i agree. in spite of one commenter on here who insists everything should be ignored, i say turn on the light and watch the roaches like coulter scatter. she is lock stock and barrel owned by the republican party. she was given a warm introduction by mitt romney before she made her remark about edwards.

Not only should these sort of comments NOT be ignored, but Democrats appearing on these programs should force the talking heads who spawned them to have the guts to utter them to the very faces of the people they are slandering, instead of being allowed to get away with the inside the Beltway tee-hee behind their backs.  How long do you think Chris Matthews would continue to throw "Breck Girl" comments around if John Edwards appeared in front of him to tell him that was beneath the level of civil discourse most everyone (Matthews included) claims they want in politics?  How long would Maureen Dowd be able to continue that thinly disguised therapy session she calls a column if she was challenged on her lies face-to-face by those about whom she has lied?  Any show that insists upon scheduling Ann Coulter should have its advertisers inundated with mail from Democrats (and other rational souls) threatening to boycott their products.  Even blue state and red state citizens can agree that most of us don't want to live in a country where creditable political commentary is made up completely of a playground insult, right?

For anyone about to conjure up the magic of free speech at this point, well of course all these people have the right to say what they wish, but there are also consequences in life for shooting your mouth off sometimes.  How about we remind them of the consequences?  If Governor Dean taught us anything it was that it's time to step up and be proud to be Democrats; we don't need to take this swill sitting down. 

One final note -- I think it's about time that MMA  start detailing the horror known as Imus in the Morning with the same zeal with which they catalog the ramblings of that idiot Glen Beck.  I suspect that the "I-Man", his Calvin Klein cowboy wear which is stored so carefully in his Connecticut Mansion and his upper east side penthouse, his drooling sycophantic co-stars, and the idiots from the MSM who appear on his show as if it's serious news, will all disappear as soon as his advertisers start pulling out. 

Please know that I don't want to get rid of these people because they are ignorant and spiteful.  I want to get rid of them so we can elevate the level of public discourse in this country as behooves a nation who has thousands of people a year being killed and maimed for its public policy.  It's time to grow up.

Well roared, YDD.

Now, of course, were Dems to paint the right wing so-called "leaders" with the same brush the extremists use on Democrats, OMFG! It would be impossible to contain the faked outrage and shock of Howard Kurtz and David Broder.

Still, as we learned from the SWISH Boating of John Kerry, to let these wild-eyed fringers' charges go unanswered is to invite defeat. We must teach the right wing mouthpieces that, in the words of that very strange and odd fellow, Frank Gaffney, "You're free to say what you like, but WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES." Oddly, that's the only thing that social misfit ever said that sort-of/maybe/in a way made sense.

Yellowdog Democrat

Congratulations, I agree 100% with your statement as shown below

One final note -- I think it's about time that MMA  start detailing the horror known as Imus in the Morning with the same zeal with which they catalog the ramblings of that idiot Glen Beck.  I suspect that the "I-Man", his Calvin Klein cowboy wear which is stored so carefully in his Connecticut Mansion and his upper east side penthouse, his drooling sycophantic co-stars, and the idiots from the MSM who appear on his show as if it's serious news, will all disappear as soon as his advertisers start pulling out. 

Lynn this week tipped of MMFA on some disgusting hate speech from the Imus show. He and Ann Coulter should NEVER be ignored. Hate speech is Hate Speech and needs to be dealt with right away. 

Doris was was even more depolrable was Imus treatment of Senator Schumer yesterday morning on his show.  I was so disgusted watching this yesterday morning. I know Newsmax is biased but its an accurate transcript.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/9/124531.shtml?s=ic

I'm of two minds.

First, I agree with the previous poster who said these rightwingers who are haters should be noticed, and held accountable ... and either purged from public forums, or made to change their vocal ways. And that this will improve and mature our political atmosphere in this nation, a healthy thing.

But second, as a partisan of the left, I'm morbidly fascinated with the sheer volumn and audacity of the growing chorus of rightwing hatemongering. It gets shriller and more outrageous the farther the Bush Administration slides into the abyss. It's like a massive abandonment of any pretense at decency, with anger and frustration driving these people to ACTUALLY SPEAK THEIR MINDS, instead of couching everyting in "acceptable" language.

In short, it is GREAT to see the rightwing self-defining and self-destructing, exposing their true essence across the spectrum of the media. Coulter, the New York Times, MSNBC, ALL are in league and in tandem with their coordinated attack tactics.

They show the desperation of being losers who see that their leaking ship has also caught fire. They have pulled out all stops and are openly engaging in their smearmongering in an ever-tightening loop of repetition which leaves out a vital aspect of successful propaganda: There must be a GROWING uncertainty about an opposition candidate, which is then elaborated on to exploit that concern. Without that "gestation" time, the attacks are abrupt and seem uncalled for.

 In today's media, the smear springs from nowhere, and is echoed so fast into a screaching feedback, there is no hint that these people are reflecting any kind of "conventional wisdom" ... which would arguably be effective. Instead, these people are yelling at each other in real time, and everyone else is an outsider.

Hannity quotes Drudge and Dowd, and guests Coulter and "Democrat" Pat Caddell underscore Hannity's take on the day's talking point. It's all to abrupt and shrill to be taken seriously. 

They have left the American People behind as they pursue  their attack politics, and it is as clear as the realization that the great Wizard of OZ was not spouting truths from lofty and omnipotent power, but instead was a balding elderly con man working the gears as fast as he could.

So, in conclusion, I say let them speak their minds, and let them do so from the perches purchased for them by the power brokers. They had the rope bought and paid for, exclusively FOR them to advocate for their masters ... and they are now hanging themselves with zeal.

"But wait! We hired you to make people LIKE Republicans and HATE Democrats! Yet, the more and louder you talk, the more people ARE ABANDONING the right. This isn't working out as planned. Maybe if you talked more and louder and made more outrageous claims??!?" ..." 

Hey Jamison:

You are exactly on point, as usual. The right loves to trot out the anonymous bloggers as being hate-filled, etc. Have you even seen what the right wing blog commenters are all about?  Ann Coulter is the mouthpiece of a hate-filled fear-mongering authoritarian movement that will not rest until a single-party GOP majority rules this nation. Until January 2007 this hate-filled GOP majority did rule America with catastrophic results. The people of this country are gradually waking up to the travesty we inherited as a result of Bush V Gore 2000. This angry mob will continue to rise up until a Democratic majority is reestablished in this country. They have tasted Republican rule and they are spitting it out as fast as they can.

Keep up the good work with Media Matters-you are a "must read" every week. 

You've made a good start as well on part two: recognize that the incessant drumbeat of anti-liberal lies from the more "respectable" punditry is even more lethal than Coulter's outrage. We acknowledge that space may limit how many of these cases may be addressed here - but perhaps periodic summaries, or "other notable stories we just could not fit in" - some direct reiteration of the sentiments you have expressed, and recitation of the causus belli from that week's media.

Reading: Casus Belli

Sigh . . .

I'm glad to see these items. I cringe every time I see posters here calling to take Coulter (or other righty nuts) off the air. Let them talk, and let the Neocons be the advocates of censorship and stifling opinions.I can only see good, in the long term, coming from shining the light on the clowns.

The Libby case mirrors the right wing maniac pundit syndrome.Just as I feel that Coulter and her kind fire up a small, uninformed and insignificant minority at the expense of the merely lazy supporters, I think the more publicity that the actual facts of the Libby/Plame case get, the more likely that moderate people will come out of the darkness.

Of course, this will require the media reporting some facts, but against all odds, I'm optimistic about Americans.The freepers will continue to think that the entire Plame case is a partisan Bush-hating vendetta, but I think the truth will do nothing but help to get rid of the current scumbags in power.

If we're lucky and don't have a large number of buxom blonds dying or teen pop stars going into rehab, the media may run out of crap to report, and be forced to start talking about what's really happening.

As disappointed as I've been in my fellow Americans living in fear and denial, I have a gut feeling that huge numbers are starting to open their eyes.Put Ann Coulter on TV for as long as the idiots will pay her, and let the Repugs make enough trouble for themselves that even the dimmest Americans can't ignore it.

I'm feeling good,maybe it's just Friday, but that "MOrning in America" BS I heard from the first candidate I voted against might be coming around for real.

If the Dems can just NOT ACT AS STOOPID AS REPUBLICANS.

HBL, I used to believe that, too.  Unfortunately, I've seen even more emphasis on the trivial and less on the political from the news media.  A quick comparison of the BBC news from BBC America and any of the US morning shows will show you that trivia reigns.  The 10th graders I teach know two things about Barrack Obama, for example:  his name sounds like Osama, and they think he's a Muslim because his father was one.  Now these are teenagers who (despite the fact that they can vote in two years) were unable to tell me the name of the vice-president.  The US public has been trained to think in soundbites.  We have to address those sound bites.  There's very little appetite out there for anything else. 

If, however, as you maintain (and I'm sure the rest of us hope0, the US public and the MSM do eventually come around and stop their fascination with celebrity as opposed to what actually impacts our lives, do we want to wait for that to happen and risk losing another important election?  I don't.

YDD, I think we're in agreement more than you think. I wasn't implying that I thought the media was suddenly becoming responsible or more focused. I only mean that, even with a steady stream of sensational tabloid non-news,the emphasis on far-right talking heads of the crazy type will at some point bring more sane people around to the opposite side.

I wasn't very clear in expressing what others have here, that the responses from the liberal side can only benefit from exposure to the light.

I didn't mean to give the impression that I think the media has improved lately.I think it's gotten bad enough that a pendulum effect  may force the media to improve, and my optimism was in thinking that there are more Americans ready to see what's really going on.And I want the looniest representatives of the conservatives present and accounted for in the debate.

The proposal that we welcome Coulter and her ilk appearing on big media stages must come with a caveat:  that every liberal with an audience must declare that she and the others represent mainstream conservatism and speak for the republican party.

Force conservative politicians to denounce them, and soon we'll have freepers wailing to get them off the air because they make conservatives look bad.

Without explicit and repeated links from the kooks to all repulicans (along with debunkings of their lies), having the kooks on TV will only help the repulicans.

Agreed 100%!

NOW IF ONLY JOHN EDWARDS WERE GETTING AS MUCH FREE PUBLICITY AS THE COULTERGEIST.

Odd how the airwaves seem to be reinforcing the Coulter attack of "wuss" and "sissy" by not giving voice to the victim. Makes him seem kind of weak, huh?

YELLOWDOGDEMOCRAT has made the case for candidates to get in the faces of rabid talking heads . Chris Matthews deserves special attention because he needs a "get" interview for ratings. Until now, he's fake- fawning in  face to face interviews, and lethal behind their backs. Every Democrat should call him on the air about his psycho problems. He's a fire engine chasing bigot, attempting to hide in his "Catholic" vestments. As a Catholic, Bill Donohue and Matthews feed off each other. I'm the embarassed Catholic holding her nose. Fighting back  for Dems is the best revenge. You have the power. Even Republicans and Moderates are tired of this vitriol. MSM has to answer for this maddness. Be careful what you wish for. The last 6 years break my heart.

So John Edwards is the Breck Girl in the eyes of conservatives. I suppose that makes Jesus Rula Lenska.

Ignoring Coulter and the Swift Boaters is what cost Kerry the election in 2004.  Take them head on.  In fact, I'd like some of them to challenge these talking head do-nothings to run for office.  Al Franken is doing it. 

Anybody can be a talking head.  You don't have to make actual decisions. 

One recurring rightwing theme is that "Hillary LIES". It is said matter-of-fact, as a statement so well known that it need not be bolstered with any proof. Almost NEVER is any example given.

I Googled "Hillary lies", and found many sites that claim to point out specific lies Hillary has told (most based on Dick Morris' book), and in every instance, the ACCUSATION has been rebutted clearly. In fact, in most instances, the authors are forced to use "weasel words" in their so-called "solid evidence" of Hillary lying, such as "Hillary ALMOST CERTAINLY knew ..." or, for another example, suggests as evidence that Hillary could not have been on a soccer team because her school at the time didn't have a team (uh, there are tens of thousands of NON-SCHOOL soccer teams!). So such evidence is both incomplete and anecdotal, not to mention trivial.

If Hillary lies, the rightwing has failed to chronicle a credible record of such. In scratching and stretching to "discover" such lies, the rightwing has instead shown their own desperation, and a decided LACK of any real evidence to support their claim.

Yet, the claim is made easily and often. Was it David Broder who declared Hillary a "congenital liar", meaning a liar since birth and implying that EVERYTHING SHE SAYS is a lie? Wouldn't one think he could back up such a claim with credible evidence? He cannot. He DID not. Yet, in the MEDIA ECHO CHAMBER, his contemptable and baseless claim spread across the land, helping the rightwing establish their "conventional wisdom" of a smear that could then be repeated without any elaboration, explanation, or examples.

Here's a TRUE FACT: George W. Bush LIES, and Dick Cheney LIES, and lie often about very big things indeed (not about youth soccer teams, but about issues that cost tens of thousands of lives). THESE are the lies that bear constant attention and deep scrutiny, yet our pundit class are invested in tearing down Hillary with smear and innuendo.

If they had any balls, the rightwing who have actual ENTIRE SHOWS would do a special on Hillary's lies, putting forward what they beleive to be examples of these lies, and having guests familiar with the events to give Hillary's side. Let the viewer decide, AFTER hearing the whole story. Ah, but the rightwing media cannot afford to do such a fair and in-depth investigation; at the conclusion, they would no longer be able to spout their favorite toss-out catch-phrase, "Hillary lies". The People would then know they are just SMEARING, and in obvious character-assassination partisan fashion.

To be fair to our rightwing friends, let's try this: If you think Hillary lies, WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Somehow, she must have lied about the Travel Office situation? Uh, that was investigated in depth and under oath. If Hillary had lied, it would have been indicted. Try something else. Named after Sir Edmund (despite his having climbed Everest 5 years after Hillary was born)? Uh, is this under the theory that NOBODY could have possibly HEARD of Sir Edmund BEFORE he climbed Everest? Or that it is just "unlikely"? Or that as a child, Hillary may well have been told this explanation of her name, and simply believed it unquestioningly (as children do)? That's a non-starter.

So how about it, rightwingers. Document a LIE Hillary has told. Show us how you back up such a damning claim. Is it more such silliness?  

Tex: 

I hope your "day job" is writing: you do such a powerful piece of argument, here and in the previous posting on this thread, that it would be a shame to apply the evident talent only on brief postings to another's blog!

Of course no wingnut, nor any S.C.U.M.* editorialist, will step forth to confront this challenge, for truth is an undiscovered territory for them, and need not even be considered in pursuit and attainment of their Corporate goals. They need only vaguely link the concepts "liberal" and "lies" in the minds of distracted or unconcerned masses to effect the undermining of the democratic ideals.

*So-Called Unbiased Media, acronym courtesy of Easy To Refute Wingnuts

Not everyone likes it, but generally it is accepted that black people can use the N word without causing nearly as much offense as if a nonblack person used it.

I don't want to defend "her", but why the double standard when a tranny whore (no disrespect to trannies, whores, or tranny whores intended) uses the F word?  And who else but a tranny whore shows up on the Today show in last night's skimpy little black cocktail dress - with an unconfirmed rumor of a stain from leaked santorum left on the seat?

 Stop hating!

Ah yes - using fggot even when refering to people who aren't gay is a vile slur - but using T-wh is perfectly acceptable. Even when used against someone who isn't trasgender - next you'll start referring to stereotypes about our appearance, I'm sure. I'd say it was another high on the unintended irony meter if it wasn't so damn hateful. And it's not like there isn't a hypocrite who is transgender to discuss - Rudi.

Thanks for making my life easier as I walk down the street later today.  

I believe I "appreciated", if not "admire" the humor here. It WAS intended as humor, wasn't it?

I've thought for a long time that Maureen Dowd's prime usefulness is that she has an amusing way of packaging the conventional wisdom of the Beltway crowd. If you want to be forewarned about just what it is they are trying to con us into believing, the Dowd's column is the best place to find out.

But I never before thought of her as the female Ann Coulter.

I tend to agree.  While Maureen Dowd may not be any more factual than Coulter at times, her writing style displays a talent and wit that Coulter could only dream of.  Coulter is a ham-handed bigot and shameless bomb-thrower.  It is also only fair to point out that Dowd spreads it around...she's been very critical of people on both sides of the isle.  The only negative thing Coulter ever says about Republicans is that they aren't Regressive enough to suit her.