Politics

Interesting situation that has been brewing. I've referenced this once before: Ann Coulter has made some disparaging comments about presidential candidate John Edwards, and now Elizabeth Edwards (Mrs. John Edwards) has verbally attacked Ann Coulter. Let us consider for a moment:

This started with a comment that Ann Coulter made (video available here): She said, "I was going to make a few comments about John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go to rehab if you use the word f@&&*!--so, I'm kind of at an impasse--I can't really talk about John Edwards." To be honest, the statement doesn't make much sense: she showed that she was aware that she shouldn't use the term, and then did anyway (and didn't go to rehab!). I am at a loss as to why she wouldn't be able to talk about John Edwards without using that particular term. I'm sure that she thought she was being clever by suggesting that the term applied to him, but also left herself an out when people complained about it. Which they did. Realistically, though, the complaints should have been directed less at her, than towards the candidate that she was introducing, Mitt Romney, who should have corrected her on the spot and didn't. She then, on Good Morning America, said, "I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. Now, that would be mean. But at about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. 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."

Now Elizabeth Edwards has said, on the Early Show, that it didn't used to be acceptable to "call names, to say these hateful kind of things." Apparently she's much older than she looks, or she's not accustomed to the political arena. In everyday life, certainly those kinds of things should not acceptable--we try to teach our children not to do them--but in the political arena, this has long been an accepted standard. Can't stand the heat? She has also defended the use of Ann Coulter's remarks (more correctly, the use of Ann Coulter's remarks edited to suit the Edwards campaign) as a fundraising tool, to show the voters what to reject. Let me get this straight: I shouldn't vote for Senators Clinton or Obama because of Ann Coulter? How does that work? Ann Coulter is not running for office, how do we vote against her? One comment posted on the AJC's website posed the question, "[W]hat if some nut job that thinks that Coulter can do no wrong, decides to act on her comments?" Good point, but, at the same time, nutcases tend to do what they think is right, and their justifications generally don't make sense anyway. Does anybody remember John Hinckley's justification? He had seen the movie 'Taxi Driver' with Jodie Foster, and decided that he could impress Jodie Foster by assassinating the president. Does this make Jodie Foster (or Robert DeNiro) an accessory to Hinckley's crime? The same thing could be said if a homophobe went around killing people, and then claimed it was because he was an Isaiah Washington fan. Would we then arrest Isaiah Washington?
Another comment posted on the same website makes a lot more sense, in kind of the same vein as Elizabeth Edwards' comment. It's gone on long enough, and it really should stop. Unfortunately, both parties know that it's effective, and that people tend to vote based on emotional feelings, rather than intellectual thought. Drew Weston of Emory University has written a book, "The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation." Newsweek reviewed the book here. I haven't read the book, but it looks like an interesting read.

One other thing: the 'Scooter' Libby deal. I saw another opinion from a news site in New Zealand, and i couldn't have said it better myself. See it here.