Might Ann Coulter have reached a tipping point? Her comments on the Today Show, her insanely nasty comments about the 9-11 widows, really seemed "beyond"...
The dog gets me up early, so at 7:15 yesterday morning I caught Matt Lauer interviewing Ann Coulter, publicizing her new book. The early part was fairly boilerplate. Lauer asked her why Bush's numbers were so low, and he wanted her to say Iraq War, and she just wouldn't. And she talked around why the numbers were down; -- and she kept repeating there was an enormous percentage of voters in various states who voted to ban gay marriage (which is true unfortunately), in response to when Lauer would point out that in terms of polling "gay marriage" was WAY DOWN on the list of important issues with voters right now (which is also true). And she kept on point on how Americans, in voting, are wildly opposed to gay marriage. Said it like 4 times, rather than answer about Bush's numbers.
Lauer then said, "Aren't Bush's numbers low because of the war in Iraq?" (These are all from my memory; not direct quotes). And she said back, "No, Iraq is the one thing he's doing right, fighting the war on terror." And Lauer said (and good for him), "I'm not saying the war on terror, I'm saying the war in Iraq." And she said, "It's the same thing." (Then smoke came out of her ears and his eyes turned momentarily iridescent.)
But all that is somewhat standard.
However, he then got into her book which he said he had to ask her about, this one section. It's about the 9-11 commission (I think; I was making the dog breakfast), but in the book she starts to complain about the 9-11 widows who criticized Bush constantly in relation to appearing before the commission and on tv, and how they used their positions as widows so you couldn't attack them, and how unfair that was.
Anyway, here's the transcript of that:
LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things
in there just to cater to your base?ANN: No, of course I believe everything.
LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, and in particular a group that had been
critical of the administration: "These self-obsessed women seem
genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like
as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the
entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal
agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process."
And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: "These
broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them,
reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies.
I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
Because they dare to speak out?From Durang: I stopped preparing the dog's food and stared at the television. "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Wow. Tipping point? Is it like saying Strom Thurmond should have been elected president? Can we stop hearing about her, and seeing her on tv?
Here's the rest of the transcript:
COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the
left's doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about
the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about
sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have
to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we
respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?
COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a
foreign policy response.LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.
COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.
LAUER: Yeah they have.
COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for
Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while
preventing anyone from responding.LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a
political point of view?COULTER: No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the
basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from
responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the
point. Don't put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without
questioning the authenticity of their grief.LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.
COULTER: Yeah, I did.
LAUER: So, in other words.
COULTER: That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up
Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson.
No, no, no. You can't respond. It's their doctrine of infallibility.
Have someone else make the argument then.LAUER: What I'm saying is I don't think they have ever told you, you
can't respond.COULTER: Look, you are getting testy with me.
From Durang: at this point there was some sort of spontaneous mix of moans and boos from the audience, I think the audience outside (presuming sound is provided to them?). You can hear on the video, linked below.
LAUER: No. I think it's a dramatic statement. These broads are
millionaires stalked by stalked by griefparrazies? I have never seen
people enjoying their husband's deaths so much.COULTER: Yes, they are all over the news.
LAUER: The book is called "Godless: The Church of Liberalism." Ann
Coulter, always fun to have you here.
Here's the link to the video. Listen to the audience response that happens
"I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
It's in her book. She had to proof it, live with it, nod her head and say, "oh yes that's a good one."
And she also is accusing the Democrats of being anti-God, yadda yadda (how original, how deep).
What part of religion is it she likes? The "hate thy neighbor" part?