Edwards Exploited Son's Death, Not Coulter

[berstbubble]

Coulter is an embarassment. The Edwards obviously honor the memory of their son. Coulter is a money grubbing swine who makes an ass of herself and conservatism to make a buck and you fall for it. She hurts conservatism. You defend her the way the libs defend Michael Moore and Bill Maher- no difference.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Ann didn’t make a joke about it — in fact, she said that it was a tragedy. She made an ISSUE out of Edwards refering to his dead son for political votes while claiming he wasn’t “I won’t use my dead son who I miss dearly for political purposes”.

[CharlesWayneCT]

She didn’t make a joke. GO read her article from 2003 to see what the reference was, it wasn’t a joke, she was attacking him for exploiting his son’s death while saying he should be given credit for NOT exploiting his son’s death.

[El Cid]

Re: 10, 11

She called him “our Obama”.

Because he is clean and articulate?

[chad_in_georgia]

I’m sorry but is it not possible for you to hear someone without looking at them? I don’t suffer from that but perhaps you do. You have my sympathies.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Edwards the Exploiter.

[boop]

This is really getting old. How many times has Ann simnply pointed out the hypocrisy of the left and it’s completely misunderstood and totally taken out of context. Edwards is using his dead son’s corpse to gain political power. So did Cindy Sheehan, so did the Jersey girls. The whole John Edwards “faggot” flap was a commentary about political correctness and the TV show Grey’s Anatomy. Either people are willfully ignorant, or seriously stupid.

[meandog]

Her comment in an article in 2003 about all the democrats exploiting family tragedies for votes was that if Edwards wanted to claim credit for not bringing up his son’s death as a campaign tactic, he should probably put away the “Ask me about my son’s death” bumper stickers. She didn’t say he had a bumper sticker on his car saying “ask me about my dead son”. She noted that he wore his son’s “outward bound” pin on his shirt. People would ask him “what’s that pin”, and he would probably say “It’s a reminder about my son, who is dead”. If you wear a pin of your dead son’s, isn’t that like having a bumper sticker saying “ask me about my dead son”?

Come on...any parent, dirtball lawyer or not, suffers when a child is killed. And despite whether or not she meant it as a joke or political criticism such a written remark is crass, out of place, and cruel. Ann's mouth and pen often overload her otherwise keen brain. She's fast becoming an embarassment, IMO, in much the same way that Jimmy Carter is now regarded as a dottering old fool by reasonable-thinking Americans. So don't waste your time defending her to conservative leaning libertarians such as myself as it would be akin to defending someone such as Michael Moore or Larry Flynt to moderate Bluedog Democrats.

[RonDog]

This just in, from www.anncoulter.com :

June 18, 2007, 1:02 PM

PRE-ORDERS AVAILABLE NOW — - ANN COULTER'S NEW BOOK, IN STORES OCTOBER 2:

If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans

ALSO: GODLESS IN PAPERBACK, OUT JUNE 26TH:

Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Paperback)

-- snip --

Note how Ann's image has SHIFTED TO THE RIGHT -- her right, that is,
from the ORIGINAL version (top) -- which reads "If Dem RATS" --
currently posted on Amazon
to the FINAL version (bottom) -- which reads "HAD BRAINS" --
as currently posted on her publishers website.

[Doctor Raoul]

Elizabeth just proved Coulter's claim that the left has no regrets about sending sympathetic victims out to do their dirty work.

Articles in Elle, Washington Post and other discussions of their child's death obviously crossed the line Elizabeth Edwards now CLAIMS to be objectionable.

If I agreed with Mrs Edwards, it would be to the extend that Coulter is in third place. Standing in front of her would be John and Elizabeth Edwards.

[Tribune7]

The is nothing wrong with the Edwards' discussion how the death of their son changed their lives

Unless they are doing so to acquire political power. Then it is an indication of extraordinarily bad character.

[Mamzelle]

As far as "exploiting"--how about the parents who arranged for an inexperienced teenaged driver (wasn't he 15? 16?) to drive across the state at night...I could make a pretty good argument for negligent parenting. At least he didn't kill anybody else in the accident.

[Mr. Know It All]

Unless they are doing so to acquire political power. Then it is an indication of extraordinarily bad character.

I really don't understand how anyone can make this distinction. Politicians are expected to talk about their personal life. We want to know how their decisions will be shaped by their experiences, their family and their faith. President Bush won a long battle with alcoholism and I think that telling people about that demonstrated something important about his personal resolve — or was he just "exploiting" his personal victory to "acquire political power"?

If "doing so to acquire political power" just means "in a speech or publication during a campaign" then this "bad character" flaw could be applied to any politician of any stripe during any campaign. The death of his child was a major event in the life of John Edwards and it's perfectly fine for him to explain how it shaped his thinking. You can certainly criticize the thinking.

Are there people cynical enough to use their personal tragedies for personal gain? Sure, but how do you determine that? The answer here seems to be "because they are saying something I don't like." If that's the test people want to use, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't pretend to be standing on high moral ground when they do.

[CharlesWayneCT]

She said that losing a child was a tragedy, and in fact made the point IN THAT ARTICLE that everybody would agree that it was a tragedy when anybody lost a child, and that it was silly for politicians to act as if their loss was an especially qualifying trait for office.

A politician telling you how important their views are shaped by their dead child are essentially saying “look, I have a dead child, my opponent doesn’t, so I have something to offer that they don’t”.

Kind of like McCain telling us that unless we’ve been a Senator and taken a bribe we have no moral authority to discuss campaign finance reform.

[CharlesWayneCT]

BTW, I’m not a Coulter apologist, I find some of her work offensive — but I read the article in question, and it was not offensive to me.

[CharlesWayneCT]

A politician that uses a personal tragedy to argue for a policy change is exploiting the tragedy, because to fight against their policy will be seen as attacking them for their tragedy. “How can you question Gore’s commitment to stopping the scourge of smoking, he lost a sister to cancer!!!”

[outlawcam]

That wasn’t a slur, but a commentary on how a fresh face can be very appealing when the known alternatives are considered either unacceptable or unelectable.

[cripplecreek]

Actually she compared his lack of a record to Barack Obama, her stated preference is for Hunter.

[Tribune7]

Are there people cynical enough to use their personal tragedies for personal gain? Sure, but how do you determine that?

How often do the do it? Is it brought up in context in which it is not appropriate? Do they reach out to political opponents who share the same tragedies? Do they use it to insulate themselves from attacks on the policies they are advocating?

The answer here seems to be "because they are saying something I don't like."

Concerning the Edwards and the Jersey Girls, it's because they are appear to be using tragedy in the pursuit of power and wealth.

[OldEagle]

"She called him “our Obama”."

What do you think she meant by that?