the answer to your question? no.

"But of course, no one was prevented from responding to the 9/11 widows, or anyone else, if they wanted to do so on the substance of their arguments. If Coulter wanted to argue that the criticism the 9/11 widows were making of the President was mistaken, no one would have raised an eyebrow."

What exactly was the substance of the 9/11 widows criticism of the President's record on terrorism? And more importantly, why should we care what any of them had to say? That was the point of Coulter's criticism of the Democrats' use of them as authority that could not be questioned because of the personal losses that they suffered.

Mrs. Edwards appearance on Hardball continues the use of this tactic by the Dems. If John Edwards had a problem with something Ann Coulter said, why does he send his wife, who is dying of cancer, out to defend him? She was used precisely because she does have cancer and it would be in "bad taste" to challenge her in any way. This confirms Ann's point that Dems will use any sympathetic person as a shield to hide behind instead of standing up and debating the real issue.

BTW, I thought Matthews was a real POS in dealing with both Ann and the crowd. The look on his face was priceless when Ann said that he would be the liberal media figure that should be sent to Gitmo based on his conduct during the show.

Wait, I think Coulter just issued a statement:

"My writings ... on the issues are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics."

Oops, sorry, that was that Marcotte chick, my bad.

Wait, I think Coulter just issued a statement:

"My writings ... on the issues are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics."

Oops, sorry, that was that Marcotte chick, my bad.

The race to the bottom continues . . .

A while back Coulter talked about how liberals and Democrats like to bring forward "victims" as spokespeople --- I think she was referring to the 9/11 widows. "You can't argue with those people because then it looks like you are picking on the victim", she said.

In other words, she (and Limbaugh, too --- I recall him echoing this argument at one point) was admitting that the only weapon in her rhetorical arsenal was committing ad hominem fallacies. She did it again with Elizabeth Edwards, yesterday.

Coulter's hit bottom; now she's digging.

If John Edwards had a problem with something Ann Coulter said

I know that Republicans are used to George Bush sending Laura to kick puppies for him, but Elizabeth Edwards is quite capable of being displeased with Ann Coulter for her hateful rhetoric all on her own.

Otherwise, it's no surprise the first ones to bring up Elizabeth Edwards' cancer are Republicans who want to use her condition to attack her husband.

You really are the Party of Ann Coulter.

Chicounsel: the substance of the 9/11 widows criticisms was that the Bush administration obstructed the investigation into what went wrong in the lead-up to 9/11 and in the response to it. One does these investigations, not to pin blame, but to figure out what mistakes were made and how they might be avoided in the future. It's a fairly unassailable argument, and the Bush administration reaction is difficult to reconcile with the needs of national security.

This has been a pretty consistent problem with the Bush Administration --- no oversight, wholesale rejection of standard practices which were put in place to prevent errors and corruption (and, in cases like the Cheney handling of classified material, to prevent espionage).

If the media won't call Romney on his association with Coulter, his Dem opponent (should Romney win the Republican nomination) would be crazy not to.

Matthews did sandbag (is that the right term?) Coulter -- she obviously didn't know about the Edwards call ahead of time. Not that I mind that, personally. But I do wish Elizabeth Edwards, or someone else would ask Matthews why he keeps giving Coulter a platform to air her views . . . (a girl can dream, can't she?)

"What exactly was the substance of the 9/11 widows criticism of the President's record on terrorism?"

Already covered above, not to mention the dragging the heels on implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.

"And more importantly, why should we care what any of them had to say?"

Dear heart, nobody has suggested that you or Ann Coulter is required to "care" what they had to say. Both you and she are free to ignore them or to provide a substantive response, if you like.

"That was the point of Coulter's criticism of the Democrats' use of them as authority that could not be questioned because of the personal losses that they suffered."

Since no Democrats ever said anything even remotely resembling this, forgive us if we ignore this lame strawman argument.

The rest of your pathetic attack I'm not even going to dignify with a response. Looks like you and Ann belong together.

It's dreadful, isn't it, when people like the 9/11 widows can't be personally savaged and you actually have to respond to the merits of what they say. I understand why someone like Coulter would have a problem with that.

In all seriousness, what else would you expect from the party of Purple Heart band-aids?

Also, I like Chicounsel's sexist assumption that Elizabeth Edwards, as independent-minded a woman as you will ever meet, was "sent" by her husband to make this call. I understand, it's fun to assume that John Edwards is doing something low in order to criticize him for doing something low, but we also call that "making things up."

I know that Republicans are used to George Bush sending Laura to kick puppies for him, but Elizabeth Edwards is quite capable of being displeased with Ann Coulter for her hateful rhetoric all on her own.

Posted by: Drew | June 27, 2007 12:15 PM

Can you cite a single example of Laura Bush doing something remotely similar either as First Lady or when Bush was a candidate? I'm betting you can't.

And as for Mrs. Edwards simply deciding to do this on her own, all I can say is if you believe that, then you're not a serious observer of presidential campaigns. No one, including the spouse of the candidate does anything on their own that may affect the candidate and the campaign. So it was the Edwards campaign decision to let Mrs. Edwards make the call and they did so for the reasons I stated earlier.

"The rest of your pathetic attack I'm not even going to dignify with a response. Looks like you and Ann belong together."

Posted by: PaulB | June 27, 2007 01:09 PM

And that is why, dear boy, your side always loses. If you're unwilling to provide a response to an argument, it is usually because you have nothing to say in rebuttal.

And that is why, dear boy, your side always loses.

Indeed, that's why Democrats control the House and Senate now. Because we always lose.

Indeed, that's why Democrats control the House and Senate now. Because we always lose.

Posted by: Stu | June 27, 2007 02:55 PM

06 was only the latest battle in the never ending war that is American politics.

Besides judging from the reaction here and other places, you guys are no happier with your majority than we were with ours. lol

And as for Mrs. Edwards simply deciding to do this on her own, all I can say is if you believe that, then you're not a serious observer of presidential campaigns. No one, including the spouse of the candidate does anything on their own that may affect the candidate and the campaign. So it was the Edwards campaign decision to let Mrs. Edwards make the call and they did so for the reasons I stated earlier.

Assuming facts not in evidence.

here's the transcript:

C: Yeah, why isn’t John Edwards making this call?

M: Well, do you want to respond? We’ll end the conversation.

E: I haven’t talked to John about this call. I’m making the call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.

If you have any proof to the contrary, please supply it. If not, then acknowledge that you're just making things up.

Can you cite a single example of Laura Bush doing something remotely similar either as First Lady or when Bush was a candidate? I'm betting you can't.

Not while he was a candidate, but while he was president, just two months ago she said that "no one suffers more" than her and the president when watching television coverage of Iraq.

By your standards, then, Bush sends his wife out to cadge a little sympathy for him.

Randy: he's assuming that the elections of 2006 didn't happen, so be forewarned that the proof he offers may very well involve unicorns and a pony.

"And that is why, dear boy, your side always loses."

ROFLMAO.... Whatever you say, dear. Did 2006 teach you nothing?

"If you're unwilling to provide a response to an argument"

Dear heart, rest assured that when you finally see fit to actually provide an argument, as compared to say, a strawman combined with random ad hominem attacks, I will engage it. Until then, I'll content myself with exposing your idiocies.

"it is usually because you have nothing to say in rebuttal."

Dear heart, there was quite literally nothing for me to rebut. Were you planning to actually provide a genuine argument?

Sorry, the above comment was from me, of course.

"06 was only the latest battle in the never ending war that is American politics."

Gee, dear, I seem to remember someone saying something about "always loses." You said something stupid, you got caught, deal with it.

Let's engage Chicounsel's little scurrilous attacks, since he's so proud of them.

"Mrs. Edwards appearance on Hardball continues the use of this tactic by the Dems."

Dear heart, you have yet to establish that this is a "tactic by the Dems," much less that this is a continuation of this tactic. You have also yet to deal with the fact that politicians of both stripes practice this little ploy, including your hero Bush. And no, I'm not just referring to his wife.

"If John Edwards had a problem with something Ann Coulter said, why does he send his wife"

Interesting that you assume that he "sent" his wife. Democrats tend to not "send" their wives, dear, because they have minds of their own. Maybe it's different in Republican land.

"who is dying of cancer"

Dear heart, of what relevance is this? It just makes you look foolish.

"She was used precisely because she does have cancer"

And your evidence that a) she was "sent" and b) that this is why she was "sent" is, what, exactly? Simply making shit up is not considered evidence or rational argument, dear.

"This confirms Ann's point that Dems will use any sympathetic person as a shield to hide behind instead of standing up and debating the real issue."

Actually, it "confirms" nothing of the kind since neither you nor Ann has established that this is indeed a tactic of any Democratic politicians, much less the "Dems," much less that this is a tactic that was used in this case.

As for debating a "real issue," do let me know when either you or Ann want to actually debate a "real issue." We'll be right here waiting for you. We're not holding our breaths, though.

"BTW, I thought Matthews was a real POS"

We'll be sure to give this opinion all of the attention it deserves.

Free clue, dear heart: take a good hard look at how George W. Bush and the Republican Party use "the troops."

In short, dear heart, you posted not one valid argument, not one item that really needed to be addressed or engaged, not one bit of actual rational debate. What was that you were saying about "losing?"

I do so love it, by the way, when someone posts mindless partisan drivel and is actually proud of it. It makes rubbing their nose in it ever so much more satisfying.

Can you cite a single example of Laura Bush doing something remotely similar either as First Lady or when Bush was a candidate? I'm betting you can't.

One was mentioned above, but I was thinking of when, following the death of Ronald Reagan and Nancy Reagan's commonsense endorsement of federal funding for stem cell research, they hauled her out to rebuff the request.

You know what the ultimate irony of Chicounsel's "argument" was? That he was so busy sliming Edwards and his wife that he completely failed to actually "stand up and debate the real issue!" Normally, I have to pay for entertainment this good.

But I do wish Elizabeth Edwards, or someone else would ask Matthews why he keeps giving Coulter a platform to air her views

Tweety is in search of an authority figure. Ann Coulter intrigues him, but not so much that she's won the laurels.

How do I know this? He hasn't rhapsodized about how she smells. Yet.

A while back Coulter talked about how liberals and Democrats like to bring forward "victims" as spokespeople --- I think she was referring to the 9/11 widows. "You can't argue with those people because then it looks like you are picking on the victim", she said.

In other words, she (and Limbaugh, too --- I recall him echoing this argument at one point) was admitting that the only weapon in her rhetorical arsenal was committing ad hominem fallacies. She did it again with Elizabeth Edwards, yesterday.

****

She certainly did! But I don't know, do democrats "hide behind the victim and refuse to debate the issue?

I almost feel like there's some of that going on right now with this immigration bill. To me, this is a labor bill.

I can't say I've seen actual representatives doing this, but I do think I have seen a bit of a tendency on the liberal side to frame the opposition as a bunch of racists or populists (or racist-populists (because we just "know" those are the same thing)) who just don't like Mexicans.

I know those people exist, but I think it would be a mistake to support/ oppose a bill primarliy because of a visceral dislike of low brow conservatives. Which, I certainly think people are capable of doing.

"That was the point of Coulter's criticism of the Democrats' use of them as authority that could not be questioned because of the personal losses that they suffered."

Then why did she attack them in such a nasty manner? The simpler and more effective argument is that their grief doesn't give them expertise. Instead, she went for the throat, as she usually does.

I don't particularly care that much. She's a pathetic, ridiculous figure who is sliding even further into irrelevancy. I just thought I'd add my two cents.

Laura Bush is sent out on media missions regularly to defend her husband's administration and rebut critic. Just type "Laura Bush" in Google and read some transcripts.