I saw it and it was pathetic. Stop giving any press to Coulter. Period. It's a lose, lose situation.

Edwards sounded pathetic in the original "confrontation" and she sounded pathetic today with Wolf "repeat republican talking points ad nauseum" Blitzer.

Stop giving her press. I can't remeber the guys name, so I don't want to take credit for this observation, but he was on softball. A democratic politician or spokesperson cannot win in a confrontation with Coulter. It's like a boxer required to comply with the rules of boxing going into a fight with an ultimate fighting fighter. Coulter can say the most outrageous things without consequence, and for profit I might ad, while the politician is prevented from getting down and dirty.

Please stop giving her press. It is a travesty and she is making big money based on being a racist bigot with no morals.

There must be some Anne Coulter phenomenon out there that sells but I don't get it. She is just a clown.

Stop giving any press to Coulter. Period.

How might I do that?

I guess I could write poison pen letters to the like of Chris Matthews, picket bookstores and such - and then give Coulter even more press if anyone in all the world noticed.

Doesn't seem a good idea.

Got a better idea?

Go get 'em, Elizabeth.

If it does no good with conscienceless flacks like Chris Matthews, it can't do any harm.

Best, Terry

"We can put an end to this [type of dialogue]the same way we put an end to racist dialogue in the South: because decent people objected."

Brava, Elizabeth!!!

Once again, class and decency trump coarseness and ugliness.

Look, as much as we would all like for everyone to stop paying attention to Ann Coulter, it simply is not going to happen.

The next best thing, then - since it is a given that she will continue to 'write' 'books' and say the most outrageous things she can when they are issued, in order to draw attention (and sales) from her knuckle-dragging constituency - is to make sure the average, non-politics-nerd citizen understands that Ann Coulter is the face (and mouth) of the right-wing. Not some fringe character, but a true-to-life representation of the id of 21st century conservatism.

Decent everyday people will be able to draw their own conclusions when they are constantly reminded that Coulter's bile-spewing speaks for the right.

Mrgavel is correct - ignoring the rantings of a nobody with no credibility nor public recognition is one thing, and probably the right thing to do. Responding creates the impression there might be something to it.

The opposite is true for the rantings of someone who already has a public platform. As we all should have learned from the swiftboating of Kerry, there are meta-messages which voters draw from these incidents. You know, 'if he would let these guys kick him around...'

I gotta say Michael, you're just wrong. The only way to win a fight is to...fight! If you refuse to fight, even if you don't want to fight... you lose. The Edwards camp is taking the lead on this and it's exactly the right thing to do. Hopefully, this will teach other Democrats a little something.

Rock on Elizabeth!

As Sharon Begley wrote the other day in Newsweek, remember when Al Gore responded forcefully to a slur from Bush during a debate?

It was a direct attack on the honor of a fellow Southerner, and Gore wasn’t taking it. “You have attacked my honor and integrity,” the vice president shot back. “I think it’s time to teach you a few old-fashioned lessons about character. When I enlisted to fight in the Vietnam War, you were talkin’ real tough about Vietnam. But when you got the call, you called your daddy and begged him to pull some strings so you wouldn’t have to go to war. So instead of defending your country with honor, you put some poor Texas millworker’s kid on the front line in your place to get shot at. Where I come from, we call that a coward. “When I was working hard, raising my family, you were busy drinking yourself and your family into the ground. Why don’t you tell us how many times you got behind the wheel of a car with a few drinks under your belt? Where I come from, we call that a drunk. “When I was serving in the U.S. Senate, your own father’s government had to investigate you on the charge that you’d swindled a bunch of old people out of their life savings by using insider knowledge to sell off stocks you knew were about to drop. Where I come from, we call that crooked. So governor, don’t you ever lecture me about character. And don’t you ever talk to me that way again in front of my family or my fellow citizens.”

Except, of course, he didn't say that. He ducked. But don't we wish he had spoken up?

Elizabeth Edwards has been getting a lot of support for speaking truth to media power and she deserves it. Now if only her favorite candidate would be as succinct, direct, and credible, I'd go back to being a happy Democratic voter!

They need to be called out on it right then and there.

The ones that need to be called out for putting the trash in the public are not the Ann Coulters but the Chris Matthews.

Best, Terry

I think a better example is that Gore should have taken offense at Bush's "The man just can't tell the truth" statements during the presidential debates. That was very strange that Gore let Bush talk like that, calling him a liar with him standing right there. He should have challenged Bush to say exactly what was untrue. I believe on some of those statements, the context was Bush's tax reform plans and making Bush say exactly what he was calling an untrue statement by Gore would have exposed that Bush didn't know what was in the Bush tax plan.

Coulter's books sales are tanking, too. "Godless" came out in paperback on June 26th, and is at #328 on Amazon. This is having an effect. Slowly the people are agreeing that her crap does not belong on main street any more.

Ann Coulter is not a clown; she is a bully.

And there is only one way to deal with bullies -- fight back, and go to the aid of anyone who is fighting back.

I say, "pile on."

Expose Coulter for the hate-monger she is.

Hate talk has devotees ... always has and always will ... and they are usually a bit soft in the head, but eager to go out and do the bully's bidding.

Ann Coulter is not funny; she is dangerous.

The only way to put a stop to the likes of Ann Coulter is to keep up the pressure ... write to the executives of the TV programs that put her on and SHAME them.

Write to Chris Matthews and anyone else who gives her air-time and SHAME them.

Bravo to Elizabeth Edwards.

I guess Heritage Foundation/Scaife haven't placed their 500,000 unit order with Amazon yet. Must have maxxed out the Black Card when purchasing all the hardcopy books.

I strongly suspect that Amazon sales are manipulated to create buzz. I also think that Ann Coulter has a posse that she brings with her whenever she appears on TV. I saw her on Jay Leno and found it impossible to believe that she was so warmly welcomed by the audience, unless it was stacked.

Please visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ...

...and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

Remember what finally helped do in McCarthy was him finally being stood up to and called out for having no decency. The best way to beat a bully is to hit back -- Coulter is a bully and doesn't like being hit. The Edwards campaign should keep at it. First her, then Hannity and Rush and all the rest of them. Call them out 1x1.

Are you implying that all that stuff ain't true . . . ?

Now, I'm sad.

I totally agree.

The contrast between Coulter and Mrs. Edwards could hardly be greater. Just look at the body language- Edwards looks calm and collected; Coulter is bobbing around like an agitated ping-pong ball.

I don't thinks this is a particularly calculated thing either. Its just a further unraveling of the Right-Wing spin machine, and kudos to the Edwards for sticking their necks out.

-Dave Adams-

We don't ALL have the national stage, thank you very much.  And waiting for the rePublicans to do what is right is a fool's errand.  On the other hand, expecting it from the Democratic team is reasonable.

Where's Bill Maher when you need him...

Interesting you should say that in that, according to Wikipedia, Maher and Coulter had a fling once upon a time and many years ago...

I think it's terrific that Elizabeth and John Edwards are sacrificing their candidacy for the good of the Democratic party.

They can be the designated attack dogs in the '08 race.

HWC, While I am willing to take Edwards at his word that Elizabeth is acting on her own motivation, I cannot imagine why you think this is a "sacrifice."  Facing down these cranks is what the Democrats and the public at large have been waiting for for a very long time.  Kerry lost because he wouldn't do it.  So too did Gore and Dukakis. 

All well and good. Go, Liz. But its her noodle spined hubby running. Does ANYONE remember the dismal, limp, sorry assed, tongue-tied, wimpy show he made when he "debated" Cheney on the last election run up? It sank him forever in my book.
But he was takin cues from Kerry...........I was in VVAW. The way Kerry let slurs against my veterans organization go unanswered was a friggin disgrace.
Stand up, speak truth, & kick ass. Whats so goddam hard about that? Its a LOT easier than mealy mouth weaseling.
but then, we are talkin about Dims, and FDR has been in the ground a long, long time.

Elizabeth Edwards spoke very well, and regardless of how things turn out, she and John have made fundamental contributions to restore American decency, and to get the country to focus on the issues, instead of the polemics.

Wolf Blitzer should be complimented for an excellent job of reporting in this case. In this clip he gives Elizabeth a platform to make a clear statement, without interruptions from Coulter. It was effective, too, to show Coulter doing the Limbaugh in the background.

She is not 'playing the press', she is an agent and perhaps a paid representative of the owners of the television networks on which she appears. They will use her over and over again so long as she is effective at undermining anyone that is not a hyper-conservative or who poses any threat whatever to their political dominance. She will undermine the credibility of anyone who does not call her out for what she is. Even if she fails at that, she will distract people from hearing about issues that matter which Edwards has had the audacity to address.

global citizen

Don Imus has more of a conscience than Ann Coulter -- he always had a guilty smirk when he 'joked' in a hateful manner. Coulter just spews.

She belongs to a set for which it is politically correct not to be politically correct --PCsquared.

Bigots on the right support the propagation of hate speech under the guise of anti-censorship and people are beginning to wise up to the gambit.

BIgots of whatever variety have a right to say whatever they want but they are not entitled to MSM's aid in saying it.

Coulter and company make vitriolic hateful attacks but claim that any criticism of them is censorship.

Elizabeth Edwards is right: decent people can insist on decent standards for discussion.

Nope, you totally don't get it and this is very important. How many "news" shows have you seen rush, the pig, limbaugh on, zippo, nada, nothing, unless it is a picture of him being a bozo. Now, that is good. Rush can have his hateful, racist talk radio show and the neanderthals that listen to it are going to vote repuke anyway. I really don't care.

The problem is the exposure that ann, the nazi, coulter gets. Its extreme and unwarranted. She plays the press like a fiddle, when she is out of the news for a while she throws another bomb, and then when she is called on it she screams "free speech, free speech." It really is pathetic.

Somebody was quoting old sayings and I got one concerning coulter, "Don't get in a pissing contest with a skunk." Just let her go.

However, if you are going to attack attack the lies and falsehoods. Forget the "stop calling me names." It really sounds whiney and pathetic. Go after the facts and her lies, if you must. But I still think it is better to ignore her, she is a nobody.

I'd pay good money to see Randi Rhodes tear Ann a new one on Wolf's show. Sure, the result would be unfairly one-sided, but it would be an entertaining and overdue verbal bloodbath.

With a bit of blogosphere promotion it would also get phenomenal ratings, albeit at the expense of killing Ann's future marketability as happened to Tucker.

Which, sadly, explains why the rightwing cablenews machines will never let it happen.

Hi:
Can anyone suggest where a caveman with dial-up can get transcripts, not only of this, but of TPM TV or any of the other things I can't click on?
Thanks

Thank you for your free advice.  It has been worth every penny.

Well, actually, Rush Limbaugh was featured on CBS evening news, when Katie Couric first became the anchor.

UnEasyOne: Did you see how badly it got the Big C's goat that the Edwards campaign is using the slander to raise (a lot of, apparently) money?

I think this is a "Have you no shame..?" moment - a watershed. Coulter is toast.

Elizabeth's calm plea for decency seemed to make the Big C feel smug and empowered; the fact that she had become an involuntary Edwards fundraiser seemed to drive her CRRRAAAZZZY!!! I loved it!

It's not about stifling Ann Coulter or not 'allowing' her to speak. Heck, she can have her own talk show like Bill Maher if she wants to. She can continue to write books and make piles of money. 30% of the country will always cheer her on. Fine, they can have her.

Having said that, Objective #1 is to make it clear to CNN and the other mainstream networks that they should not put Coulter on because she's simply not a valid, legitimate political pundit because she deals in slurs and lies rather than facts. If they want to put George Will or Byron York or Tony Blankley, great. But having Coulter on to represent the right de-legitimizes the whole thing and is akin to putting an actor or a magician or a gangsta rapper on to talk politics - it's just entertainment bullcrap, not actual discourse.

Objective #2 is to begin actively holding Republican politicians accountable for Ann Coulter's filth. If politicians don't pass a certain decency test, they'll lost every election. And if you can tag them with refusing to denounce some Ann Coulter slur, you're getting to them.

Interestingly, there simply are very few analogs on the Left to Coulter and Savage and Hannity and the like. The closest we come are people like Maher and Michael Moore. But Maher is such a dogged empiricist, he may call out some names and use some off-color language, but it would be hard to get charges of lying or making shit up to stick to him...certainly easier with Michael Moore, which is why he has been elevated to one of the top GOP bogeymen. Maybe Rosie O Donnell? It's why I'm a Democrat - very simply, Republicans play fast and loose with facts and that's something I cannot stand.

Don Imus has more of a conscience than Ann Coulter -- he always had a guilty smirk when he 'joked' in a hateful manner. Coulter just spews.

Thank you.

The lynching of Don Imus here was not pretty while the real hatemongers walked free.

I missed that guilty smirk on Imus' face and was not exactly enthralled by his support of the like of Joe Lieberman and Rick Santorum. The ugliness of his use of street idioms on the girls' basketball was not hate speech IMO but copying of the popular vernacular that was finding its way out of the gutter to Broadway lights. Really not Imus' doing anymore than that of a Don Rickles. It even served a purpose in holding up a mirror that people would normally prefer not to look in.

On the other hand the vile gutter talk of Ann Coulter should be despised by all decent folk of any political leanings. This woman has not been joking. Impossible to know if even she really believes the trash she belches out for fame and riches.

Best, Terry

Chris Matthews could give a flying fuck about your letters saying you object to him having Ann Coulter on. To him it is proof that you are watching. Remember: in television business you are not the consumer. Your are the product, being sold to the advertisers, who are paying the money.

If you want to exert pressure, write to the advertisers and say that you will not purchase their products if they continue to finance hate speech such as Coulter's.

This is a high stakes strategy, because once you cross this Rubican there is no turning back. You must know that the conservatives will be better at this than we, if for no other reason, they are more disciplined. (Read: "good fascists") Our only saving feature is that because of concentrated corporate control of the media, we have a much more target rich environment.

Please visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far ...

...and tell 'em Big Mitch sent ya!

Republicans are like bullies on a school bus, and the MSM seems to traffic in this. How can we restore fairness and control abusive speech on the public spectrum?

In the meantime, Kudos to Elizabeth Edwards for speaking out on this. She has shown herself to have real class.

Republicans are like bullies on a school bus, and the MSM seems to traffic in this. How can we restore fairness and control abusive speech on the public spectrum?

How about calling it for what it is rather than using it ourselves?

Best, Terry

I can understand why Kerry took the high road on the personal attacks: he behaved as we, the decent, want public officials to act.

But there does come a time when not responding is tantamount to "admission" that the smear is true. And one doesn't lower oneself when one does that so long as one is responding with the facts.

(One way to get the haters to briefly snap out of their mode is to respond directly to them, in exactly the same way they do -- but with superior skill and literacy. But that takes a practiced skill, so is one of those things not to try at home.

(Then, so long as they don't revert back to the hate-speech, speak to them -- directly, still -- with decency, as a "lesson" in "How to Behave in Public". If/when they do revert back: respond in kind, with superior skill, etc.)

BS. She is allowed onto "mainstream" shows because she ensures an audience. It's all about ratings, which is all about money.

Period.

And one confronts a bully directly; they don't just "go away" because they are ignored. The peabrained illiterates who swallow her hate-speech as "witty" and "satire" and "jokes" need it shown to them that she is not "witty," and she is not doing "satire" or telling "jokes".

Example: the same asses thought it funny when Liddy made the noise of shooting a gun, always mentioning Bill Clinton at the time. It is a means of giving permission, and eventually one of his listeners went to DC and shot up the White House with a machinegun.

All the corporations care about is money. If Coulter were a "liberal" and was as successful in the realm of increasing ratings, she would be given the same platform.

More pointedly re. Amazon: they offer an item or two for sale which doesn't exist. Offering for sale an item one doesn't have is fraud.

And they know it. And when challenged, they lie, dance around, and continue to do the same.

Manipulation? Amazon? Naw -- couldn't happen!

Coulter is only one representative of the extreme right wing lunatic fringe; the method is the same with all of them: attack all standards, including that of truth: endeavor to reduce that to "opinion," so their opinion appears to have equal validity.

It has an appeal to the illiterate, uneducated, and disenfranchised, who falsely believe that everything is "only opinion," and that all opinions are equal.

And, of course, attacks upon the rule of law: look at Bushit, et al., and those who defend their lawbreaking as "love of country" and "patriotism".

But starting with Coulter will do: if not put in her place -- totally off the air, except perhaps for FOX -- then exposed for what she is: hate-monger who has nothing constructive to contribute to public, civil discourse. The pushback against her ilk has been long in coming, but is there. So bravo to Elizabeth Edwards for pointing to and describing the countours of that elephant in the room.

Let's go back a bit: this all started with Reagan legitimizing being racist. But it's also FOX and right wing radio: innumerable illiterates don't know the meaning of the words "debate" or "argumentation". They actually believe several people yelling at the same time, interrupting, talking over each other, and simply making up whatever is necessary to "win" is actually debate, and argumentation. So the person who can invent and hurl the biggest insult is their idea of a "winner".

So the format that allows such gibberish-pools to pass as some sort of legitimate, civilized, "intellectual" exercise is reasoned discourse is the underlying problem.

Shit: let's start a show where selected guests in the audience get to throw pies at each other for a half hour. Yeah, great idea!

That's why political -- hell, civil -- discourse has gone into the toilet: the "hosts" of such programs are competing over the ever-more-outrageous in effort to get ratings. On top of which, they have no special expertise in anything other than sitting on TeeVee and doing whatever schtick they do. What makes Hannity, or Carlson, or O'Reilly experts on politics? Nothing -- except that they've staked out their niche and they spew opinions suited to their niche. They haven't any special expertise beyond being TeeVee entertainers.

And as they have no special skills or insights, they pander to the lowest common denominator; everything's a horserace, a football game, and their peabrained audiences believe what they're told: that this is legitimate debate and political discourse by the "informed".

Thus, bottom line, bad manners, lack of manners, is made the norm among those who don't know the difference to begin with. Shouting people down becomes legitimized as "debate" and "argumentation". Being a bully is the way to "win," by any means.

That's what Elizabeth Edwards is doing.

'Course, that don't count, as she isn't from the Nader fringe.

Bullshit. Imus was as guilty of coarsening the culture as Coulter, et al. Even though you don't recognize his racism for what it was: RACISM.

Doubtless you make excuses for him (as Coulter's fans make for her) because you share his views and attitudes (as they share her's).

Conformity and being on the side of "what almost everyone really thinks" is exceedingly important to the authoritarian mind. Coulter and her buddies both appeal to and create a perception that their thuggishness is common currency. If no one objects, that perception persists. Calling them out, standing up and saying "Actually, NO. Most people DON'T think this way; only sickos and jackbooted thugs think this way" is thus essential to breaking the phenomenon. Thus the famous rebuke to McCarty and its effect.

It's a lot harder to break the authoritarian spell with these guys, in part because the lesson of what happened to "tailgunner" Joe is very much in the forefront of their minds and they are better defended against it. Nevertheless, it's the only way. However effective you think Edwards is being in her self-presentation, she is in fact doing the one thing that MUST be done with these people if they aren't going to continue transforming our country into a banana republic.

Thumbs up for Elizabeth Edwards, down for Coulter.

I would take issue with Wolf Blitzer's mischaracterization of Coulter as conservative, however. Bet Coulter is speaking for exactly no one.

Coulter's job is to arrest political discourse.

You're seriously wrong, Michael (to put it politely). Ann Coulter is not a "nobody." Rush Limbaugh is not a "nobody." These are people with powerful media platforms, established audiences, and considerable influence. It really doesn't matter whether you or I think this is "unwarranted." It's a fact. "Ignoring" these people when they attack you is like ignoring the truck that's about to run you down.

Los Angeles is majority Republican? What explains the virtually all-Democratic representation in Congress and the state legislature?

If you mean Burbank, or the valley, say so; Los Angeles is not Republican.

There's no one place.  CNN and MSNBC supply transcripts of most of their shows on their web sites, but there is sometimes a delay of a day or more before they appear.

The transcript that includes this particular segment of "The Situation Room" can be found here.  The interview with Elizabeth Edwards starts about a third of the way down the page. 

Elizabeth Edwards has looked death in the face. She's not frightened of a little ghoul like Coulter.

On his website ( I can't listen to the guy) Limbaugh treats the response to Coulter's venom as a threat by liberals to Take Away Your Freedom. This time the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd amendment so cherished by the right wing.
Elizabeth Edwards did it classy. Edwards calmly listed the other outrages- mocking 9/11 widows, Edwards' son's death. I'm surprised Coulter hasn't made a snide comment about Elizabeth's cancer. Give her time.

Ah, "if"!

If only Gore hadn't back down in Florida.

If only Congress hadn't backed down on the Iraq invasion.

If only there'd been larger, more effective protests during the run-up to November 2004.

If only we'd joined in an effective boycott of an irresponsible media. (If only we'd do that now...)

If only Kerry hadn't drifted away from the good fight in Ohio (enraging and energizing Edwards and probably Elizabeth, though!)

If only the slim majority in the Senate and the more significant majority in the House were being more effective.

If only...

Don Imus isn't vicious. He's a dinosaur, a "good ol' boy," a relic of old attitudes which, admittedly, were held by some vicious people. But he's not in their league.

Precisely. We don't blame the trash when trash collectors don't pick it up. We hold the trash collectors accountable.

Liberals don't need filthy-mouthed, vile hatemongers. They need strong clear voices for equality and civil rights and all the other things that liberals hold dear and wingers despise.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I agree but I also think that you must pick your fights and there are some levels not to sink to. EE had just had enough of Coulter but sh wasn't sitting around plotting how to "get her", and that is the natural response.
On the swift boat issue...At least Kerry was in harm's way and could just as easily have been killed as injured and for republicans to have smeared his service when Bush was too cowardly to even go is a shame I will never forget. Anyone who was a part of or supported that tactic is a scumbag which to me is the entire RNC and someone in the press or in Kerry's campaign should have strongly spoke up about it

Great. So I can be quite certain she'll be giving Bill Maher a call soon to talk to him about his comment about how he wished Cheney had been killed by terrorists.

Be fine with me should Elizabeth Edwards call Bill Maher on such a statement, assuming he made it. I am personally no fan of Maher's though many of my friends are.

I am not against anyone attacking hate messages but it helps to be honest about it. At his very worst, I don't think Bill Maher in any way compares to Ann Coulter. The closest thing to Ann Coulter on what might be described by some as the left extreme would be the old Symbionese Liberation Army or some other hate groups who planned to liberate American by stirring up race wars.

Best, Terry

exjournalist said:

Giving the truth and the lies equal time.

---
You have put into words what I have felt about MSM for a long time.
Ann Coulter = unnamed and nonexistent Liberal who is equally obnoxious and repeatedly offers smears on MSM news shows. Given equal standing to Elizabeth Edwards.
Robert Kennedy Jr cites 2500 scientists who issue a multi-government consensus statement affirming global warming = energy industry female shill who says that 4000 scientists disagree with the consensus statement. The paper exists and can be read and Kennedy's words verified. No challenge to the woman's statement was made by Wolf Blitzer of CNN.
Statistics with error ranges =/- 3 to 4% shown with the statement "X" is in the lead, while the numbers show a dead heat statistically.
The errors are blatant and seen and read on a daily basis.
Critical analysis has given way to stenography and regurgitation of industry and government talking points.
Coulter is never seriously challenged. How can we trust the MSM to be giving us the truth and asking the right questions of political and industry figures if they don't even prepare well enough to push back against Ann Coulter?

Not hardly. I agree with you 100% quoting the Newsweek article (above), but hey, there is a reality here. Yes, Gore could have wone in 2000 if "we" had paid more attention. Most of "us" believed there wasn't such a big difference between Bush the "compassionate conservative" and Gore the egghead. I definately favored Gore but I had more important things to do. I'll bet most of you could say the same if you are honest.

But ... Gore was right to stop pushing after the Supreme Court decision. What body would you have liked to decide further? Congress could not realistically have stopped the Iraq invasion. Larger protests?, you are joking aren't you? What irresponsible media would we boycott, the NYT that constantly made a mockery of Gore? etc etc.

Let's be clear about what our limits are.

What dignity, what valor. However the election turns out, Elizabeth Edwards will be long remembered as an elegant and well but softly spoken woman. It is sobering to see the recent change in her appearance and I pray for her and her recovery. The country needs her wisdom.

I note again your name-calling.

Get your facts straight, child: I became a civil rights activist at 8-9 years old, and have never let up, except to expand that to include equal rights for women (on my 16th birthday) some 5 years before 99 per cent of women got wind of the issue; and became a pacifist in 1965, shortly after becoming vocal against US involvement in Viet Nam. And from there to being a human rights activist.

That's why I know a racist when I hear one -- and that includes those who make excuses for them.

And that is some 50 years ago.

Lecture the uninformed and gullible about how the extreme left -- including Paine -- are "actually" part of the majority in the middle.

name-caller

That's hilarious coming from you. I betcha Joe McCarthy to Robespierre thought they as well were civil libertarians in the mold of Patrick Buchanan fighting gallantly for the rights of Ivan the Terrible - er, John Demyanyuk.

Buchanan's credentials would, of course, be a bit more meaningful if he had bothered with others.

Have a ball calling out all those lowdown, name-calling, filthy-mouthed, intemperate, politically incorrect swine you are no doubt surrounded by.

My father is long deceased BTW. You are not he for certain. He had his faults like all mortals but his were not yours though he too fought for civil rights for women.

Once an angry barfly - er, lady told Dad in the Shamrock Tavern: "That son of a bitch is calling me names."

Dad asked: "Where is the son of a bitch that dares call you names?" and the son of a bitch was pointed out. Dad gloried in his gallantry of having thrown the son of a bitch doing the name-calling of a lady out of his tavern.

I did ask Dad at the time if the son of a bitch might have been an Englishman. Dad said he didn't want to go so far as to call the son of a bitch a real bad name when he didn't know.

Dad was no winger like yourself.

Your platform forever more, winger.

Best, Terry

~

Nell ... You are absolutely correct about LA ...

Maybe the poor soul is really a baseball junkie and has LA mixed up with Anaheim where the ill-named Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball team plays which is behind the Orange curtain of Orange County (political demographic)... Anyone recall "B-1 Bob" Dornan?

And about the San Fernando Valley being mainly Republican/conservative? Here, as of March 2003 (pdf doc):

Politics: Seventy-two percent of respondents were registered to vote, and 63% of respondents said they did vote in the last election. Our survey reported that registered Democrats slightly outnumber registered Republicans in the SFV. Forty-three percent of respondents registered to vote were Democrats, 31% were Republicans, 15% were registered with other parties, and 13% declined to state their political party affiliation. Additionally, the percentage of respondents who said they were liberal or conservative was the same. Thirty-six percent of respondents said they considered themselves liberal, while another 36% considered themselves conservative. Additionally, 16% of respondents self-reported themselves as moderate (moderate was not offered as an answer choice unless given by the respondent), only 4% as very liberal, and 5% as very conservative.

~

Terry Hallinan post above bumped up from a 1 rating ...

Just as a counter action to the "anti-potty-mouth police."

~OGD~