"Coulter Clash" that’s how I’m describing the dialogue (and I use the word dialogue loosely) between 
Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter on Chris Matthew’s Hardball a few days ago. If you’re not one of the over 200,000K that have seen it on youtube or one of the millions that have seen the last 48hours of replays on every network you can see it here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/.
I’m obviously no stranger to Coulter’s rhetoric or disdain for talking issues based on substance. I’m also no stranger to Coulter as a brand, of which love her or hate her, she's made successful. I don’t know how she sleeps at night with the brand she’s chosen but it’s a brand she’s created none the less and made her money and fame off of – it’s just something personally I could not stomach for myself. She continues to sell millions of books in fact the sales skyrocketed after the Hardball exchange – she really should send Elizabeth Edwards a thank you note for helping to boost the sales of her paperback version of Godless: The Church of Liberalism. But Coulter isn’t the only one with a brand. Elizabeth Edwards also has a brand, sure it’s maybe not as sensationalistic but she’s known for talking, not shouting and when she speaks of the issues facing our country be it poverty, lack of health care or the deterioration of the environment she acknowledges their gravity and speaks about positive solutions with a sense of optimism on what can be done about our problems – whether it’s her husband having the chance to solve them as President or someone else – she really does want to see our country lifted up – here at home and around the world. But does her positive tone and that of the other campaigns get across to the voters without shouting, name calling and personal attacks? I hope not but I am worried.
I’m not as upset about Coulter’s personal brand (I recognize it for what it is and turn it off) as much as I am about what strangely appears to be a “Coulter Culture.” Although the young people behind her during Hardball applauded part of Elizabeth’s phone call – they were pretty supportive of Coulter’s discourse with Chris Matthews. I was puzzled and I’ll admit it – sort of scared. Is Coulter setting a course for discourse? I think she is but I only hope that young voters are smarter than that. I have a hope for those entering the political process for the first time to see it for a cross section of ideas discussed with dignity and responsibility to the public not a boxing match with hits below the belt. You know, in a boxing match the boxer gets disqualified and over the last few days it just seems like Coulter just gets personified.
Elizabeth Edwards http://johnedwards.com/about/elizabeth/ made a good point and one that so desperately needs to be raised for lifting up the dialogue of politics – the process by which we talk about the problems and solutions facing us and the many generations after us. Edwards’ said “Personal attacks lower our political dialogue at precisely the time when we need to raise it. At a time when our country needs real answers to tough questions, Coulter and too many others like her would rather throw around insults, threats and innuendo.” http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/6/27/163648/590 She’s right and it was even proven right in the midterm election of November 2006. The Republican National Committee spent more money than they ever had and a higher portion of their total money on negative advertising against their competitors in hotly contested races. They lost. I have always believed Americans are smarter than that negative dialogue and don’t respond kindly to hits below the belt. But I have to admit that my belief was shaken after I looked at Coulter’s book sales soar and young people applauded the insults.
Which leads me to this question for all of you:
Do you think there is a “Coulter Culture” brewing in our political process?
Can’t wait to hear what you think on this one!
Laura
p.s. Thanks for participating in what I have seen on Gather as a smart exchange of ideas – they may be different but they are smart, valid and above the belt – and I’m proud to be a part of it!
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 68
Very good article - and yes scary in some ways and it falls on us to teach our children to believe in not only free speech but using their speech responsibly!
Thank you!
Thanks Laura!
1. Pat Buchanan Stupidity is where you ignore facts and when you feel that foot slipping towards your mouth again you fall back, "it's free speech" or false patriotism – "he/she doesn't support our troops". During his Presidential Campaign Buchanan visited a factory that was struggling to stay open because of cheaper labor overseas. He arrived in a $200,000 Mercedes and put his frosty reception on the fact that his car was to expensive not because it was from Germany and the Factory Workers were promoting "Buy American".
2. Rush Limbaugh Stupidity is where you actually think you are funny and there is no limit of how low you will go to jab an opponent. When Bill Clinton was first in the Whitehouse they got a dog. Limbaugh's quip was "now there are two dogs in the Whitehouse, have you seen Chelsey?" This was a teenage girl he was attacking about her looks.
3. Bill O'Reilly Stupidity is where you rarely even the have basic facts correct but you don't care if you can use it to make your somewhat addle brained point. In O'Reilly's world if you are louder and sneer more then you win.
4. Ann Coulter Stupidity is where you encompass all the other stupidities and add your own spin to it. The personal attack. This where you can spew all of your hate and prejudice.
We have to move beyond the hate and prejudice and into the real political arena with a positive focus on the issues in order to resolve the problems in our country. Our Reputation in the world depends on it.
Coulter represents everything that is wrong with politics in America today. She is partisan, not patriotic. She treats anyone with opposing views as adversaries, as if they are no better than the foreign enemies she so despises.
So, the whining from likes of yourself is heard way too much. It's just too bad that the average Joe or Joan can speak for themselves, and get heard. Conservatives have been hit over the nose with a newspaper for too long, some bite back.
Issues are strange things. Typically when people like Elizabeth Edwards talks about issues they mean their issues. Everyone wants their own issue talked about and they don't want the other person's issues talked about. Everyone has different ways to get people to stop talking about other people's issues. This doesn't excuse people from trying to silence the issues of others; I want all issues discussed. That, I suppose, would put me in a minority of one.
Here's to moving the dialog!
Great point! Thanks for your comment!
Thanks for jumping in - hope you join the group!
Thanks for posting!
Thank you very much for your comment!
Appreiciate your posting, Laura
I don't think that Ann's comments really need to be manipulated - they seem to stand on their own. What were Ann's comments that you thought were manipulated - that you were referring to in your post?
Thanks, Laura
While I am no fan of Coulter, I was surprised that Elizabeth Edwards called in. Why didn't John Edwards call in? Why did he have his wife call in?
Huh? If conservatives don't like the words or the tone thereof when they are reported in the media, perhaps those same conservatives should go to the source. All of us say, in the heat of the moment, things we later wish we hadn't. But Conservatives have, and use, a 'first-strike" paradigm way too often. If something someone says sounds mean when read, imagine how it sounded to the person at which it was aimed.
I agree, it's a "Coulter culture". The problem is, this mean-spiritedness is highly infectious, and spreading throughout society. And most of stand on the sidelines, watching in horror as politicians and pundits sink ever lower into that quagmire. Elizabeth Edwards is right; we do need to raise the level of discourse. Problem is, we won't. Coulter and her ilk (from the Left and the Right) are too entertaining to watch.
I found it wildly amusing to hear the conservatives here jumping all over themselves trying to make her sound legimate. She's just a promo 'ho looking to sell more books about things she's already spouted off on before. She's filled with hatred for people who think differently than her, nothing more.
How can anyone, conservative or whatever, honestly defend her behavior? It's indefenseable and a waste of everyones time.
I could not agree with you more concerning Ann Coulter. I used to be a big fan of hers, but now her rhetoric has worn thin with me and with many other conservatives, I am sure. All one has to do is look at her books published over the past five years. For example, compare Slander with Godless. The former book is a very detailed refutation of what Coulter believes to be falsehoods perpetrated by the mainstream press. Some of her trademark sarcasm creeps in, to be sure, but it is kept to a minimum. You may not agree with her interpretation of the mainstream media in Slander but you cannot say that she had not done her homework. Godless, in contrast, was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me. Sarcasm had replaced scholarship in a big way in that book. Now I do believe that sarcasm has its place, even in "serious" political writings, but Coulter goes overboard in Godless and she has only gotten worse. She has become the Rosie O Donnell of conservatism and she gives honest conservatives both a black eye and a bad name.
Having said that, I have a problem with the Edwards campaign using these Coulter jabs to raise money. If I were a Democrat, or if I were inclined to support Edwards regardless of party affiliation, I would prefer that the campaign ignore Coulter. Elizabeth Edwards had every right to challenge Coulter on Hardball concerning Coulter's tasteless comment about Edwards's late son, but her and her husband keeping this controversy alive in order to raise campaign donations smacks of desperation to me. As I said, if I were a Democrat, such tactics would not persuade me to vote for Edwards.
By the way, Laura, I loved your appearance on Hannity & Colmes this week with Ann Coulter. You cleaned her clock, in my estimation, and you did not have to sink to her level in order to do so. Also, I appreciated your response to my Bloomberg rant. Its nice to know that there are a select few individuals in the political realm who have a sense of humor. People take themselves far too seriously in my humble opinion!
Brewing?? Nah, it's more like a continous boiling over that has always been in politics, with Coulter appearing as one of the latest chefs. I have little need for her caustic rheotric; just as I have little need for anyone else's punk or bully rhetoric.
If what's happened so far since the Dems' "victory" is any indication as to how Paris-like the politicians are going to get over the next 16-17 months, we're all going to go insane. What's truly frustrating is how brutally simple this is.
You southpaws have only yourselves to blame for Coulter staying in the spotlight, though. Just let her cry herself to sleep.
Why do people listen to Ann Coulter? I did a while back, but now find her to be to upsetting to watch or even listen to. What is her problem? And, to think that people actually go out and buy her book????? Good job Elizabeth!! Hopefully, more people will set her (Ann) straight!
Well there definitely seems to be a trend here! First, it seems that some folks who used to listen to Ann Coulter do not anymore – they have grown tired of the rhetoric. Second, people are thrilled that Elizabeth Edwards called in!
Well I am too. Elizabeth was an asset to her husband John Edwards in the primary season of 2003-2004 and a great partner in the Kerry Edwards 2004 campaign. I am not surprised that even for all the medical hardships and with the cancer return she is no different. I think the other night proved just how truly passionate and touched she is by not just the issues but by how we discuss them.
But that's a torch we all can carry – not just Elizabeth. We can carry it in our family and among our friends – we all have this power to be positive in what can be a negative, back biting arena!
Thank you all for your posts and for joining the conversation – I hope you will be joining the group!
Laura
Your post was very interesting and well thought out - I'd like to add more to your comment later - stay posted.
Thank you for your comment - I hope you join the group!
You're right - touch cycle to break - it's up to us to do it!
Thank you for posting and please join the group as I'd love to hear more!
1st - great icon, 2nd - great point!
Thanks! Laura
Great point – the more we talk about it the more credence we may give or maybe…take away. Either way I will so try to make this my one and only article about Coulter – and I definitely wanted to give context to the larger dialog issue but it is like trying to raise and issue using Paris Hilton as a spring board! Ugh – the news we cover sometimes is only valid for what good we can relate it to – or positive thinking we can try to create from it.
From this Coulter behavior 101 – I hope we can see it as a turning point. Maybe we have to hit rock bottom before we can climb back up. But something tells me it's early and hey there are some liberals out there too that try to pull a Coulter every now and then and we shouldn't stand for any of it. We may not have hit rock bottom just yet!
Like my Mom taught me – if you have to use curse words to make a point – it's not a point worth making. If you have to go so negative to make a point – it's not a point worth making either.
Here's to keeping it positive!
Cheers and thanks – join the group!
Laura
Thanks so much for coming back and posting – it is great to have you as an active member of laura.gather.com!
Your line about "Sarcasm had replaced scholarship" is something to be taken to heart. There is totally a place for sarcasm – and satire on Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report - all of which I'm a fan of. But when sarcasm becomes told as "truth" that's when we need to worry – some readers can discern the difference but there are others who do not. In this day and age of technology and there is so much information everywhere - we have all had to become our own fact checkers. It's not to say we all need to be skeptical – I just think that if we are ready to turn around and use whatever "facts" to make a point - we need to take on a greater responsibility to make sure they ARE the facts…..
Thanks again for coming back to comment!
Laura
What else can I say but I like your spirit!
Thanks for posting!
Remember Erma Bombeck? Now THERE was a woman of substance!
If they apply it to the New York Times, LA Times, Washington Post, CBS Evening News, ABC Evening news, NBC Evening news, CNN, PBS, NPR, .................... Oh, I'm getting tired.
And then not give one more dollar to the Coporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR.
I think about it. Until then, all you Hugo Chavez types out there, tough (insert "s" word for feces).
I wish Coulter were less vicious, but I think her appeal is clarity. People just like to hear plain talk. Where ever you fall on these issues they are emotional and are defined by personal belief and philiosophy. You are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours on:
marriage/unions
amnesty - pathway to citizenship
pro-life/pro-choice
illegal aliens/undocumented workers
on and on and on
We use the language that supports what we believe. Coulter says things in a mean way - so does Bill Maher.
I liked the levels of stupidity and the choice of the one's that are most likely to prove their stupidity!
And leave us not forget her compassionate words about some of the 9-11 widows.
I agree with the general flow, that where she used to be outrageous but informed, she is now just a vitupritive harridan revelling in finding the most egregious things to say that will get her the publicity she craves and her books need to sell. Heaven knows they're not making it on her writing style!
The issue I have, and not just with her and not just with Hardball, is the mistaking and presentation of entertainment for news. On politically incorrect, or other talk shows she is certainly meant as entertainment; it's presenting her as news that gives her legitimacy. In the same way that, in an effort to appear balanced, newshows from Nightline on down dig up anyone they can find to rebut anyone with a potentially controversial view (global warming, evolution, etc.), thereby awarding the rebutter (? is that a word?) an otherwise unearned legitmacy. "OK, the guy seems to believe that cats secretly control the government. I'd've thought that was crazy, but he *was* on Nightline, so there must be something to it".
As a sidenote, a few years ago I gave a friend who really has no patience for her one of the talking Ann Coulter dolls. He would make her talk for a while, then get disgusted and put it aside. But eventually he would have to go back and see what she would say next. Repeat until he had heard all the recordings. Maybe this might explain her popularity in real life.
And as far as Ms. Edwards using Ms. Coulter to get campaign contributions, call it a little poetic justice. After all, I'm sure Ms. Coulter must just be thrilled that her remarks are putting money in an opponent's pockets.
The Edwards campaign hasn't been much better in its use of Coulter to solicit donations. It seems disingenuous for Elizabeth to lower herself to Coulter's level just to add to her husband's coffers. She loses some credibility by engaging in such activity. At least she believes most of what she says though, so I'll give her a break on this one.
And as usual, the media and the public were more interested in the provocativeness of the controversy than the actual "dialague" Edwards was suggesting.
What a wonderful idea! When in school, we were told (and delighted) in stories of Abraham Lincoln and his walking to return the incorrect change, and George Washington saying, "I cannot tell a lie." And, although these may be highly embellished incidents ~ or even totally made up ~ it to me is an indication that at least at some point the American People wanted someone and something to vote FOR instead of something to vote AGAINST.
Presently, every candidate is graded on a 'score card' in that either you are will me in my small personal interest, or you are completely evil in all regards. What I think we should be looking for is integrety ~ which appears to be in small supply in all camps ~ Republican, Democrate, Libertaria, Green ~ whatever!
I do not listen to Ann Coulter ... I do not think I have ever hear her. But, I have heard from others that she uses personal attacks. If that is so ~ it is the opposite of what America needs. Attacking her is also of no benefit.
Instead, let her speak, sell her books, and do whatever. In the meantime the rest of us can have reasonable and rational discussions about the real issues as we see them.
Susan
I am not resigned enough to give up or stop generating the need for intelligent thought and discourse. It is just a long uphill battle.
I am concerned that people would support her methods of rambling; especially since the truth is not a necessary part of her vocabulary. It may simply be the overall lack of faith and respect for our government in general (liberal & conservative).
Freedom of press is our most important freedom and Ann certainly uses it to the fullest extent. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't push to be on HBO so she could really use the foul language she seems to be hiding just below the surface.
In regards to that freedom, I did read some negative responses about our "liberal" press. That is not nearly as true as you're led to believe but there are a lot of folks peddling that myth. I heard O'Rielly recently announce the lopsided liberal support for the DNC. (I do watch Fox frequently as well as the more 'liberal' press) Could it be influenced by the fact that the idiot in office has messed up everything he has touched, has maintained a very high level of secrecy and espionage, and works closely with corporate America to expand an oligarchic form of government. Possibly the press are intelligent, middle of the road folks and realize that "things have got to change." In fact, I believe I heard those very same responses from Ann Couler the other day. Oh well, just another "liberal lie".
Do not be confused by criticism and liberalism. We are too rapidly loosing the right of criticism. That is happening internal to the networks. A reporter cannot write articles about certain issues for fear a corporation may be upset and threaten to sue or change networks. Murdoch wants to buy the Wall Street Journal. Newspapers are being owned by fewer and fewer corporations. These are the issues the people should be fighting for. I once read a comment that stuck with me, "When the Government and the press unite, you can fool all the people all the time".
So, did the Democrats or the press manipulate and distort this, or did Ann Coulter really say this?
If this is Ann Coulter's normal level of political discussion, it reminds me of the movie "Videodrome," in which a satellite TV station broadcasts nothing but scenes of violence and torture; but viewers are addicted to watching it. I would prefer to watch Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews.
This is what the media and the press do that's dishonest. And it's why their trust ratings are so low. They take the most shocking parts of of someone's off-the-cuff remarks out of context and leave it at that. Since most of the press and the media lean to the left, the opportunity for beating up on someone like Ann Coulter whose views are so much different from their own is like gold to them.
I say, "Go, Ann." And others like her. The left leaning media and press have been left unchallenged for too long. ..... I read Ann Coulter and listen to her often and seldom disagree with her. If what she's doing makes her money, more power to her. She deserves some reward for all the meanness she absorbs. The left-wingers are making as much, or more money by airing her controversial commentary. So why isn't is okay for her to do it, too?
"Her point was that since there was little outrage in the press over Bill Mahr's shocking quip, then to be fair, the press wouldn't be outraged if she said something equally shocking about John Edwards." Her point was also just a little disingenuous, as the whole incident stems not from her making fair-game satire of current or would-be elected officials, but from mocking their family hardships. A more valid equivalent situation would be had Bill Maher wished that Cheney's daughter or grandchild been killed in a terrorist attack.
And something that seems to be forgotten by people on all sides of the speech issue: freedom is not licence, and rights have concomitant responsibilities. After all, it is irresponsible to yell "theatre" in a crowded fire.
The years of the equal time rule gave a veneer of civility to politics. One of the Republican slogans when FDR ran for his 4th term was "No Prince Jimmy." In the late 40s and 50s people accused their opponents of being pro-communist without paying any attention to facts. In the second half of the 19th century Republicans portrayed Democrats as supporters of the Confederacy. One of the underground campaign slogans when JFK ran for president was "He'll be taking orders straight from the pope."
I just said this in another thread today. Ann Coulter is living out the same archetype as Howard Stern. Both of them have a lot of fans. I don't get it. I don't think either is funny. I'm not shocked or disgusted. Anyone who knows me knows that it takes a lot more than those two can ever imagine to shock or disgust me. My main criticism is that they're boring. On top of that they're not very clever.
This is one smart women folks, nobody liked Mike Tyson either but everybody bought pay per view event to see what mike was gona do next Ann and Mike
both laughed all the way to the bank...mean spirited , sex this is what sells in
america today...I like Ann myself I think shes funny with her attacks but of course
I wouldnt and have not bought any of her books im not that dumb to pay to listen
to her when I know its all an act....I would rather take her to dinner and a movie
with my money.
Paul Caronna Jr
1) The MSNBC Elizabeth Edwards thing was a total setup. Elizabeth wasn't just sitting at the airport watching Ann on TV and deciding to call in. Ann was told as she walked on stage that Elizabeth Edwards might call in. So this was clearly a fix by MSNBC.
2) Coulter was poking fun at the fact that John Edwards repeatedly uses the story of his dead son at campaign events and continues to tell it to bring awareness to his campaign. Go read Bob Shrum's book. Edwards told Kerry a story about how he hugged his son in his casket at the funeral AND said that he had never shared the story with anyone else...while he had indeed told Kerry the exact same story 1 year earlier (in addition to the hundreds of times he had used it on the campaign trail). Maybe you people think that is normal behavior. I (and also Ann Coulter) don't.
3) The whole line about wishing John Edwards died in a terror assination attack was making a joke on the fact that Bill Maher pointed out that he believes its perfectly A-OK to wish for Dick Cheney's death in an assasination attempt. She doesn't wish John Edwards was dead; she was making light of the fact that liberals have no problem with people wishing the VP of the US dead and it doesn't even get reported or noticed in the media.
4) Elizabeth Edwards talked about "Personal attacks lowering our political discourse" I agree 100%. So I find it odd (and hypocrital) that Elizabeth continues to post on Daily Kos (a site which is built on personal attacks--"I feel nothing over the death of merceneries....Screw Them" ) and that the Edwards campaign hired 2 foul-mouthed bloggers who also repeatedly engage in personal attacks ("wingnut Christofascist base.")
Last Sunday we had a Birthday celebration at a friends house. The husband of the couple is extremely conservative (if that is the right word), and would never miss a single episode of O'Reilly, or a book of Coulter's and in fact watches only FOX news. We as a family can best be described as liberal Democrats. The O'Reilly fan likes to lure folks into political discussions and often refers to Dems in goverment by foul names. That aside as a person, I dearly love this friend and his wife, we have went through unbelievably hard times together. Anyway, on Sunday he and my son in law were talking about the build up to the Iraq war and the many misrepresentations that have been exposed. Although many of my son in laws statements have been widely published in the news, my friend refused to believe him, the shouting escalated a la O'Reilly, and my friend ended by calling my son in law an _____ liar! Needless to say that was the end of their friendship, leaving my daughter, my friends wife and myself smack dab in the middle. I am heart broken as I believe the other women are too. We try not to talk about politics, but my friend constantly brings it up, I believe that O'Reilly is trying to make disciples of his viewers and wants them to proselytize! I know that the ideas of friendship, integrity, love and Karma are notions to be laughed at by their ilk, I can not help but pray their kind will wake up and stop breaking up friendships. This hatred and dissension started with W, why can't it end? I want to have hope, but right now it is very difficult. Thank you for this forum to express my personal disappointment.