Coulter already has Edwards response on her homepage.

[Clarkie1]

What do we give more attention to such attention seeking low-lifes?

The best response would have been, "That's not something I consider worthy of a response."

It would have been far more effective...I kinda hate even posting this because it just is one more post about something that best is ignored.

This isn't the same as the swiftboaters; any thinking American sees Coulter for who she is. The rest aren't going to be swayed by responding to the hate; it will just delight them and encourage them more.

[JI7]

1. the best would be to demand people like Romney

condemn her. she has nothing to lose at least in terms of public opinion which doesn't matter to her.

[madfloridian]

2. I disagree. I wrote that he disavow her comments firmly.

I think we are right to call her out on this. I just wrote Romney's campaign with her newest quotes, the so-called apology. I asked him to speak out firmly on it soon.

They look too comfy here.



http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/3/231731/4589

After all he is running for president of all of us.

[Clarkie1]

5. Oh, I wouldn't call on him to do that.

Think it through...if he gets demands to call her out, he probably will.

If he doesn't get so much pressure from us to call her out...just maybe (maybe) he won't...which will make him look even WORSE in the long run. Let him make up his own mind.

Don't even acknowledge something so unworthy of acknowledging, that's the best stategy. She's nothing...but if we play our cards right she can be a thorn in the side of Republicans who have associated with her later on. It's a long way to Iowa, and after that.

Don't play into their games.

[madfloridian]

8. I do not follow your thinking. You are saying let it go.

I don't think we can do that anymore. Politicians pay attention to well-written letters that make a point. They need to get them.

[Clarkie1]

9. Why do you want to put pressure on Republican politicians

associated with such a low-life? It just gives more attention to the low-life, which is what the low-life wants.

And it doesn't help Edwards by encouraging the Republican to do what is in the Republican's best interest.

Think of all the more important things you could be writing letters about! Why give them free advice? Let them hang themselves!

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Once you put pressure

you and your neighboors and your friends... then they might realize this is not acceptable and they will start shunning her.

Amazing that we need to explain this to folks

[Clarkie1]

17. America realizes this is not acceptable.

That's what matters. Her comments are already hurting everyone associated with her in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans.

Anyway, I'm done. Too much server space given to this dog already!

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Are they? What American Idol is over?

making those assumptions is what the right is counting on

by the way, this is not an asumption, but WHERE she made her comments is pretty much inside baseball, just like me watching the SPAN.

;-)

But it is time to CALL HER DOWN TO THE CARPET and FORCE the GOP to start making excuses for their worst, or distance themvelves from them

[enough already]

62. We can't let ANYTHING go

We have to attack these nazi bastards with everything we have.

[Erika]

3. Romney must feel good knowing Ann Brittany Spears Coulter is for him

It's good this is posted.

Contact Romney at www.mittromney.com

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Swift boaters

and lack of response from the Kerry Campaign, that is all I have to say

[Clarkie1]

7. It's not the same.

Really it isn't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Yes it is

we have been ignoring people like Annie since oh... 1996

their attacks have become more and more outrageous, and nobody has called them down to the carpet

her calling Edwards a fagot is part of that continuum

So far ignoring them has done absolutely nothing and this is exactly what the "nice" I'd say stupid, Dems, have done

So yes, yes it it

And it proves two things

1.- To the Republican base, see, them dems are weak

2.- To most folks, see they will not defend themselves from outrageous bully statements

Once you understand that this is part of the same.. you realize... it is time to call the bullies, whether they are swift boaters, annie coulter, or Rush Limbaugh or everybody's whipping boy (savage) down to the carpet, and call them what all of them have in common, they are bullies

[Erika]

14. The GOP base is reduced to Limbaugh, Coulter, etc

Waiting for them to take a razor to their heads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. No they are not

and to think that is to underestimate them

Bush may not be too popular with the base right now, but it is larger than that stubborn 28%

Underestimate at your peril

[Erika]

21. Underestimate who?

Who do the GOP have going for them? What issues do they have going for them? Look at www.rasmussenreports.com

Where are you coming from?

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. The republican base is larger than 28%

they are just silent at the moment

They are looking for ANY excuse to vote for them... not to stay home, but to VOTE against their interests (or in some cases their interests).

Hell, the ever so popular but Bush is not a republican is a favorite talking point from those folks RIGHT NOW

So don't think we have anything assured and looking weak or seeming to look weak, doesn't help

[Erika]

25. Where do you get your knowledge from about the GOP base?

Why would you even suggest the dems are weak when the W administration is nothing but chickenhawks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. The GOP is already distancing itself from the W

go talk to your local righties or if you can stomach it, listen to Fox or Right Wing radio for ten minutes.

The latest talking point among some of the local hard core is... W is not a real Republican.... they are not bright enough to come with that one on their own, if you get my drift.

[Erika]

32. Like your inference the dems are weak?

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. Look you are readying what you want

I am just telling you what the IMPRESSIONS are, whether they are based on reality or not is another story

But the reality is that folks do not understand this about the modern GOP

The modern GOP is a cult

The modern GOP is full of character assassins

The modern GOP is full of Myth makers

And the modern GOP is full of Bullies

You need to confront them and go after the myths, that means reframe the message and SHOW that you are exactly 180 of what they say you are

Here is another secret for you, and I am sure you will misconstrue as well

You know why they create the myth the dems are weak? I'll tell you why... go after your enemy at their strongest point...

[Erika]

39. The enemy is the one who perpetuates the myth. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Yes, and once you understand that

here are your choices

Answer them frontally and take them down to the carpet

or do nothing and take the high road

Given the second option has really not worked, it is time to take the first one and take them down to the carpet

[Erika]

49. All you've done is to perpetuate them and empower them

So?

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Really?

If you say so?

So here is my question for you?

Will you answer every slurr or not?

[rocktivity]

20. DING DING DING! Nadinbrzezinski, you're our grand prize winner!

...ignoring them has done absolutely nothing and this is exactly what the "nice"...Dems have done...

To the Republican base, see, them Dems are weak...

Unfortunately, Kerry didn't figure that out soon enough. Fortunately, Obama and Edwards have.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Erika]

23. Kerry had purple hearts

and you allow the dems were weak on defense? Where are you coming from? Was Cleland yet another dem who was weak on defense?

Where are you coming from?

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Impressions, not reality

the Right has created a mythology that the left (no matter how many purple hearts or limbs lost on a battlefield), that the dems are weak on defense.

The SLURS from the swift boaties, which were NOT answered by Kerry only emphasized that mythology.

It is called framing the debate 102, and the righties ARE masters at creating and modeling reality... coulter's latest opus is just part of the same

[Erika]

30. Why are you perpetuating it by repeating it?

This is a chickenhawk administration sending our troops to an indefensible war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. You asked

I just told you where it came

As to what this administration is... chickenhawk is too nice, in my mind they are traitors. But the point is... Kerry NOT answering the slurs helped them perpetuate that mythology among their base and some fence sitters.

I can explain the psychology, but hey... some believe we should just ignore them, as they get more and more outrageous. We should have brought them down to the carpet in 2002 when they went after Cleeland... we should have answered in 2004 when Kerry was attacked.

I'm not a fan of the Clintons but Bill's war room IS the model to follow... and not as a candidate effort, oh hell no, but a party effort.

Each one of their slurrs and misrepresentations must be answered within hours worst case... and demands must be made.

It is partly about impressions

[Erika]

34. and YOU perpetuate the impression

by suggesting dems are weak. I'm learning a lot tonight. Thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. That you read whatever you want?

Boy apparently knowing how the enemy thinks, means I think the dems are weak?

Try logic 101

[Erika]

42. Perpetuating their beliefs is aiding them

Logic 101.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. How exactly am I perpetuating their beliefs

by explaining this in a thread on HOW they operate?

I see, verbotten now to explain how they frame the debate, so others will not understand exactly how they frame the debate

Message received

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[ProSense]

41. It would help to stop repeating things that are false

That's not what happened.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. So tell me how exactly am I perpetuating it

by explaining how they operate in a thread relating to HOW they operate?

Good grief... this is HOW THEY OPERATE so we cannot even say how they frame messages while trying to discuss the framing of the message?

Help me here, I am really confused...

Darn it people... there are days.........

Perhaps you are right and we should all shut up and stop discussing how they operate on threads about how they operate... that way those threads will also disappear into the memory hole

I get it, how they operate is now a verbotten subject.

[ProSense]

48. You are not explaining how they operate, you

are repeating the "no response' claim that doesn't mesh with, in fact it's refuted by, the chronology of facts posted at the link supplied.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. The link supplied will not work with the memory of most folks

and as is, it took the Kerry team a while to respond

And many of us were gnashing teeth at the time

Sorry... did not get that from Fox news

And regardless the reality is that the swift boaters WORKED... whether you like it or not, and they CREATED a perception that did cost Kerry some votes

And the other reality is... the time has come to answer every slurr from the right with an immediate response... or are you going to tell me that we should not?

Oh and what is more, the timeline you provide is not a time line that happened WITHIN TWELVE HOURS, which is what should have happened, but a week after the first attacks happened and NOT by the Kerry Campaign

[ProSense]

53. Yes it will,

most people remember the most visible responses, including Cleland at bush's ranch, which consumed the media for a few days. The constant repetition otherwise must be for another purpose because it runs counter to the reality of what happened. The costant repitition otherwise is serving only to distort the record for those who did not follow the events as they unfolded.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. Cleeland's response came TWO weeks after the

initial attack....

Sorry... and yes I do take my hat off for Max Cleeland, but these responses need to come out within hours and be forceful, PERIOD

You are dealing with bullies, and bullies only understand force

It hasn't changed that much for them from the time they bullied their classmates in grammar school

[ProSense]

56. You know this could be rehashed over and over and the facts still will not matter.

Aug. 5, 2004 - The Swift Liars' first television ad began airing a one-minute television spot in three states. (7)

Aug. 5, 2004 - "the General Counsels to the DNC and the Kerry-Edwards 2004 campaign faxed a letter to station managers at the relevant stations stating that the ad is 'an inflammatory, outrageous lie" and requesting that they "act immediately to prevent broadcast of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. " ' " (4)

Aug. 10, 2004 - Democracy 21, The Campaign Legal Center and The Center for Responsive Politics filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that the Swift Liars were illegally raising and spending soft money on ads to influence the 2004 presidential elections. (4)

Aug. 17, 2004 - the campaign held a press conference at which Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.), Adm. Stansfield Turner (ret.), and several swift boat veterans rebutted the charges. (4)

Aug. 19, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced its own ad "Rassmann." (4)

Aug. 20, 2004 - The Swift Liars' second television ad began airing. This ad selectively excerpted Kerry's statements to the SFRC on 4/22/1971. (7)

Aug. 22, 2004 - the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced another ad "Issues" which addressed the Swift Boat group's attacks.

Aug. 25, 2004 - The Kerry-Edwards campaign ... dispatched former Sen. Max Cleland and Jim Rassmann, to Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas to deliver to the President a letter signed by Democratic Senators who are veterans. (The letter was not accepted.) (4)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555">link

Visit the link and see the time line. The fact is there were many responses, and the facts were given to media in May, yet they continued to give the liars a venue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. I see 20 days in between

you are right the facts don't matter...

Also the fact is that the DNC did nto have adds ready to go to counter their adds

And I might add, it has beeen sugested that the Kerry campaign should have taken a legal route

And you know what? This might matter to historians, but not to the "memory of the American People."

I stand partially corrected...

[rocktivity]

35. A lot of good their purple hearts did when the Rethugs got through with them

Because they "took the high road" when their military service was attacked, they DID end up looking weak on defense.

:headbang:
rocknation

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. Many folks do not understand why they went

after Kerry and the purple hearts... it was his strongest point...

And kerry should have hit back like a banshee

[rocktivity]

43. Well, I DID say "LOOKING weak on defense"

That's the image the Rethugs wanted to create, and Kerry's "high road" is the reason why the Smear-Boaters succeeded.

:headbang:
rocknation

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Does not matter it seems

we are both helping to perpetuate their message by explaining how they work

That seems to be verbotten now

;-)

[silverojo]

55. Rocknation, you're right on the money

The Dems are branded as wimps because many (not all) of them ARE. Too chicken-hearted to fight back, too willing to let repukes stomp all over us, using the "above the fray" excuse to justify their wimpiness.

Fight back, or else shut up and get out of the way of the Dems who will.

[ProSense]

57. No what you're seeing is outrage that should have been there all along

Fortunately, Ms. Evil stepped too far over the line that even the wingers are denouncing it. Edwards didn't fight back when his staffers were attacked, he reprimanded them and they eventually quit.

Until the outrage is constant and candidates aren't expected to spend their entire campaigns fending off RW attacks aided by the media, they will continue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. In that we fully agree

but the first step is to answer every attack at all levels.

Speaking off, coultergeist "apology" as a joke, will garner her a letter to my local bird care liner

;-)

but that is what it will take

[opihimoimoi]

47. Totally Agree...Bush/GOP are BULLIES....MALIGNANT NARCSSISTS

Control/domination freaks...lie cheat steal to get their way...cannot cure....look it up...the science guys are saying these peeps are steadfast in their goal to dominate....these guys are not of the CARE/SHARE CROWD...they are SELFISH and BRUTAL.

[BlueStater]

11. You would criticize Edwards no matter what he did

I'm glad he responded to her. We've been letting people like her get away with this sort of hate speech for far too long and it's time we start fighting back.

[Erika]

16. Yep n/t

[rocktivity]

12. Democrats don't have the luxury of looking weak on defense.

Republicans are nothing but bullies, and the only thing that gets through to them is being bullied back. Taking the high road only encourages them to strike again.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Clarkie1]

18. I disagree.

And I think Clark would have said, "I don't consider that kind of speech worth taking my time to respond to," or something to that effect.

I really do.

[ProSense]

24. You don't ignore the comments of someone who

is all over the media from CNN to Time as they afford her credibility.



Media Matters on the issue.

The best thing is to repudiate those who continue to give this cretin a platform to spew venom.

See this.

[Mind_your_head]

28. Coulter is simply an 'attention whore'

Don't play to her game and she'll disappear. She has nothing of VALUE to add to the political (or any) debate.

(This is my one and only comment/thread about Coulter ever ~ I'll say again ~ she's a BORING, useless, attention whore and I've given her far more attention than she should ever be worthy! ~ I'm saying this not because *I'm* so terribly important, it's just that she's so terribly utterly useless/meaningless).

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. We've ingonred her for years

and she's still around, belying that theory... she is NOT going away, not until she is brought down to the carpet...

[opihimoimoi]

52. I once got scolding for suggesting we STONE her as in the bibical days

and in recent years when the Taliban ran Afghanistan....so I cannot repeat the notion but do suggest we simply call her out when she makes the outrageous statements of recent months.

Nov 7 last year showed us America has awakened from the slumber/coma that is Pub Induced

[countmyvote4real]

29. I'm just waiting for her/him to call Obamma a nigger.

I don't like to contribute to false celebrities, but I do want to see them jump ship and hanged by their own rope.

[ulysses]

60. cockroaches scatter when the light comes on.

It's not about Coulter. It's about making the repukes choose, in public, between the fundie right and the rest of America.

[NDP]

61. He apparently was offended by it, because his response was weak

[citizen snips]

63. The right wing demagogues has had a free reign

for a long time it is time for universal condemnation of them.