Day: June 12, 2006

Wrong Rights: Wingnuts Defending Coulter

Buck Banks

Ann fans: Media Matters has performed an important civic service — they’ve collected many of the instances where conservative analysts and TV mouth-breathers have come to the defense of Ann Coulter, who they say is being pilloried unfairly for inflammatory statements in her latest book. Besides being guilty of vote fraud, as Editor Trish so eloquently pointed out here, Coulter went way over the top when she attacked the widows of the 9/11 victims:

Coulter’s comment that has perhaps drawn the most attention is an attack on the widows of 9-11 victims, appearing on Page 103 of Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum), and read by [Matt] Lauer [on the Today Show]: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”

Now her co-dependent neocon neighbors on the far right are riding their slime trails to her rescue. Media Matters has a detailed run-down on these reprehensible defenses of Coulter’s even-more reprehensible statements. My favorite, though, is Bill O’Reilly actually seeming to NOT defend Coulter. Maybe even Bill has a bottom past which he will not go. Nah, he’s just being argumentative.

From the June 7 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

O’REILLY: Now for the top story tonight, another view of this, joining us from Chicago, Fox News contributor Sandy Rios, a conservative analyst. Where am I going wrong here Sandy?

RIOS: Well, Bill, I think, I don’t disagree with your basic premise. I mean, it is certainly not my choice to attack people. However, we are living in strange times. And I think while everybody else is making nice, Ann’s words are laser-focused on truth. She says things that no one else dares say and it kind of made me think about, for instance, holocaust pictures. Do we have to see pictures of emaciated bodies to understand what happened? It’s kind of offensive. But, you know what? Yes, we do.

Sometimes I think Ann’s words, yes, as harsh as they are, they are like a clarion wake-up call, like cold water, like, “Stop it!” Because women have lost their husbands in an accidental bombing, which is tragic, and we have great sympathy for them, does not give them license to then criticize the commander in chief, to work against —

O’REILLY: Whoa, whoa. Whoa, whoa. Hold it. They’re American citizens. They can criticize the commander in chief all day long.

I do think we’re living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones.
— Sandy Rios

RIOS: And they can be criticized in return.

O’REILLY: You can criticize their criticism, absolutely. Look, there’s nobody who did more damage to Cindy Sheehan in this country than I did, but I did it by exposing her agenda.

RIOS: Yes you did, Bill. I agree.

O’REILLY: Telling people who was behind her movement, who was paying the bills, who was running her. I did not, I did not, I did not call the woman any names, disparage her as an American citizen or do any of that. And if I had, I would have lost the debate instead of Cindy Sheehan losing credibility in my opinion.

RIOS: You know, I know that that’s true. Bill, I like the way you did that and I thank goodness you did. But I would say that Ann is a unique person. I don’t believe Ann does this stuff for theatrics. I think she really believes what she is saying and she has certainly a gift of words and imagery.

O’REILLY: If you’re going to stand by that Sandy, then Ann Coulter writes in her book that these people are enjoying their husband’s deaths. Now, come on, you know that’s not true. That’s brutal to say something like that.

RIOS: It is brutal. But Bill, I would say this, I do think we’re living in a time where a lot of people enjoy the death of their loved ones. I know that sounds terrible.

O’REILLY: It sounds awful. In order to say that to specific people, you’re going to have to prove it.

RIOS: No, I know that. Personally, I would not say it, but I am telling you that I think it’s true that people are making a lot of money off the death of their loved ones in a lot of different cases.

[…]

Hurricane Preparedness: A Primer

Buck Banks

Hello Alberto: With the first hurricane of the season heading toward Florida’s west coast, representing, by the way, the first missed forecast of the season (they said it wouldn’t become a hurricane), the first of the “funny” e-mails has started circulating. While I don’t know the provenance of this (though it sounds like Dave Barry), it is at least mildly amusing — at least to us beleagured Floridians looking ahead at the next five and a half months.

Hurricane Preparedness

To: ex-Floridians, present Floridians, and future Floridians or those who know a Floridian.

We’re about to enter the 2006 hurricane season. Any day now, you’re going to turn on the TV and see a weather person pointing to some radar blob out in the Gulf of Mexico and making two basic meteorological points:

(1) There is no need to panic.
(2) We could all be killed.

Yes, hurricane season is an exciting time to be in Florida. If you’re new to the area, you’re probably wondering what you need to do to prepare for the possibility that we’ll get hit by “the big one.”

Based on our experiences, we recommend that you follow this simple three-step hurricane preparedness plan:

STEP 1. Buy enough food and bottled water to last your family for at least three days.

STEP 2. Put these supplies into your car.

STEP 3. Drive to Nebraska and remain there until Thanksgiving.

Unfortunately, statistics show that most people will not follow this sensible plan. Most people will foolishly stay here in Florida. […]

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

Supposing a man-hater had desired to render the human race as unhappy as possible, what could he have invented for the purpose better than belief in an incomprehensible being about whom men could never be able to agree?

— Denis Diderot (1713-1784), French philosopher

Poll: Not Even Catching Osama Would Boost Bush’s Performance Rating

Buck Banks

Beyond help: A recent Zogby poll found that George Bush’s 30-something approval rating would not receive a boost if Osama bin Laden were captured.

Asked how much credit Bush would be due if bin Laden were caught, 52 percent said they would give him no credit, 28 percent would give him all the credit, while 17 percent said he would deserve some of the credit.

Bush’s job approval rating in fighting terrorism would be at 42 percent if bin Laden were found, which is about where he is now with bin Laden still on the loose. A Zogby telephone poll in May showed his job approval for fighting terrorism at 41 percent, down from 44 percent in February.

While 86 percent of Republicans would give him positive marks for fighting terrorism if bin Laden were found, just 3 percent of Democrats would give him a positive rating on terrorism. Among independents, 36 percent would give him good marks, while 64 percent would give him negative marks.

What’s interesting here is that to a large extent Bush created this conundrum — he tied the war on terror, i.e., bin Laden and al Qaeda, to the war in Iraq. And most Americans are sick of the war in Iraq and, by extension, Bush’s war on terror. Neither “war” can be won in the traditional sense of “victory,” but Bush can continue to lose indefinitely, Osama or no Osama.