Ann Coulter is back. The conservative Fox News commentator emerged on The View Thursday to promote her new book, “Mugged,” and finally met her match in Whoopi Goldberg.
In this new tome she, as if on cue, slams President Obama as having abandoned black Americans and posits that the OJ Simpson verdict was a great thing for America. While I’m sure Ms. Coulter is trying to say something she believes to be important in this latest book, I can’t for the life of me figure out what that might be.
When prompted by Joy Behar to explain what she meant by the incendiary charges made in her book she attempted to explain by declaring, “What I am trying to say is race mongering has been very bad for America, liberals use it to promote causes that have nothing to do with blacks and in fact harm blacks. And that excellent lead in you just gave, with OJ, I think that was the movement, having lived near New York City in the 70′s and 80′s, which was the golden era, it was Trayvon Martin and Duke Lacrosse case every day.”
Needless to say the OJ Simpson remarks didn’t sit too well with Whoopi who asked Ms. Coulter to explain herself. Coulter Replied, “Millions of white people watching with the equivalent of New York, we use the Brooklyn juries who simply would not convict even guilty black criminals.”
At this point Coulter attempted to distance herself from the race factor of her statements and moved onto her more typical motives: partisan politics. Coulter stated this is not a book about black people; this is a book about white liberals.
Whoopi, still perplexed by Coulter’s thought process, stated that she believed her facts were sketchy at best. Whoopi then asked “tell me what you know about being black…I mean, you’re saying that because liberals have abandoned black people now–what? I don’t get it. I don’t understand.” To which Coulter had the audacity to say, “I don’t think that liberals ever cared about black people.”
WOW!
This dialogue carried on for quite some time and got heated on both sides, Whoopi got aggravated and Ann got defensive, because let’s face it, Ann gets defensive. Whether Ann Coulter is writing a new book or just spouting off on Fox News one thing is certain; Ann Coulter is a radical and believes every word she spews regardless of the consequences.
WATCH:
Take anything Ann Coulter has written, substitutethe word ‘Jew’ for the world ‘liberal’ and you have something that could have been written by Joseph Goebbels. Substitute in the racial slur of your choice and you have something that could have been published by the KKK. She know’s what sells and I have my doubts regarding her sincerity, but if she actually believes what she’s saying then Ann Coulter is an irrational, hate filled, shrew.
ORAXX:
You make some excellent points. Ann Coulter is nothing but a hate mongering, cantankerous twit who unfortunately will continue to spew her bile until people finally come to their collective senses and quits buying into her propaganda and start seeing her for what she is. Evil.
The only reason that hate mongering shrew gets any airtime is that some people think she is attractive. Which admittedly is rare amongst Republican women. She keeps spewing bile but only fools the simple minded, if them.
Charles,
Hopefully we will get to the point soon to where the simple minded folks will realize that she is crazy anad stop listening to her nonsense!
Sorry, just found it funny that most, if not all, of these comments seem to have been made with little to no concern whether or not they themselves were hate mongering. That or the writers are as bad as Ann Coulter and are unable to tell the difference unless it’s something they disagree with…
Hypocrisy?,
While I can not and would never presume to speak for another person’s intent, I will say that I know I am not hate mongering. I don’t believe it is hypocritical to point out the obvious distaste of one particular person’s rants. As far as I’m concerned it’s not hate mongering to point out that what she says is dangerous, incendiary and a blatant attack on an entire race of people. And as far as disagreeing with her… you bet your sweet ass I do.
Boy, she picked the wrong women to talk to about this!
The story that she either knows is not true and twists for her own purposes or is stupid enough to believe is true is that the Republican party in its current shape and form in any way resembles the Republican party as it existed in the 1860s or 1960s.
You simply cannot say “Hey, Republicans stood up for blacks, the first black senator was a Republican, the first… blah blah da blahdy blah…” and use this as an argument to prove anything about the current Republican party. This is as nonsensical as saying we should hate the British because they tried to enforce the Stamp Act on us in the 1700s.
For me, it only points up how FAR the current Republican party is from who they used to be. If I were a Republican, it would make me think about which version of the party I joined and which version I’m supporting right now, because they are 2 VERY different parties.