Papa Can You Hear Me?

Is it really possible that the media is that biased to ignore a story; granted by the National Enquirer, but backed up with a Photo of former Democratic Presidential Candidate John Edwards holding his alleged “love child?”

Indeed, nobody can pick it apart like Ann can and it really is easy to imagine what the press would be saying if these rumors; especially backed up with photos, were about Mitt Romney.

Not too long ago the MSM was certainly quick to take the word of a street-hooker in outing alleged “evangelist” Ted Haggard and plastering the news on every front page from New York to Los Angeles. 

Aside from their blatant bias, one thing Ann misses is what I contend.  Americans (even liberals) don’t expect this type of behavior out of conservatives.  Of course, we expect it out of liberals though, so perhaps a Democrat cheating on his wife and making a baby with someone else really isn’t “news.”

It’s amazing.  The only true way for John Edwards to get his name in the headlines is for Ann Coulter to make a joke about him.

Now that she has written a column about it, we’ll see how quick Elizabeth Edwards is to call her up and challenge her.

John Who?

ann.jpg  

With the MSM lovemaking-threeway with Hillary and Barack, it’s a little hard to focus on the insanity of the remaining contenders bucking for President next year.  But, as I have enjoyed pointing out how crazy Ron Paul and his supporters are lately, Ann Coulter is our equal opportunity offender when it comes to having a blast with liberals and their political dysfunction.

Ms. Coulter is an inspiration to many — such an inspiration that the most failing Presidential candidates still feel the need to clutch onto her coattails.   

As pointed out by my punctual news-reading site co-author Philip, John Edwards attacked Ann Coulter again.  This was posted by ABC and reported in the most liberally-biased way possible.  But, I won’t rant about that so much.  If you click on the link yourself, you will see that many commenters went on and for the first time in major news-reporting history in terms of the MSM, a vast majority of the readers and commenters are defending Ann Coulter.

Suffice it to say our champ, Ann, is getting bored with John Edwards.  Poor John, Ann Coulter has not even responded to this latest attack.  John called her a “she-devil” just months after Elizabeth Edwards joined up with Hardball host Chris Matthews to lecture the best-selling author on proper political dialogue.  I wonder if Elizabeth lectured John over this one as she did with Ann?

Reading Coulter’s last three columns, we see that she has fun with all liberals:

August 1, 2007

“Noticeably, Gov. Bill Richardson got the first “woo” of the debate — the mating call of rotund liberal women — for demanding a federal mandate that would guarantee public schoolteachers a minimum salary of $40,000.”

August 8, 2007

“But when that clever retort failed to quiet rumblings from the right wing, The New Republic finally revealed the “Baghdad Diarist” to be … John Kerry!”

August 15, 2007

“All the Democrats’ most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house.”

So as we can see, Coulter herself has become quite bored with the Edwardses.  But for some reason, Edwards still feels the need to remind us over and over again of the feud between the two of them.  Could it be that he needs more campaign funding?  Could it be that nobody cares about it? 

This is almost as transparent as famed-9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser writing a book and responding to Ann Coulter MONTHS after Godless came out. 

It gets interesting when Senators like John Kerry and candidates like John Edwards use the name of Ann Coulter on the Senate floor and during their campaigns to get attention.  If war-opposing crazies who don’t stand a chance for making the Presidency next year are going to use her everytime they run out of PR, could they at least pass the hat around?

How about Ron Paul?  That would be funny!

Duncan Hunter on Ann Coulter

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAe597SYoIA]

It’s a shame conservatives really have not paid more attention to this guy and I have to hand it to Ann Coulter because she has always endorsed Hunter regardless of how unpopular he was compared to headliners like Giuliani or Thompson. 

Idealogically, for conservatives this would have probably been the best shot.  Perhaps Thompson can look his way for Vice-President at least.

He makes a funny joke at the end of this short clip and comments on the hoopla between Elizabeth Edwards and Coulter a few weeks ago.

Elizabeth Edwards: Sticking to the Issues

kerryedwards.jpg 

Who does Elizabeth Edwards think she is, Evita?

Parading around and giving speeches to the descamisados of San Francisco, Edwards allegedly has made gay-marriage a new concern and is using the death of a Sacramento man for leverage.

Unfortunately for Elizabeth, some of us remember John Kerry admitting his opposition to gay marriage during the 2004 debates while John Edwards simutaneously baited Mary Cheney by using her name against her father.

Fortunately for Elizabeth, half of the gay community does not pay attention to Presidential debates so it’s not all bad news for her husband’s failing campaign.

The Intellect of an Edwards Supporter:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8vs7a1XVyQ]

 Ann Coulter supporter being harrassed by an Edwards’ supporter.

 Say, shouldn’t we be sticking to the issues and cutting back on the immature personal attacks?  LOL.

But for the fact that Edwards at this point needs all the supporters he can get, I’m surprised they are settling for types like this.

“Faggots” and Ferris Wheels: Continued

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s3a1fxcHI0]

Here is more on the latest “attack” on John Edwards.  Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter actually show the entire segment of the ABC interview in its context. 

I wonder if liberals and hysterics will continue to talk about how much bad news she is for the right wing after seeing this. 

Yeah, probably.

By the way, John Edwards went on Hardball last night to speak solely about Ann Coulter.  Was it damage control to correct a stupid mistake made by Elizabeth Edwards?  Or was it an accentuation of his “victim” moment to hopefully put him above Clinton and Obama in the polls while simultaneously raising more money for his campaign.

My answer is C. All of the Above.

“Faggots” and Ferris Wheels – Elizabeth Edwards vs. Ann Coulter

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t36TDc8m19A&mode=related&search=]

I have to admit, when I learned that Chris Matthews on Hardball had a secret deal with Elizabeth Edwards to ambush Ann Coulter on a few “comments” during Matthews’ interview with Coulter to promote her updated paperback version of Godless: The Church of Liberalism, I was immediately affected by this as I again was shown how devious liberals can be and indeed how clueless some “conservatives” are.

 

In the video posted above, Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards (wife of John Edwards) uses this opportunity to stress to Ann Coulter the importance of sticking to the issues and cutting out the “personal attacks.” 

 

It all started about six months ago when Ann Coulter joked about the pathetic state of our politically correct society when asserting that she would not be commenting on John Edwards because using the word “faggot” would put her in rehab.  Immediately afterwards in the same speech when asked about gay rights, Ann said:

  • “Screw you, I’m not anti-gay, we’re against gay marriage, I don’t want gays to be discriminated against”

and went on to say………….

  • “In addition to blacks, I don’t know why all gays aren’t Republican because I think we have the pro-gay position which is anti-crime and pro-tax cuts, gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime.”

There, Coulter genuinely acknowledged the history of cruelty, bigotry, and crimes against the gay community.  Conservatives have acknowledged that same fact for years.  But apparently being against gay marriage equals a level of hate directly associated with the types of morons that partake in such awful crimes.

 

The same weekend that Coulter made that comment, Bill Maher remarked about Dick Cheney being slaughtered by terrorists.  Not one liberal came out against him with a fraction of the energy they put into focusing on one line uttered by Ann Coulter.

 

Say, when will we get a phone call from Lynne Cheney as Maher is being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity? 

 

Next, the “Coulter makes Edwards cry like a big girl” drama-fest was extended when Ann Coulter; on ABC, just a few days ago stated her obvious surprise that Maher’s comment about Cheney being assassinated by terrorists got no press attention compared to her joke about John Edwards.  In this current interview, Coulter said two funny things.

 

Holding to her intention that her “faggot” remark had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with John Edwards being a total wuss she remarked:

  • “I wouldn’t insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards….THAT would be mean”

Then realizing the striking difference displayed by liberals in their reaction to what she said versus what Bill Maher had said, she joked:

  • “I’ve learned my lesson, if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish that he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”

Now, a few days later, Elizabeth Edwards and Chris Matthews use this as evidence of a “personal attack” against John Edwards.  Nothing she said in this interview on ABC attacked John Edwards personally, other than the cute joke about not comparing all gays to him. 

 

There are a few things I’d like to point out in the midst of the entire hullabaloo raised by liberals and “concerned conservatives.”

 

First: Every time Ann Coulter makes a joke about a liberal, I get buckets of e-mails and messages from liberal friends, gay friends, conservative friends, etc. wondering if this is finally the moment that I would be willing to denounce Coulter. 

 

Let me be the first to say that I proudly agree with the idea that John Edwards is a total wuss.  In fact, my agreeing with Ann Coulter in that respect has been utterly confirmed by the wife of this Presidential candidate when she feels the need to conspire with a liberal talk-show host to insinuate that Coulter stop writing and speaking in a way that she chooses to express herself which is an amusing way that attracts enough folks to score her five massive NY Times bestsellers. 

 

In fact, if I could be mad about anything, it would be because the Edwards people have scored massive amounts of campaign-funding since Coulter’s remarks.

 

So when Coulter says something that makes liberals go crazy, what is the real message here?  While some of my most soft-hearted friends and concerned conservative folk characterize it as:

  • Coulter gives energy to liberals, they will win because she expresses herself, speaks her mind and God forbid exercises her right to the first amendment. 

I seem to be one of the only ones with enough common sense to discover the real message here which is:

  • Edwards cannot handle jokes, attacks, or criticism from a blond 100-pound writer but he simultaneously wants us to believe that he’s going to effectively combat members of Al-Queda, deal with Iran, North Korea, and pull us out of Iraq in a way that does not portray us as a country full of Barbra Streisands and Rosie O’Donnells. 

Is Edwards going to have to his wife call up Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the case he is so politically incorrect to assassinate Edwards with a “personal attack?”  What would conservatives think of George Bush or Ronald Reagan if they had Laura or Nancy calling up talk-shows to do their fighting for them?

 

Second: While Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards blathered on about “personal attacks” and “debating the issues,” did it occur to them that they never touched on one issue at all in that entire time?  The entire interview was a “personal attack” against Ann Coulter.  I have read Godless from cover to cover and can personally attest to the fact that Ann Coulter covered many “issues” in her book.  If Matthews and Edwards want to debate issues, why didn’t they pick at least one of them to debate Coulter on? 

 

To all the hysterics out there, I ask that you realize the fact that there is a reason why Edwards and Matthews could not stay on the issues and chose to parse Coulter’s language for the entire course of that interview.

 

Third:  The latter part of this interview features Matthews engaging in another personal attack on Coulter by again; avoiding the issues, and scolding her on words that Coulter used to describe Hillary’s legs. 

Curiously enough, one year ago on Hardball, Chris Matthews in an interview with Tucker Carlson asked Tucker if he found Ann Coulter attractive.

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you find her physically attractive, Tucker?”

 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Well, she doesn’t pass the Chris Matthews test.”

 

Utter hypocrisy at its worst.

 

As a gay man, I was not offended at Coulter’s use of the word “faggot.”  I knew what she meant, I agree with her that putting someone in rehab over the use of a word is crazy, and I knew how liberals would respond.  But the way conservatives are responding is what is making me sick. 

 

Conservatives are now buying into this rhetoric without understanding the price they are willing to pay which involves compromising everyone’s right to true free speech! 

 

We are selling ourselves out as conservatives by caving into the politically correct madness created by the mainstream media.  We are more obsessed now with monitoring the words uttered by Ann Coulter than we are at observing our enemies. 

 

Coulter has been attacked repeatedly on the Senate floor by various Senators including John Kerry.  She is the first political writer to ever be called up by the wife of a presidential candidate.  Couple these firsts with the fact that she continues to sell massive amounts of books, I’d say that I am ready to make my final point:

 

Liberals (even the elected ones) are so threatened by Ann Coulter’s ability to articulate political messages that they use their time on the Senate floor and their time as political candidates to test the backbone of the Republican Party.  I have to say, by recent actions, I am completely disgusted at Republicans for caving into this utter manipulation.  We are reacting just as they want us to.

 

Being a victim today is like taking a turn on the Ferris wheel.  It’s stardom, it’s attention, and it’s a sorry excuse to be indignant and to sound interesting for about five minutes.

 

If Republicans lose the election because of comments uttered by Ann Coulter, it won’t be because of her comments alone.  It will be because of our “wuss” reactions to the mainstream media, the tree-huggers, the anti-war moms, and the political correctness set forth by hypocrites like Chris Matthews and Elizabeth Edwards.

 

If people don’t want to be characterized as “faggots,” how about they stop giving illustration to the characterization?