I’m no fan of Ann Coulter. She’s often needlessly offensive, even vicious.
Coulter’s remarks about those she disagrees with are frequently as venomous as some of the things current DNC chair Howard Dean and Sen. Teddy Kennedy have said.
Dean in an ’04 Democratic presidential nominee candidates' debate called President Bush “the enemy.”
And at the time of Abu Ghraib Kennedy slimed America and our military by announcing on the floor of the U. S. Senate:
"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."No doubt those fighting our troops in Iraq and the Moveon.org folks found Kennedy’s words an aid and a comfort.
I don’t read Coulter’s column. If I never see Coulter on TV or see one of her books on a shelf: fine.
But the deserved bashing she’s getting now from much of MSM reeks of hypocrisy.
We see an example of that in the Durham Herald Sun’s Weekend Editorial that includes:
By now, most folks tuned into presidential politics know that Ann Coulter, the abrasive, loud-mouthed conservative columnist and author, doesn't like presidential candidate John Edwards.Coulter and Maher’s remarks equally distasteful? I agree.
In March, during a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Coulter used a gay slur to refer to Edwards.
Having had a good Southern upbringing, (if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all), Edwards didn't fire back at Coulter's gay slur and used it to raise money for his presidential campaign.
The opportunity to cash in on Coulter's big mouth presented itself again this week when Coulter clearly crossed the line while appearing on Chris Matthews' show, "Hardball." Her venom-filled comment about Edwards probably made Rush Limbaugh blush. Well, maybe not.
"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," Coulter said in response to a question about the gay slur in March.
The comment was just too much for Elizabeth Edwards, who called into the show to let Coulter know that she didn't appreciate Coulter wishing death on her husband.
"It debases the political dialogue," Elizabeth Edwards said. "It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language."
John Edwards also found his voice on Wednesday: "When these hatemongers, with their hate language, continue to speak out, we are not going to sit by quietly anymore," he said.
Some political pundits speculated that Coulter's remarks were a riff on a similar comment made by HBO's Bill Maher in March. Maher said "people wouldn't be dying needlessly" if Vice President Dick Cheney had been killed in an insurgent attack in Afghanistan.
Coulter and Maher's remarks are equally distasteful, and have no place in the nation's political discourse. …
So why didn’t the H-S editorialize when Maher made his widely quoted and disgusting remarks targeting America’s Vice President?
The H-S is right when it says Coulter is “an abrasive, loud-mouth conservative columnist and author.” And Al Franken is an abrasive, loud-mouth liberal author and talk show host.
But how many times has the H-S referred to Franken or liberals like him as abrasive and loud-mouthed?
And has the H-S ever taken to task those who call the President of the United States “Hitler?”
What the H-S gave readers with its Coulter editorial is one more example of the double standard that’s so common at MSM news organizations.
Here's the URL for the H-S editorial: