you comparing her to Hitler?

    IMUS: No, I’m not. Of course not.

    MATLIN: This is the point. This is complete the point she’s making. These lefty crazy people go around calling us [unintelligible] and Hitlers and Nazis and everything and nobody say anything. She calls somebody a harpy and you’d think that the whole world was on fire.

    Not Imus made a legitimate point somewhat inartfully and Matlin jumped at the opening. She didn’t condemn Imus for the use Hitler. She went after “[t]hese lefty people”. Why would anyone expect her to condemn Coulter for her language. She is of the same mold.

  • Morbo, you’ve got it exactly right. Surely someone (you?) will push this idea on DailyKos, Americablog, TPM, or one of the other big lefty sites. (I don’t know what Carpetbagger’s traffic is; it’s my favorite of the progressive blogs, but in part that’s actually because it isn’t overrun with thousands of groupthink adherents… which is kind of what you need, at least in terms of scale, to mount a worthy campaign like what you contemplate here.)

    Either way, I’m in. This is the perfect opportunity to create a split on the right.

  • http://benfrank.net/blog/

    Enough about Ann Coulter: Answer the Jersey Girls questions about 9/11!
    Filed under: headline news — Lula @ 7:27 am
    Is anyone else outraged at all the attention that Ann Coulter is getting for attacking the Jersey Girls? How is it possible that everyone is talking about what Ann Coulter wrote, and no one is talking about what the Jersey Girls have to say? John Kerry wrote for Huffington post about how horrible it is that Ann is attacking them with the provocative headline “Shameless, but the Real Shame Is If We Don’t Act” No folks, he is not talking about acting on the very important issue of demanding answers to what the hell happened on to our air defenses on 9/11…he wants us to act by calling the media and telling them we don’t like Ann Coulter.

    Instead of jumping in to defend them from this insignificant hateful warmonger, I bet the Jersey Girls would rather have people pay attention to what actually happened on 9/11 and
    start answering their questions!

    1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD, which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

    2. At precisely what time was NORAD notified of each plane being hijacked? What was their response?

    3. Who determined from which bases the F-16s should be scrambled? Why were fighter jets scrambled from such distant bases such as Langley Base in Va. instead of Andrews Air Force Base, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon? Who were the pilots of these F-16s?

    4. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification? What was their airspeed?

    5. It is reported that there were two F-15s off the coast of Long Island while Flights 11 and 175 were in the air. If there were indeed fighters off Long Island, why weren’t they diverted to investigate Flights 11 and 175? Were any other military planes flying routine missions on the morning of September 11th which could have responded?

    6. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks? Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, immediately rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

    7. Why wasn’t the Pentagon defended?

    8. Were surveillance satellites orbiting North American airspace on 9/11?

    • What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?
    • What companies own these satellites?
    • Where are the records and logs for these orbits?

    9. Why were these four planes able to evade all radar? Even when the transponders are disconnected, a plane is still able to be located by its “skin” on radar screens.

    10. In June 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld modified NMCC response procedure in the event of a hijacking. Could this procedural change have slowed NORAD’s response time?

    11. Who was directing the defense of our country that morning?

    12. What defensive actions were ordered to protect our nation during the crisis?

    There are many more questions and I think if we are going to defend the Jersey Girls we should start by demanding John Kerry and others look at the facts and start answering some questions about why they are ignoring the blatantly obvious and letting the Bush Administration get away with murder.

  • Ann Coulter’s comments illustrate a larger problem that exists with the political dialogue in this country today. The dialogue is simply negative. Is Ann Coulter any different from the numerous Hollywood stars who publicly say they “hate” George Bush? Hate is a strong word that I would reserve for people like Hitler and Stalin, but certainly not for Bush. Is it any wonder why respect is in decline when the most public people in our country have to back their legitimate arguments with hatred and undignified comments. Undignified debate has always been out there. Lincoln was publicly called a baboon, but I think if Lincoln and FDR were alive they probably would be impeached or told that they were worse than Hitler. Ann Coulter is a symptom of a larger problem that is totally ignored by the people who can’t see the forest through the trees.

  • Hey, Wyatt –
    Please provide a link or two about those “hollywood stars,” because if you can’t, this sounds like setting up a strawman (everybody does it, she’s not so bad…..)
    It is indisputable that the right wing noise machie (that Coulter is part of) are the haters. Rush calls his fellow Americans with whom he disagrees the enimy, Hannity features Coulter and her ilk ad nauseum, and don’t even get me started on the Savage Weiner. This is why this will disappear, if we don’t push it along.
    Fox News, MSNBC, most of talk radio, these are the culprit that demonize the left. The left has no champion.
    And spare us the phoney impeachment argvuement. Lincoln & FDR were great men, George Bush should only be mentioned in the same breath if he is represented as the opposite of a great man. He has done more than any modern president to harm this country.

  • So far, I’ve only hear of two Republicans responding negatively to Ann’s remarks…..Gov. Pataki and Rep. Peter King.

    I’ve e-mailed Tim Russert asking him to grill any Republican on Sunday’s show (though now it appears by his web site none will appear on 6/11) as he did Sen. Obama about Harry Belafonte’s remarks on Bush. We all know that won’t happen.

    I suppose the questions are: Do Republicans agree with Coulter’s remarks? Does she speak for them? Rudy Giulani dares not speak out against her since he’s the most liberal of Republicans planning a run for the White House. He has to appeal to the right wing of the party, thus any discussion of Coulter will not happen. Not one Republican will speak ill of Coulter. They can compare Al Gore to Hitler (Glenn Beck for example) but cannot bring themselves to separate from Coulter.

    What a shame.

  • The September 11 exposure movement has become increasingly split into two basic factions – LIHOP (Let it happen on purpose) and MIHOP (made it happen on purpose). There are all kinds of variations and shades between the two
    extremes, but basically, LIHOP advocates say that the event happened pretty much as per the official story. That is, that 19 Arabs, backed by al-Qaeda hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania. The Bush administration knew that it was going to happen and deliberately allowed it , by standing down the air force, blocking investigations and ignoring warnings.

    MIHOP basically says that the government did the entire thing itself, using remote controlled missiles/ planes, demolished the WTC and B7 with a controlled demolition, and invented the story about the mythical Arabs flying the mythical planes into the buildings.

    LIHOP is ridiculous on a number of counts. Firstly, it contradicts all video, photographic and physical evidence about what actually hit the buildings and how they collapsed. Secondly it contradicts all documented evidence of who was and was not on the planes. Thirdly, it fails to provide any evidence for itself, being wholly and solely dependent on the fact that the government and the media tell us that thats what happened (the same government and media which pretends that Andrews AFB doesn’t exist, and that F15s were scrambled from Langley, and flew at less than 260 mph in a crisis, and that Bush was at the school when the first plane hit ….etc, etc.) Fourthly, it’s ridiculous even from a speculative point of view that a few guys armed with crude knives could successfully take over four planes, and four times out of four, do it in such a manner that the crew never even got to punch in the hijacking code. Never mind how every one of them got through the normally rigorous identification procedures at ticketing, boarding and the check by flight attendants prior to takeoff. Or that not one of them was picked up on the video surveillance cameras along the way to the plane. Or that they did not show up on the flight manifests OR the autopsy reports.

    But even ignoring all this, there are two very simple observations which knock LIHOP for a loop.

    Put yourself in the position of an al-Qaeda planner. You are aware, of course, that the US has airbases and standard intercept procedures. You have studied where those airbases are, and how long it takes to scramble fighters, and are planning your mission accordingly–flying right OVER several of them on the way to the targets.

    1. What kind of indescribably cretinous moron would expect to be able to successfully execute a plan which required that AFTER crashing two planes into the WTC, one would then fly another hijacked plane for 3/4 hour towards one of the worlds most heavily guarded buildings in the world, the headquarters of the world’s largest military establishment ever –knowing that there was an air base only 10 miles away from it with the specific mandate of protecting it? One can understand suicidal, but not stupid!

    Answer: Anybody too stupid to realize that such a moronic scheme had no chance of success whatsoever, would have been incapable of carrying out any other part of the plan. Therefore the mythical hijackers had to know that
    the US Air Force would be stood down to accommodate them. Thus, it is implausible to suggest that al-Qaeda did not know that the Bush admin was planning to allow them to do it.

    2. As an al-Qaeda planner, you are also aware that the US has a $30 billion intelligence budget that shows on the public side of secrecy. If the mythical hijackers needed to learn the basics of flying, using flight simulators and Cessnas- tools which would be available just about anywhere in the world – what kind of indescribably cretinous moron would decide:

    “We must do our basic training in Florida! Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan Egypt or Saudi Arabia will never do! We will stand out too much! We musn’t use one of our training camps. In Florida we will be inconspicuous. Especially if we ask specifically if we might learn how to fly without learning to take off or land. Then we will never be detected by the intelligence services!” Is this nuts or what??? Why not learn to fly before going to the US ? Why make it so obvious? Why not walk around with a big sign, saying “Investigate and arrest me!” ? Nobody could be that stupid but yet manage to actually get onto a plane with weapons and take it over so efficiently.

    Therefore, the mythical Arabs would have to know that the intelligence services had no intention of preventing their plan. And they could not have known that unless there was full and co-operative communication with the intelligence services. In other words, al-Qaeda and the US government would have to be working together in perfect harmony and were both aware of it.

    This demonstrates that even if one is to ignore all evidence to the contrary and still cling to the story about mythical Arabs flying mythical planes into the buildings, one must at the very least, concede that al-Qaeda knew that the Bush administration knew and was planning to allow it to happen.

    And if al-Qaeda was actually an enemy of the US, and knew that the US was planning to allow it to happen, because it suited US interests, then al-Qaeda would not have gone through with it.

    Therefore al-Qaeda would not have proceeded unless it and the US government were deliberately and consciously working together. In other words it was a fully co-operative joint operation, not simply a case of al-Qaeda wanting to attack the US and not realizing that the government would “allow it to happen.”

    I’m still waiting for any evidence that al-Qaeda was directly involved at all, but even if this unsubstantiated allegation is to be clung to, its role was no more than that of hired street thugs, consciously and deliberately working for the US govt.

    The version of LIHOP which suggests that the US government did no more than simply stand down the air force, ignore warnings and block investigations to allow al-Qaeda to have its wicked way is almost as ridiculous as the official story. In the final analysis, the only hypothesis that stands the test of evidence and rudimentary logic is that the Bush Administration MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE. Malfeasance and incompetence is a comfortable position but it cannot stand the simple test of evidence and logic. 9/11 WAS AN ACT OF TREASON.
    Gerard Holmgren, edited by allen aslan heart
    ————
    There is an ISRAELI WAR LOBBY numbering in the thousands beating the drum for war totally unchallenged on TV. They are not registered as agents of a foreign government as law requires. In the news media they fill the ranks of the very most prominent, like Ted Kopple, George Will, Mort Kondrakie, Wolf Blitzer and Billy Kristol.

  • Go stick your head back up your ass, you worthless white supremacist/nazi piece of shit, “zogusa”

    For those of you who don’t know what this cretin’s ‘sigline” means it means “Zionist Occupation Government -USA”

    This is a very common white supremacist/American Nazi term.

    Why is it that morons like this shithead always come along and prove that lemurs are a higher form of life than the trailer park white trash this scumbag is?

  • When you notice that the scum is rising to the top, you will know you are living in a democracy.

  • We move industry out of the country while letting cheap latinos beaners criminals/ labor in. How does that compute?

    Americans are not citizens. They are serfs and as long as they can scrounge up something to eat, something to screw and have a toy or two to putter with, they care not for much of anything.

  • John Tierny in the NYTimes-no link because it’s Times Select-today use the same rhetorical trick as Matlin in order to change the subject away from Coulter’s inflammatory language, although he does, unlike Matlin, condemn the language. This must be the decided upon GOP tactic for dealing with their Coulter problem.

  • I bought the book the other day, because of the controversy. I went looking for the “offending passage”.
    It’s a tempest in a boling teapot.
    Every liberal who doesn’t read this book will be missing out on about a year’s worth of conservative “talking points.”
    She rips supercilious liberals a new one.
    A couple of pages in that book is nothing; it’s like saying a grenade smells funny, after you’ve pulled the pin.

  • Comments are closed.