G.O.P. Candidates Criticize Slur by Conservative Author

Interesting story. Can you send me a link to the origianl comments by Maher and Matthews? I would like to read their remarks in context. Also, LOL, Maher and Matthews are slightly to the right of milque toast, according to those of us who deserve the name left wing radicals.

There aren't any such original comments by Maher and Matthews. The author is making stuff up to try to defend Coulter's vile comments.

To publicreader

The remark by Maher was posted on several websites and discussed at length on Hannity and Colmes last week.  This is one site.  I saw a similar remark by Matthews on a different site, but did not mark the reference.  I did not mention the brouhaha at the Huffington Post over this issue; I assume you are aware of that.  I also assume you are well aware of the book advocating the assassination of President Bush and the movie depicting such a scene - pieces of garbage that should have been roundly denounced, but why should they surprise anyone when prominent Democrats have called Bush and Cheney a liar, a Hitler, a murderer and other vile and vicious characterizations.

Why would a NowPublic editor identify himself as a left wing radical?  Are you suggesting that this is a news site only for the left?

To toastie - I certainly did not try to defend Coulter's remark, but it does pale compared to the filth the left routinely spew about their elected leaders.

Take a look at this video of Chris Matthews talking about the attempt on Dick Cheney.  Could this be what you were referring to?  Not exactly a definitive statement that he's sorry they missed, but clarifying how they could have done it better. 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1322k7bH9t0

I tried to find the refernce to Chris Matthews I had in mind and could not.  The MSNBC transcript does not have it.  The video mentioned above, in my mind, does not really say that, so, with respect to Matthews in this particular instance, I feel I should withdraw the comment I made.

Quite frankly, I do not know why anyone is offended on either side. 

There are NO RULES in the post (president) Clinton/Carville era and we are all at the beginning of a long slow ugly slog to the 2008 elections. 

Hey gang, quit whining, get out your guns, it's open season! 

"...movie calling for the assassination of President Bush? "

I hope you are not referring to "The Death of a President" released late last year. If you are, you show you outright ignorance about anything you are talking about. 

To Edmund Jenks

A decent society needs rules and to make judgments, and we need to get back to reasoned discussion.   President Bush has met vituperation with courage and courtesy. As a wartime president he has exercised much greater restraint than Lincoln, Wilson or Roosevelt did in the face of near-treason and of constant attempts to undermine his policies by people who were never elected by the American people to do so.  Ann Coulter has done a great disservice to conservatives, and should never be invited to speak at a group like CPAC again.

Joellerose,

It is true that a "decent" society needs rules and people to make strong decisions. The people making these decisions, however, are permitted to do so under the limits of the consititutions of their nation and the international treaties signed by previous administrations. President Bush is not a wartime President, and to paint him as such is an offense to history and the democratic system. I am unsure of what you meant by "near-treason" or "constant attempts to undermine his policies by people...", but the allusions concern anyone who actually believes in a truely democratic state. To criticize or politically disrobe the commander-in-cheif is not only allowed, but is an obligation - it is what distinguishes the democratic state from the autocratic and fascist states. The American system was not created as a way to elect a temporary king, it was created to protect the American people from such an establishment, and with the perpetuation of the beliefs that people like you hold, it appears to be failing.

Regime change in Iraq was the official policy of the U.S. government under both Presidents Clinton (Operation Desert Fox) and Bush.  President Bush is a wartime president operating under a Congressional resolution.  To criticize and to point out mistakes (there have been many as there always are in all wars) is one thing.  To repeat a lie over and over again and to undermine the legitimate actions of an elected president is something else, and repeating the lie doesn't make it true except in the minds of those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome.

"To repeat a lie over and over again and to undermine the legitimate actions of an elected president is something else"

And what lie are you referring to? WMD's?

The fact that regime change was an official policy does confirmed by several hundred rich, white, Christian politicians does not make the invasion of another nation ethical. And no sir, a wartime president is decribed as one involved with a declared war, not one that has been given unprecedented executive powers in the name of fear.

Denial of the facts is a symptom of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Sir, what facts? The administration has admitted that there are no WMDs. Please support yourself.

Congress authorized Operation Iraqi Freedom.  Joe Wilson was found to be a liar both by the Senate Committee on Intelligence and by the 9/11 Committee.  And what is this "white, Christian" stuff all about?