Posted by M. Wright | Filed in: Blogosphere
“Pam” at Freedonian has posted a clip of a Democratic Presidential candidate’s wife asking a political pundit to stop criticizing her husband, specifically by using “course language” and “personal attacks.” In both circumstances mentioned in the clip, the pundit was actually criticizing political correctness (in the first instance) and the double-standard applied to Republican pundits (more recently), rather than the candidate himself. But the truly ironic grace note is how Pam uses the post’s headline to carelessly label the pundit as a “tramp.” So not only does Pam fail to grasp the pundit’s actual message, but she also fails to heed the candidate’s wife’s disingenuous plea for civility.
This post is unremarkable aside from being symptomatic of the rote partisanship, crass attitude and lack of curiosity that prevails in this circle; my wish is that my comrades will some day learn how to either write in a less predicable way and actually experiment with crossover posts or, at the very least, figure out how to make partisanship and base humor more interesting. Until then, they earn a B for boring. C’mon people, give us a reason to keep reading.
June 28th, 2007 at 8:28 am
[...] Mick Wright defends Ann Coulter in her clash with Elizabeth Edwards and chastise those who deride the preening pundit. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. [...]
June 28th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Well said. And I disagree with ACK’s characterization of your post as “defending” Coulter–more like chastising Pam et al.
I chose not to follow Pam’s link at VV (come to think of it, this is probably the “Pam” that often commients (sic) at my blog) and my intuition didn’t fail me . . . the “righteous indignation” of folks like Pam is tiring.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Oops, I just noticed that ACK said “defends Ann Coulter in her clash with Elizabeth Edwards” (and even used the word “chastise”) . . . my bad.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:24 am
i’m not surprised that either of you would defend that subhuman piece of filth a “woman” with an adam’s-apple.
Coulter is not good enough to clean Elizabeth Edwards’ toilet with her tongue.
Since the shrew won’t stop lying about John and Elizabeth, I won’t stop telling the truth about Coulter.
Good day.
June 28th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Thank you for contributing to the irony.
June 28th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Sorry to disappoint you Ned Williams, but I have no idea who you you are and I have never read/commented, so you must be confusing me with someone else. You intuition seems to have failed you on this one…
Mick: As I said earlier. For better or worse, Ann Coulter is a tramp. She dated Bill Maher for chrissake! And he only dates tramps! Everybody knows that…
June 29th, 2007 at 9:42 am
Hell, Bill brags about only dating tramps.
Did they date? Really? I thought it was a BFF thing.
Mick, there’s a certain circular logic to the claim that you are criticizing pam while not defending Coulter. To defend this kind of attack on political correctnes there’s a basic assumption that there is little or no virtue in political correctness, and some or great virtue in political incorrectness as used by Coulter, whose rhetorical quiver is loaded with arrows that are incorrect, politics notwithstanding.
As a rhetor, this aligns you with Plato’s wicked lover, found in the Gorgias. This, more than ideology, is what I usually find distasteful about your criticism. There is a refusal to commit: “I’m not defending X generally, I’m just defending X against Y” because the lovers (read: you and Coulter) both think it feels good, and have the freedom to go your own way at any time. As a lifestyle, it’s up to you. As a persuasive device, it’s somewhat out of bounds.
Lukewarm isn’t hot, neither is it cold. And the big debate coach in the sky no likey.
June 29th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Pesky, are you criticizing me or defending Pam? It appears to be the former, as was the case with my post. Which means you’re also contributing to the irony. Congratulations.
June 29th, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Ann Coulter has proven time and again that she will say (and do) anything to get attention. This includes uttering death threats against other people, including Supreme Court judges. If you want to defend that sort of thing, fine and good. It’s a free country. But, it tells me that you approve of that sort of domestic terrorism.
Either way, the fact that the right wing is largely silent while this whiff piece of trash does her job tells me that who the true traitors to American traditions of fairness and dignity really are.
This woman (Coulter) is neither fair, nor balanced,nor dignified, nor honest.
But, she’s all yours, right-wingers. Embrace her tightly.
She speaks for YOU.
June 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I haven’t even written her name in this post, much less try to offer a defense of her punditry. But you continue to prove my point about liberal bloggers and their blind partisanship, crude name-calling and the general hypocrisy that results. I also find it interesting that the Left will label edgy political speech “domestic terrorism” but fails to even acknowledge the existence of actual terrorism. “Whiff,” indeed.