Matthews & Edwards vs. Coulter and Reason.

This past week, that smarmy creep John Edwards went back to the well in the hopes of reviving his flagging presidential campaign. He attacked Ann Coulter. Unsurprisingly, he chose a cowardly way to do so, by sending his wife, a cancer victim, to fight the battle for him. It's the oldest trick in the book, but one that liberals have used over and over again. Desperate times call for desperate measures, after all.

Ms. Coulter went on Good Morning America recently to promote the release of the paperback of her most recent book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. Unsurprisingly, ABC chose Chris Cuomo, son of former liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to conduct the interview. Taking a page out of the left-wing playbook, Cuomo attempted to open up some old wounds by bringing up that Ms. Coulter allegedly called John Edwards a "faggot" some months ago. Ms. Coulter, in defending herself, alluded to something Bill Maher had said about Dick Cheney at around the same time. Apparently, Vice President Cheney had narrowly avoided being killed in a terrorist attack while in Afghanistan. Maher asserted that if Dick Cheney had died, more people would live. While the press virtually ignored Maher's claim, Coulter's "faggot" comment was distorted and blown out of proportion for political purposes both by Edward's campaign and by the media. It seems reasonable to assume that the media would have been at least as outraged with what Maher said about Cheney as they were with what Ann Coulter said about John Edwards. Apparently they weren't bothered by what Maher said, though. So Coulter suggested that if instead of using the term "faggot", she had wished on Edwards what Maher wished on Cheney, she might not have gotten so much negative publicity. The result of her sarcastic speculation was entirely predictable...the media claimed that Ann Coulter had wished John Edwards would die in a terrorist attack.

The table was now set for Coulter's appearance on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Frankly, I have no idea why she went on that show to begin with, there was no upside for her...though there was plenty for Matthews. For starters, Matthews is a left-wing political hack posing as a journalist...he worked for Tip O'Neill for God's sake! In addition, no one watches Matthew's show, his ratings are virtually a statistical zero. Even if she made some great points, Hardball is like the proverbial falling tree in the forest, no one would be there to hear about it. Coulter's appearance would, in fact double Matthew's typical ratings. As the interview carried on, Matthews went to the phones to take some calls. A mysterious caller was invited to join the conversation, the aforementioned cancer-stricken wife of John Edwards, Elizabeth. This, of course, was an ambush orchestrated by Chris Matthews and the Edwards campaign to make Ann Coulter look bad, to elicit sympathy and much needed money for the Edwards campaign and to bolster ratings for Matthew's weak show.

Ann Coulter spoke of this tactic when discussing the so-called "Jersey Girls" and their loud, largely uninformed and unchallenged criticism of the Bush Administration regarding the 9/11 Committee hearings. Here's how this often tested gimmick works: 1) pluck a "victim" who is at odds with a Republican and use that person to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) arm that "victim" with misstatements of fact and distortions of the truth to add credibilty to a poor argument, 3) play up the hardship of the "victim" so as to shield said "victim" from criticisms of the merit of the argument, 4) in effect, assert that the "victim's" victimhood automatically makes the "victim's" argument absolutely correct and unasailable for the mere fact that the argument came from a "victim" 5) accuse anyone taking issue with the fraudulent claims of said "victim" of being a bully and of further "victimizing" the "victim"...or of "lowering the level of debate". It's the classic "never hit a girl", "never hit a man with glasses" approach. Once the public is softened up, any liberal argument, no matter how specious, is given credibility. If it worked for Michael J. Fox, the Dixie Chicks, the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, surely it would work for Elizabeth Edwards.

Here's how this often tested gimmick worked for Matthews and the Edwards campaign:
1) Pluck a cancer victim whose husband is running as a Democrat for president to articulate a liberal point of view, 2) Allow said cancer victim to misrepresent Ms. Coulter's statements uninterupted (a first for Matthews), 3) play up Ms. Edward's status as a cancer victim to shield Ms. Edwards from even substantive criticism,
4) Since Ms. Edwards is liberal and has cancer, therefore making her a victim, her argument is correct and she's morally superior to Ann Coulter, 5) because Ann Coulter is not a liberal and does not have cancer, she is a bully for having the nerve to argue with the poor cancer victim, Ms. Edwards. Furthermore, she's "lowering the level of debate" by disagreeing with Ms. Edwards, who has cancer. Oh, and the cherry on top is the fact that Matthews got away with comparing those who applauded Ms. Coulter on the set to characters in the movie Deliverance.

Ann Coulter is a strong woman, with strong opinions. She defends her positions vigorously, often upsetting her opponents and reducing their arguments to personal attacks. She is no more caustic than Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar or Stephanie Miller, yet she is subjected to far more abuse and character assassination than all three combined. Interestingly, when Rosie O'Donnell was criticized for hyperbolic and paranoid left-wing rants, her detractors were often portrayed as bullies. The misogynistic double standards created by the left allow someone to call Ann Coulter a "bitch" yet someone who refers to Hillary Clinton as a "bitch" would be considered, well, misogynistic.

If it takes a transparently cheap ambush on live television for the Edwards campaign to raise money and for Hardball to increase ratings, it doesn't look like there's hope for either of them.