Conservative author Ann Coulter stopped by CNN studios Tuesday to discuss her new book "Demonic: How The Liberal Mob Is Endangering America."
During a somewhat rambling interview, host Piers Morgan asked, "Where is the similar mob to Mussolini’s and Hitler’s in the modern democratic era...Tea Party?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
COULTER: They're smarter than any liberal.
But the best was still to come, as now that Morgan had failed at besmirching the Tea Party, it was on to desparaging one of their most famous supporters:
COULTER:
Piers, darling, if I were selling you a book, if I were talking about a
book that I had just written about dogs, and you ask me, “What comforts
old people,” I would say, “Why, Piers, dogs do. In fact, I talk about
it in my book.” My book is called "How the Liberal Mob is Endangering
America," and I talk about the crosshairs issue, and if I could answer
the question on the crosshairs issue.
What has been fascinating to watch in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings is not just how the press have totally forgotten their concern regarding violent rhetoric, but also how they believe themselves to be exempt from having to worry about they're own behavior as well as being immune to the consequences of it.
Do any of these people that have for years been debasing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin to name a few concern themselves at all with the possibility that their words could incite an unstable person to a tragic act of violence?
The answer of course is "No" which makes one conclude that all this frenzy about violent rhetoric was by no means about trying to prevent such an incident, but instead to just silence voices on the right they don't agree with.
Fortunately, conservatives don't have to worry about Coulter being so intimidated, especially by the likes of Piers Morgan.
During a somewhat rambling interview, host Piers Morgan asked, "Where is the similar mob to Mussolini’s and Hitler’s in the modern democratic era...Tea Party?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: Where is the similar mob to Mussolini’s and Hitler’s in the modern democratic era?
ANN COULTER: Well, I would say that there are a lot of similarities. The French Revolution.
MORGAN: Tea Party?
COULTER: No. No, no, no.
MORGAN: Nearest thing to it?
COULTER: No, they're much closer to the original Tea Party, which, and
actually not as, not as much of a rabble as the original Tea Party,
which as I point out, the Founding Fathers weren't wild about the
original Tea Party curiously enough because they were so against mobs.
MORGAN: Are you wild about them?
COULTER: About who?
MORGAN: The Tea Party.
COULTER: Oh, the current Tea Party?
MORGAN: Yeah.
COULTER: Oh yeah, I love them.
Having equated the Tea Party to Hitler and Mussolini's "mob," Morgan
moved in another predictable liberal media direction - Tea Partiers are
idiots:
MORGAN: See I don’t really get that.
COULTER: I speak to them.
MORGAN: I don’t get that because you’re a smart cookie.
COULTER: So are the Tea Partiers!
MORGAN: What do people think about you? You're intelligent. You live a provocative life.
COULTER: I believe you're insulting the Tea Partiers.
MORGAN: Well, they're not among the brightest of spellers (?), are they?
Coulter was obviously ready for this:COULTER: They're smarter than any liberal.
MORGAN: Do you think so?
COULTER: Yeah.
MORGAN: You really think that?
COULTER: Yes, I do.
MORGAN: In your heart?
COULTER: I meet them and speak to them and they get my jokes which already makes them smarter than the average liberal.
MORGAN: Is that why you think they’re so smart?
COULTER: It makes them smarter than the average liberal. I'm always having to explain, map out how the joke works here.
In reality, even when Coulter explains her jokes to liberals - especially the ones in the media - they still don't get it.But the best was still to come, as now that Morgan had failed at besmirching the Tea Party, it was on to desparaging one of their most famous supporters:
MORGAN: The way you talk as your publisher does here, “Liberals use
mobs to seize power and impose their theories on the populace for the
good of humanity.” I think Sarah Palin would have written that, who
whether you like it or not is irrelevant, is a brilliant rouser of the
populous, like nothing else in politics right now. After Obama himself
and his last election, she is doing an incredible job marshaling her
base. But she also comes out with some pretty inflammatory stuff and
that surely arouses a mob mentality. You wouldn't dispute that.
This liberal doesn't only misunderstand Coulter's jokes, he doesn't understand Coulter:
COULTER: I don't think she's inflammatory. I think she's a great speaker. What do you think she said that is inflammatory?
MORGAN: Putting crosshairs on people's heads.
COULTER: Oh, come on. I talk about that in the book, too.
MORGAN: Is that inflammatory?
COULTER: That was invented by Democratic strategist Bob Beckel as he admitted on TV.
MORGAN: And once again, you go back to the Democrats. I'm asking you about Sarah Palin.
COULTER: I go back - where is the camera? I'm going back to the book
because I talk about -- let me answer this one. It is a beautiful
example of something in the question.
MORGAN: Your default process throughout this so far is fascinating.
Every single time I ask you a question, rather than answer about Sarah
Palin and crosshairs, you instinctively go, “What about Democrats?"
Well, because in this instance, the answer dealt with Democrats, and, as Coulter pointed out, that's what her book is about:COULTER:
Piers, darling, if I were selling you a book, if I were talking about a
book that I had just written about dogs, and you ask me, “What comforts
old people,” I would say, “Why, Piers, dogs do. In fact, I talk about
it in my book.” My book is called "How the Liberal Mob is Endangering
America," and I talk about the crosshairs issue, and if I could answer
the question on the crosshairs issue.
MORGAN: You may.
COULTER: It is a perfect example of totally contradictory thinking by
the Left in America, an example of the mob where they go around
hysterical at Sarah Palin putting these crosshairs on Congressional
districts. It was done by the Democratic National Committee. It was
invented by a liberal. It’s a classic thing in politics. And it wasn’t
on her face. It was a district. These are the ones…
MORGAN: Was it a sensible thing to do (?)?
COULTER: Yes, it is fine for both the Democrats and the Republicans to do it.
MORGAN: Would you encourage them to carry on doing it?
COULTER: Yes. That isn't what caused Jared [Loughner] to shoot up a shopping mall.
Pay particular attention to the next couple of questions from Morgan:
MORGAN: How do you know? How do you know?
COULTER: Because we know that he’s out of his mind.
MORGAN: Mentally unstable guy. As it turns out, it didn't have any connection, it would appear.
If he knew there was no connection between Palin's crosshairs and
Loughner's act, why would Morgan twice ask, "How do you know?" Seemed
like a host just trying to be contentious with his guest, and that
wasn't about to stop:
COULTER: As it turns out, he was a liberal.
MORGAN: How would you have felt if actually he was mentally unstable,
he had seen the website, he misunderstood the instruction from the
crosshair, and he went and did the same thing? Then what would you
think?
A rather preposterous question given what we know about Taylor. But
media members love to ask absurd hypotheticals to try to gotcha their
guests, especially conservative ones. But this guest wasn't about to be
gotchaed:
COULTER: Well…
MORGAN: Would you care?
COULTER: …what if I walk out of this studio tonight, and someone who
has seen you accusing me of being mean to liberals is so ginned up, he
shoots me? Would you not ask any of the questions you're asking?
Exactly.What has been fascinating to watch in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings is not just how the press have totally forgotten their concern regarding violent rhetoric, but also how they believe themselves to be exempt from having to worry about they're own behavior as well as being immune to the consequences of it.
Do any of these people that have for years been debasing George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Sarah Palin to name a few concern themselves at all with the possibility that their words could incite an unstable person to a tragic act of violence?
The answer of course is "No" which makes one conclude that all this frenzy about violent rhetoric was by no means about trying to prevent such an incident, but instead to just silence voices on the right they don't agree with.
Fortunately, conservatives don't have to worry about Coulter being so intimidated, especially by the likes of Piers Morgan.