MSNBC Wants You... To Be Scared Shitless

John Acton once famously remarked that "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As one apprises the state of the American left-leaning media, the former part of this maxim becomes almost immediately apparent.

Once upon a time, the American left-wing derided the excesses of FOX News and other right-leaning media outlets. They were (often quite rightly) accused of being toadies for the governing Republican party, fear mongering, and otherwise helping to steamroll political dissent.

A recent segment from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show serves as a perfect example, wherein Maddow seeks to stir up fear of anti-health care reform protesters by comparing them to anti-abortion terrorists.

In an interview with Dr George Hearn -- who himself has had many threats made against his life -- Maddow attempts to conflate as closely as possible those who are protesting health care reform with violent anti-abortion zealots.

Appearing on the show, Hearn offers a very illustrative account of how he sees the abortion debate and how it turned to violent. It's clearly his view -- for example, he insists the anti-abortion movement of becoming more and more "harsh and aggressive in their rhetoric" (they have), but declines to note that the pro-abortion movement has become more and more harsh and aggressive in its rhetoric, to the extent that applaud and celebrate acts of violence against anti-abortion activists.

Hearn and Maddow insist that violence perpetrated against anti-abortion extremists sets a trend toward political violence that will spill over into the health care debate. Yet neither of them provide any substantive examples of the health care debate moving in this direction.

Not that there hasn't been any cause for concern. The presence of two gun-toting individuals at Barack Obama's health care town hall meeting in New Hampshire last week is clearly an eye-opener.

But on his own show, Hardball, Chris Matthews clearly put on his Bill O'Reilly hat before hosting William Kostric, interrupting him numerous times, and bombarding him with numerous irrelevant questions.

"Who did you vote for last November?"

"What do you think of President Obama?"

"Do you have any problems with his legitimacy as President?"

"You're not part of the birther movement or anything like that?"

"Where are you on the issue of whether he's a legitimate President of the United States?"

"You're not making any claim that he's not a citizen?"

Kostric clearly is not the sharpest individual, as only an idiot would bring a gun to meeting where any international leader. But for Matthews to work as hard as he did attempting to portray Kostric as an erstwhile assassin just shows how far left-leaning media outlets like MSNBC are willing to in order to use fear tactics to marginalize the opponents of health care reform.

Certainly, there has been a lot of inflammatory nonsense peddled under the guise of legitimate dissent on this issue. Sarah Palin's recent self-humiliation is a perfect example of this.

But setting up a universal health care system is a costly proposition, regardless of what model the United States elects to follow. Individuals like Kostric have every reason to be concerned. The efforts of individuals like Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow splendidly illustrate precisely how far they're willing to go in order to terrify people from their bully pulpit.

Anne Coulter & Her "Freedom of Speech" Get Pwned by Elizabeth Edwards

Coulter provides meagre defense for her vicious attacks

Perhaps the sole endearing quality about Anne Coulter is that, whenever she makes a ridiculous comment, as she is prone to do, the controversy never percolates quietly. Her humiliation has become almost permanently a part of the public discourse.

Anne Coulter crossed an interesting line in a recent appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, Coulter fell prey to one her own ridiculous comments, when Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of presidential nominee John Edwards, called in to confront her.

The matter dealt with comments that Coulter recently made about John Edwards on June 25, 2007 (thanks to Good Morning America, we can even identify the exact time -- 7:34 AM), when she said, "I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he'd been killed in a terrorist assassination plot."

What the ears may doubt the eyes must believe -- she even said it with a smile on her face!

This all led to the infamous call-in, arranged ahead of time by Elizabeth Edwards.

Chris Matthews: You know who's on the line? Somebody to respond to what you said Edwards yesterday morning -- Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today we said she could. Elizabeth Edwards go on the line you're on the line with Ann Coulter

Elizabeth Edwards: Hello, Chris.

CM: You wanna say something directly to the person who's with me?

EE: I'm calling you … in the south when we -- when someone does something that displeases us, we wanna ask them politely to stop doing it. Uh - I'd like to ask Ann Coulter -- if she wants to debate on issues, on positions -- we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today -- um but uh it's quite another matter for these personal attacks that the things she has said over the years not just about John but about other candidates -- it lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity … to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

Ann Coulter: OK, so I made a joke -- let's see six months ago -- and as you point out they've been raising money off of it for six months since then.

Coulter, in her rather charming arrogance, must have suspected that Edwards was referring to the infamous "faggot" remark she uttered.

Now, Coulter's first impulse was, apparently, to lie.

CM: This is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

AC: I didn't say anything about him actually either time.

EE: Ann, you know that's not true. And once more its been going on for sometime.

Coulter has been shown to have a tendency to try and redirect and dissemble when challenged about her comments. This time she chose John Edwards' alleged $50,000 speech to an anti-poverty group, and John Edwards' use of her "faggot" comment to raise funds on his website. Both of these are actually fair game. But what eventually emerged as the heart of the matter is absolutely not.

AC: I don't mind you trying to raise money. I mean it's better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor.

EE: I'm asking you

AC: Just to use my name on the Web pages…

EE: I'm asking you politely…

AC: … but as for a debate with me, um yeah, sure. Yeah, we'll have a debate

EE: I'm asking you politely to stop personal attacks.

AC: How bout you stop raising money on the Web page then?

EE: It didn't start it did not

AC: No you don't have cause I don't mind

When Coulter's ugliest and most vicious comments started to come to light, however, Coulter quickly referred to her top rhetorical tactic. She complained that her freedom of speech was being impugned.

EE: It did not start with that you had a column a number of years ago

AC: OK, great the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking

CM: Let her finish the point...

AC: You're asking me to stop speaking stop writing your columns, stop writing your books.

CM: OK, Ann. Please.

Coulter must know her own work very well, and known what was coming. So she put up her "freedom of speech shields" to try and deflect what was about to be directed at her, talking over Elizabeth Edwards while she did so. What did she want to prevent Edwards from saying?

AC: OK

EE: You wrote a column a couple years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean's death, and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car that said ask me about my dead son. This is not legitimate political dialogue.

The truth was out. How as Coulter going to defend herself?

AC: That's now three years ago

EE: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can't have a debate about issues if you're using this kind of language.

AC: Yeah why isn't John Edwards making this call?

When challenged about what may be the most vicious comments in the career of a woman who has built her entire career on vicious, hateful comments, Coulter responded by trying to envoke a non-existent metaphorical statute of limitations, then by challenging the manhood of Edwards the nominee.

Edwards the wife explained,

EE: I haven't talked to John about this call.

Coulter then once again resorted to trying to talk over her opponent. This time, however, her opponent was louder.

AC: This is just another attempt for –

EE: I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of that boy who died. My children participate -- these young people behind you are the age of my children. You're asking them to participate in a dialogue that's based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues and I don't think that's serving them or this country very well.

The applause that followed told the tale: Anne Coulter had just been destroyed -- on national television -- by Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of (as Coulter once entoned) a "faggot".

CM: Thank you very much Elizabeth Edwards. Do you want to -- you have all the time in the world to respond.

AC: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

So, when finally bested in one-on-one debate, Coulter shamelessly resorted to the freedom of speech sheild.

In times such as these, Coulter is well-known to blame her plight on "evil liberals". But perhaps she would be surprised to learn that her own patented "criticizing me is violating my freedom of speech" defense has also been mastered by a Canadian individual who would call himself a liberal: 9/11 celebrator Kevin Potvin.

When Coulter was called to task about her "faggot" remark, she claimed it was a joke. When Coulter was confronted over her callous and vicious remarks regarding the death of Charlie Dean Edwards, she complained it was three years ago. When she's criticized, she claims she's being "censored".

When Kevin Potvin was called to task for his 9/11 remarks, he claimed they were symbollic. When his critics quoted him, Potvin claimed he was somehow being libelled. When he was criticized, he claimed he was being "censored".

So, there you have it. Anne Coulter and Kevin Potvin: cut from the same cloth. In his defense, at least Potvin doesn't wish death upon political opponents; he just doesn't care when innocent people die. Likewise, Coulter doesn't care when the son of a political opponent dies; For her, that's just another opportunity for a vicious, hateful attack.

Anne Coulter can brandish her freedom of speech all she wants. But so can Elizabeth Edwards, and in a brilliant move, Edwards has used her freedom of speech to force Anne Coulter to be confronted with her own comments.

Not that Edwards can force Coulter to take responsibility for them. Only Coulter can do that, and unfortunately she refuses.

But if the "esteemed" Anne Coulter happens to be reading this article -- and since it's easy to imagine herself as a committed self-Googler, it's entirely possible -- allow the point to be made. Elizabeth Edwards isn't asking you not to speak: a growing legion of both liberals and conservatives (world wide) are. You've abused your freedom of speech enough. Now it's time for you to learn a sense of responsibility.

Kindly shut up.