As the media continue to pile on Ann Coulter in the wake of her being ambushed by Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews on Tuesday’s “Hardball,” a disturbing yet predictable double standard is emerging.
On the one hand, Coulter is being pounded for using “hate words,” so much so that Matthews advocated Wednesday that people not buy her books.
Yet, Edwards and her Democrat presidential candidate husband John appear to be getting a pass regarding the hiring of two anti-Christian bigots back in February as official bloggers for his campaign.
In fact, Mrs. Edwards was interviewed this morning by ABC, CBS, and NBC to get another chance to speak about Coulter's "hate words." Yet, not one host asked her any questions concerning these bloggers.
With that in mind, MRC President Brent Bozell issued the following statement Thursday:
“Elizabeth Edwards, who apparently is now acting as spokesperson for the Edwards campaign and who is very familiar with and active in the blog world, never said a word about the campaign’s hiring and defending of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Mrs. Edwards is a hypocrite. These two bloggers are notorious for writing such repulsive things as,
· “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” (Marcotte)
· In the Duke Lacrosse case, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” (Marcotte)
· Sen. Rick Santorum talks about sex “lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f***ing his desk on the Senate floor.” (Marcotte)
· God is “a sadistic bastard.” (Marcotte)
· Pope Benedict, “he’s just a dictator … the Pope’s gotta’ tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.” (Marcotte)
· President Bush has a “wingnut Christofascist base.” (McEwan)
· “When CNN invited Ann Coulter to comment on the 2004 presidential debates, I sniffed, ‘I didn’t realize they had officially transformed into the C*** News Network.” (McEwan)
“Elizabeth Edwards and the liberal media have a double standard when it comes to ‘hate words.’ If it’s hate towards conservatives, it’s okay with them. But if it’s criticism of the Edwards campaign by a conservative, it’s ‘ugliness’ that ‘debases political dialogue.’ The liberal media need to ask, Will Elizabeth Edwards rebuke those hateful bloggers and, by the way, did she have a hand in hiring them?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The biggest drawback to the i
June 28, 2007 - 11:24 ET by KC MulvilleThe biggest drawback to the internet is that we can't add our signatures to that release. I agree entirely.
That would be great...the I
June 28, 2007 - 11:37 ET by motherbeltThat would be great...the Internet equivalent of those full-page ads that Liberals buy in the NY Times et al, where they make a statement and all sign their names....
Hey, how's that for an intern
June 28, 2007 - 12:16 ET by KC MulvilleHey, how's that for an internet website idea? A petition site, with some way to secure and verify signatures? Gotta be a market for that ...
But probably not right away. Hackers can kill anything. Legitmate security is still a few years away. Still, it's an intriguing idea.
The MRC statement would make
June 28, 2007 - 12:19 ET by stratmanThe MRC statement would make a fantastic full page newspaper rebuttal.
What are the chances any big city newspaper would accept it for publishing?
What are the chances it would change any opinions?
And there's the rub.
Add ...
June 28, 2007 - 11:26 ET by Dave PierreAdd the LA Times to the list of those taking Coulter's remark out of context and making no mention of Marcotte or McEwan. (p. A14, 6/28/07, AP article, with photos) The Times/AP doesn't mention the Bill Maher relation until almost halfway into the article.
The rampant liberal bias and double-standard in the MSM is simply unbelievable.
Frankenlies.com: Al Franken debunked ...
Edwards' campaign set this wh
June 28, 2007 - 11:35 ET by GalvanicEdwards' campaign set this whole thing up with Matthews in order to give them something to hang a fund-raising letter on before the deadline. That's why Edwards himself didn't appear, and why Mrs. Edwards phoned in her comments. That way, they control the content and duration of the conversation, and should Coulter counter-attack effectively, they merely hang up.
Edwards is a moral coward, and his wife is now fair-game for criticism, regardless her medical condition. If Edwards insists on hiding behind his wife's hospital gown, she deserves to get splattered with some of the blood.
Let me pose the question (b
June 28, 2007 - 11:40 ET by balboaLet me pose the question (because I'm sure everyone wants something to argue about this morning):
Is it possible that EE was as offended by Marcotte's writing as she is by Coulter's?
Balboa
June 28, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Noel SheppardB,
Sure. Then let her say that. And, since this should be something of interest to a real journalist, let them ask her.
Thank you for proving our point. ns
Did Monsieur Bozell attempt
June 28, 2007 - 11:45 ET by balboaDid Monsieur Bozell attempt to contact EE to ask her?
Bal, it isn't Mr. Bozell's jo
June 28, 2007 - 11:49 ET by Chris NormanBal, it isn't Mr. Bozell's job to pry any so-called "outrage" out of her.You are in your "why? why?, why?" mode this morning.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Seems to me a responsible j
June 28, 2007 - 11:55 ET by balboaSeems to me a responsible journalist would check with EE before calling her a hypocrite. That's all.
Why is that bal? After all, t
June 29, 2007 - 12:47 ET by bassndudeWhy is that bal? After all, this site is only doing analysis of what has already taken place in the media. If the media fails to ask, and EE fails to mention, then that is what this site sees as bias in the media, and the person of intrest.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Did Monsieur Bozell attempt
June 28, 2007 - 11:56 ET by motherbeltIs it possible that EE was as offended by Marcotte's writing as she is by Coulter's? -balboa
Did Monsieur Bozell attempt to contact EE to ask her? -balboa
Why should he? No one asked her about Ann Coulter , but she had no trouble getting on Chris Matthews' show to berate her...I'm sure he would have let her call in to make it known that she completely disagreed with her husband's bloggers' nasty comments.....
B
June 28, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Noel SheppardB,
You seem to misunderstand what the MRC does. Do you view this organization as a media outlet? This is an analytical group, not a press agency.
Honestly, are you joking, or just trying to start an argument? ns
Gee whiz, Bal. We don't know
June 28, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Chris NormanGee whiz, Balyanna. We don't know because she didn't say anything about that.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Is anyone surprised that such
June 28, 2007 - 11:43 ET by FastEdIs anyone surprised that such a statement needs to be issued in the first place? The msm (Lsm) needs to be confronted daily, and reminded that they are cowards - cowards who have given away their objectivity, in the name of "reporting".
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
The dems hide behind a fals
June 28, 2007 - 12:11 ET by JDWThe dems hide behind a false sense of integrity constantly spinning hypocrisy in their favor.
Consider the enormous dem push for the Fairness Doctrine. Conservative talk show radio format is presented as simply un-american. Bloggers are influencing the nation unproductively.
Regardless of all, the Edwards plans a campaign targeting Ms Coulter who represents talk radio and bloggers. They seek to raise money highlighting not their ideas but focusing on Ms Coulter, talk radio, and bloggers.
Fundraising or Fairness Doctrine?
JDW
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
Again -- Mahr, Rosie, Joy B
June 28, 2007 - 12:30 ET by winston smithAgain -- Mahr, Rosie, Joy Behar, kathy Griffin, Olbermann, Carville, Matthews, Randi Rhodes, Garafolo, cartoonists Ted Rall, Joe Pett, nearly everybody in Hollywood can go off on a half-cocked verbal tirade saying, screaming, writing hateful, vicious things about Bush and his family on a regular basis and the media barely musters an audible yawn. But let one Ann Coulter come out evey 2 months or so to set the public straight about some underhanded trial lawyer with silky-smooth hair seeking to b.s. his way from the senate to the White House and the MSM has a collective seizure. Complete hypocrites, every one of them.
Excellenty put, and completel
June 28, 2007 - 12:58 ET by jpatchExcellently put, and completely true.
The MSM is an active, evolving and calculating enemy of the United States.
By the way, John Edwards isn't going to sniff the White House. Maybe some White-Out, but not the White House.
OH! THIS IS SOOO GOOD!!! A
June 28, 2007 - 14:36 ET by drillanwrOH! THIS IS SOOO GOOD!!! A must listen!!! Kudoes to Laura Ingrahm!
Veteran Takes on Chris Matthews in Coulter Debate http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=2259 A veteran who attended the Ann Coulter taping of "Hardball" confronts Chris Matthews off-camera.
Noel - Edwards did not defend
June 28, 2007 - 14:48 ET by ding7777Noel - Edwards did not defend Marcotte's speech
Hmnmm....
June 28, 2007 - 14:51 ET by balboaHmnmm....
ding - that was after the pub
June 28, 2007 - 14:53 ET by florida_chadding - that was after the public outcry led to the Edwards firing the two.
florida_chad - So? I doubt
June 28, 2007 - 15:15 ET by ding7777florida_chad - So? I doubt very much if Edwards personally hired or was aware of the "hateful" stuff Marcotte wrote until the blogs erupted. And contrary to Brent's assertion, Edwards did defend it once he became aware of it
Which might make it tough t
June 28, 2007 - 15:18 ET by balboaWhich might make it tough to be a hypocrite if she wasn't aware of the coarse nature of Marcotte's writing.
balboa - Unkike, Coulter, tho
June 28, 2007 - 15:24 ET by ding7777balboa - Unkike, Coulter, those instances of Marcotte's "hateful" speech reprsented a small faction of her writing. But still, I thought Marcotte was way over the line in those instances and was glad that Edwards did NOT defend her.
How could he not be aware tha
June 28, 2007 - 15:22 ET by florida_chadHow could he not be aware that he hired anti catholic writers? If that is the case he has hired a bad campaign director. He only fired them and criticized AFTER lots of complaints. It doesn't matter if he personally hired them or not.
florida_chad - I don't blame
June 28, 2007 - 15:38 ET by ding7777florida_chad - I don't blame Edwards anymore than you blame Bush for hiring Claude Allen.
And as Marcotte has said repeatedly, the context was anti-Catholic League - not anti-catholic (yes, there are many Catholics who despise Bill Donohue and his stance)
I'm glad Edwards did NOT defend her as Brent has incorrectly stated.
Everyone is entitled to their
June 28, 2007 - 14:55 ET by drillanwrEveryone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else.
Okay, John, then WHY use Coulter's rhetoric on your campaign site?
drillanwr - Why shouldn't Edw
June 28, 2007 - 15:19 ET by ding7777drillanwr - Why shouldn't Edwards expose Coulter's hateful speech? And let his supporters know that he believes her sppech is hateful?
it was a fund raising stunt,
June 28, 2007 - 15:24 ET by florida_chadit was a fund raising stunt, thats all.
Hmm. I think I understand i
June 28, 2007 - 16:02 ET by stratmanHmm. I think I understand it now.
If Edwards says "Everyone is entitled to their opinion...", and, the Edwards' declare Coulter should not sell her books, then Free Speech does have boundaries and the Edwards' are the arbiter's of those boundaries.
I'd rather poop razor blades then have these two in the White House.
Thank you ... Yes! If Edwar
June 28, 2007 - 17:10 ET by drillanwrThank you ... Yes! If Edwards feels so strongly about that sort of nasty rhetoric he is nothing more than a big hypocrite for using Ann Coulter on his site ... most especially to raise money.
And I'll, um, pass on the razor blade thing ...
Yeah, that was childish hyper
June 28, 2007 - 17:44 ET by stratmanYeah, that was childish hyperbole on my part.
Reminds me of when Alec Baldwin said he would move to Canada if Bush became president. Bush did, Baldwin didn't and I most certainly won't.
Sorry.
Yes, the Edwards' are fine ex
June 28, 2007 - 17:54 ET by BlondeYes, the Edwards' are fine examples of hypocricy in action. Wasn't it John Edwards who tried to smear Dick Cheney's daughter during the 2004 VP debates? Yet cries about "nasty rhetoric" when Anne Coulter implies he's gay?
I don't know who came up with the idea of this sandbag phone call as a fund-raising ploy....but I suspect that it's spot-on.
Ding
June 28, 2007 - 15:20 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
Link? ns
Noel - John Edward press rele
June 28, 2007 - 15:41 ET by ding7777Noel - John Edward press release
"I've talked to Amanda a
June 28, 2007 - 16:30 ET by stratman"I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word."
Ding:
Edwards must not have read their words.
What other 800 pound gorilla's will this guy ignore or be bamboozled by if president?
Phoney, self-serving, sanctimonious, narcissistic, conniving manbearpig.
statman - Edwards did NOT def
June 28, 2007 - 16:32 ET by ding7777statman - Edwards did NOT defend them. Brent is wrong.
Ding
June 28, 2007 - 16:36 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
I should have known better than to answer you, for it normally is a huge waste of my time. I will think thrice next time.
First off, this isn't a press release. How disingenous of you. This is a statement made at his blog. Do you know the difference between a press release and a blog post?
Furthermore, Marcotte announced at this same blog on 1/30/07 that she was being hired by the campaign: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/1/30/175015/518.
As you know, this created a firestorm. Nine days later, Edwards posted what you copied at his blog. However, he didn't fire Marcotte or McEwan, did he? Instead, they resigned four days after his 2/8/07 blog post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201632.html.
In fact, as reported by the Post:
Yet, all of that is irrelevant. Brent's press release was about MRS. Edwards. You know? John's wife? The one in the middle of all this:
Like I said, next time I will think thrice before engaging you again. This was a large waste of my time.
Please, before you post here again, would you read the articles three times so that you know what and who they're talking about? Please? Pretty please? With sugar on top? I have significantly more important and valuable things to do then address your inadequate reading comprehension skills! ns
Noel - I'm not sure why you
June 28, 2007 - 18:09 ET by ding7777Noel - I'm not sure why you have a problem with the Edwards blog issuing the press release - more and more campaigns are doing that (but whether you agree or approve or even if I was totally wrong to call it a "press release" after you asked for the link is neither important or germane to the subject)
Let me re-qoute:
Now read the bold part (3 times if you prefer):
Maybe, just maybe Mrs Edwards never said a word about the Edwards' campaign defending of Marcotte is because Edwards did NOT defend Marcotte.
Although I expect the ad hominems from your regular posters, I am sorry to see you go that route
Ding
June 29, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Noel SheppardDing,
You've wasted my time for the last time. Don't expect any further replies from me in the future:
He didn't fire them. Instead, he kept them on to give them a fair shake. That's called defending them. Have a nice life. Adieu. ns
You are being more than civil
June 29, 2007 - 09:47 ET by kathleenirishYou are being more than civil to that syncophant, Ding.
The media NEVER had any problem with anything those bloggers said OR with the fact that Edwards' recruited and supported them, no matter what. I never heard anything about the blogger's bigotry and outright offensiveness in the MSM. Why? Probably because they agreed with that garbage.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Kathleen
June 29, 2007 - 10:14 ET by Noel SheppardK,
Lately, my patience with our liberal members has been wearing thin. With most of them, it's not about debate or discussion. It's just a big game of GOTCHA that they're not very good at. As such, it's a total waste of time. ns
Noel - that kind of intole
June 29, 2007 - 12:36 ET by ding7777Noel -
Her calling someone a rabid R
June 29, 2007 - 12:49 ET by mikejHer calling someone a rabid Republican is ok then?
Typical liberal hypocrisy and gulped down by the gallons by the Democrat's minions in the far left media.
Ding, you are really a bore.
June 29, 2007 - 12:52 ET by bassndudeDing, you are really a bore. Have you nothing intelligent to provide?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Hey Mr. Bozell...good, no exc
June 28, 2007 - 15:42 ET by bigtimerHey Mr. Bozell...good, no excellent point....this inquiring mind would like to know too if she is the one who did the hiring...what despicable words those so-called women wrote...disgusting....they should be out of business anywhere that a reputation matters to the person who does the hiring.
Like I have said before...she is no poor innocent victim...this whole thing was a setup to help her husbands pathetic campaign.....period.
The Edwards have used there son's death numerous times now....it is a pity, but some people have no class or grace.
Elizabeth Edwards knew exactly what she was doing....I believe she planned the whole thing....of course with John's knowledge, if anyone caught the first part of Matthews interview with John E. I say double-speak and hypocrisy right away as I have posted....in other words as far as I was concerned he knew all about this before-hand.
I am tired of the pity-party about Elizabeth....she has been a determined woman on her own for years wanting political power too...through her husband and her partnership including her own plans and schemes.
Remind you of somebody?
Lol....
Score:Noel S - 12,784The left
June 28, 2007 - 17:40 ET by rightsideScore:
Noel S - 12,784
The left - 0
Comparing Coulter and Maher
June 29, 2007 - 04:32 ET by JerH'mm...so that's the game. Coulter's statements are dissected with surgical precision to prove she didn't actually say what she clearly suggested, while Maher's words are mangled with sledge hammer logic to prove he meant something far different from what he actually said.
Maybe these (hypothetical) examples will be useful: Assume someone were to say, "I was going to comment on ____ (fill in the blank with Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, the American military, etc.), but it turns out you [will upset tender sensibilities] if you use the word 'baby-killer', so...." Would you be outraged? I certainly would. Would you consider the argument that the speaker did not ACTUALLY CALL any of those entities a "baby-killer" to be utterly absurd? I certainly would. Now, fill in the blank with John Edwards and substitute "faggot" for "baby-killer" and you have Coulter's statement. You should be outraged.
Next, assume someone were to ask Rush Limbaugh if Americans would be safer if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were in Heaven instead of Congress and he answered "Absolutely!" Would that justify a headline claiming "Limbaugh prays that Reid and Pelosi be put to death"? I have read and reread the transcript of Maher's remarks and viewed the video tape several times. Frankly, I find his statements--in large part--objectionable and in very poor taste. However, he most emphatically did NOT say he wished for the death of Cheney nor did he regret that he was not assassinated by a terrorist bomb. Indeed, he said just the opposite. (Interestingly, the transcript reprinted elsewhere on this site [inadvertently? conveniently?] omits Maher responding "No..." when asked by Barney Frank if he believed [Cheney should have been blown up]. The primary thrust of Maher's remarks was an objection to Arianna Huffington's deletion of comments from a number of idiots who apparently lamented the fact that the bomb miissed. To Maher, it was a free speech issue. His position was effectively demolished by the rest of the panel. And rightfully so.
Jer
June 29, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
And yet another liberal who can't read. What is it about liberalism that makes those in its grip incapable of possessing a better than first grade reading comprehension level?
I never said Maher said he was sorry! I said he was sorry. Humans express regret in a lot of ways other than saying they're sorry. If you've never experienced such, I'm sorry!
Even Barney Frank who was there at the time felt Maher was sorry, and said so. I regret you don't agree with him. However, the fact that I didn't say I was sorry you don't agree with him doesn't mean I'm not! http://newsbusters.org/node/11196 ns
I read very well, Mr. Sheppar
June 29, 2007 - 19:35 ET by JerI read very well, Mr. Sheppard, and am quite comfortable with my level of comprehension...but thanks for your concern. Perhaps if you spent more time digesting and analyzing what I wrote instead of conjuring up personal insults, you wouldn't mischaracterize my comments.
My point was simply this: Although I do not agree with much of what Maher said, to suggest he was sorry Cheney was not blown up by a terrorist bomb is drawing an improper inference. That should have been especially evident to someone who by virtue of being a "conservative" (and forgive me if that is an improper inference) is apparently blessed with an elevated level of reading comprehension.
Just curious....Other than the slur about my reading ability, why do you reflexively assume I'm a "liberal"? I AM a centrist Democrat (as stated in my profile); have voted for many Republicans, and although Reagan was not one of them, have for several years considered him to be the finest President in my lifetime (and that goes back to Truman). But feel free to label me however you wish.
I'll respond to your post about Rush and the "front page headline" later. Have to go to the grocery. Bye.
Jer
June 29, 2007 - 23:30 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Forgive me, but it does seem a tad hypocritical to toss out the sickeningly predictable personal insults complaint when it was you that began a thread with the following (emphasis added):
Were those your words, Jer, or did I conjur them up?
When you enter a room with both barrels blazing, you shouldn't be surprised when folks fire back. Just something to consider as you're stepping down from that high horse you obviously feel comfortable on despite how silly you look at this moment.
That said, if you care to engage in a civil discussion without the seemingly requisite crotch grabbing and genital waving, try entering the room next time with significantly less hostility draped all over your sleeves. Then you might be reciprocated with that which you apparently crave despite your clumsy entrance. ns
NoelSo you are sickened by pe
June 30, 2007 - 03:25 ET by JerNoel
So you are sickened by personal insult complaints and I am sickened by personal insults. It seems we're at an impasse, because if you personally insult me, I intend to complain about it.
But let's back up a bit because I'm really surprised at the reaction here. This was my first posting on NewsBusters and was prompted by my reading a headline on the site which alleged that Bill Maher was sorry that Cheney wasn't assassinated by a terrorist bomb. I believed the charge to be not only toxic but erroneous. Secondly, with respect to the Coulter-Edwards flap, an argument was being made on this or a related thread that Coulter never called John Edwards a "faggot". My comment (which was not even addressed specifically to you) about those two issues seemed and still seems fairly tame to me--especially when compared to the take-no-prisoners rhetoric often encountered on similar sites. I didn't attack anybody, I didn't call anybody names--well, yes I did: I referred to the "idiots" on the Huffington site who actually WERE sorry Cheney wasn't blown up--and I reserved most of my criticism for Maher himself. In return, I was immediately labeled a liberal who couldn't read, possessing a first grade reading comprehension level, and later [paraphrasing] a silly-looking, hostility-filled, crotch-grabbing, genital-waving hypocrite. Someone calling himself Jack Bauer simply referred to me as "frackin' weird"--apparently for revealing I had read transcripts and watched video of Maher's remarks several times. Strange indeed.
But if the opening paragraph or any other part of my posts were out of line or offended you or anyone else, I sincerely apologize. I realize I am a guest here and probably hold a number of views which are at odds with the vast majority who frequent this site (although I bet we agree on more than you suspect). With respect to those differing views, I had hoped to occasionally engage in a constructive dialogue...even passionate but civil debate. But frankly, I am not sure anyone here is interested in that.
Jer
June 30, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
Well, then an apology is in order from me as well. In reality, I have felt myself having a short fuse lately because we've been inundated with drive-by gotcha artists just looking to say black is white and up is down to infuriate writers and posters. So, you probably walked into the room in the middle of a cat fight, and got a bit scratched. I sincerely apologize.
The reading comprehension crack is one that began around the time the Maher issue first broke, for it was impossible to show a number of the drive-byers here that the article didn't say he said he was sorry. I said he was sorry. And, again, I felt that way when I watched it live the first time, when I watched again the following morning, and when I took the time to transcribe it in order to publish. If you don't see it that way, that's fine. I think you're dead wrong, for even Barney Frank who was there at the time felt Maher was sorry. And, when he questioned Maher, rather than saying, "No, I'm not sorry. I'm glad he survived," Maher said (paraphrased) "A lot of people would be alive if Cheney wasn't, that's a fact."
Forgive me, but when Frank gave him the opportunity to correct his previous implications, he not only chose not to, but confirmed his view by saying the world would be a better place without Dick Cheney alive. How you come to the conclusion that Maher wasn't expressing regret is somewhat beyond me. However, this is indeed a subjective matter, and not purely objective. As such, if this is your view, you're welcome to it. :-)
As to the ability to debate here, it exists more than at other sites inasmuch as we welcome those with contrary views as long as they're civil. It takes a lot to get banned here, believe me. But, because there are far more conservative posters here than liberals or even moderates, there can be a circle the wagons mentality. And, with all due humility, because I am a frequent and dare I say popular writer here, the wagons will quickly get circled for me unless I'm really off base.
However, what you experienced here I think was also a function of the number of drive-byers lately present, and that this issue was a contentious one back in March when it first occurred. We had a number of rather vocal drive-byers who were rather abusive in their defense of Maher, moreso than normal because this hit Drudge and became a large issue in the blogosphere. As we broke the story, we were right in the middle of it..
Also, Ann is a largely popular figure here for some obvious and some not-so obvious reasons. Regardless of her sometimes caustic approach, she represents an outspoken side of conservatism that many of us adore. We see Republicans always trying to take the high road in debates, while our opponents on the left will quickly sink to the lowest possible level to achieve victory.
Ann is willing to call a spade a spade, and freely express her views without regard for people's feelings. And, unlike the cowards on the left who won't even debate on Fox News let alone be questioned by its anchors and hosts, Ann is willing to go into the "enemy's" den and fight for what she believes in.
Say what you will about Ann, the gal's got guts, and for this she is greatly admired. And, she sticks to her convictions rather than waffling and waving with each new wind that comes out of the atmosphere. As such, there is a great circle the wagons crowd for her here, too.
With that in mind, Jer, I'm sorry your maiden voyage here was less than you had hoped. There are some great people here willing to discuss issues. However, you walked into a firestorm, and without knowing it, threw some gas on the flames drawing unfriendly attention to yourself. This is not always the case here, and can be rectified if you so choose.
Regards, and sorry for the less than gracious welcome. ns
Jer
June 29, 2007 - 10:08 ET by Noel SheppardJer,
I wanted to follow up on my previous response to answer one of your questions:
If Rush responded that way to a reader's question, it would have been front-page, headline, lead story news that night, as well as the following morning, and there would have been calls for his immediate termination. This would have created a significantly larger firestorm than the recent Don Imus kerfuffle. In fact, this would have been headline news until Rush was fired or suspended.
Thank you for proving our point about the double standard in media coverage. ns
I have read and reread the
June 29, 2007 - 19:49 ET by Jack BauerDude... you are frackin' weird. Get a girlfriend slash life partner.
Already have one. What's your
June 29, 2007 - 22:14 ET by JerAlready have one.
What's your problem, son? Do you have anything constructive to contribute, or do you just like to babble?
I'm interested in the proce
June 29, 2007 - 09:52 ET by sarcasmoI'm interested in the process the MRC goes through in deciding to emit or not-emit a press release. It seems to me the Coulter-flap is relatively minor compared to other stuff that wasn't deemed worthy of a press release. Even though the biased editing of Coulter's remarks was notable, I can't say it was all that shocking. So, what causes a media bias event to become press release worthy, if anyone can say or guess?
JMR
Sarc
June 29, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
I think that's an interesting question, and will forward it on to the powers that be.
My guess, J, is that this episode was seen as part of the recent push to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. I immediately saw the whole set-up with Mrs. Edwards that way, and, obviously, so did Brent.
However, I now believe ABC was probably involved as well. If you recall my post on that interview, I found it rather bizarre that with everything going on in the world, the first thing Cuomo wanted to talk about was Ann's comments at CPAC almost four months ago.
With that in mind, given all this sudden attention to the Fairness Doctrine and talk radio, I think it's quite reasonable for the MRC to come out with official statements concerning how this event appears to have been staged to move FD forward. Make sense? ns
Oh, it makes sense in that
June 29, 2007 - 10:06 ET by sarcasmoOh, it makes sense in that light. I'm more curious about the process than questioning of the reasoning here. Hell, if I were y'all, I'd emit a press release about the relative size of the Earth, Moon, and Sun; so part of me wants to know how one might craft events to make that happen.
JMR
Sarc
June 29, 2007 - 10:11 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
E-mail message already sent. I'll let you know what feedback I get. ns