Chicago Sun-Times
The scoop from Washington

Rahm Emanuel: Challenges Republicans to repudiate Ann Coulter. Should they?


Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the chairman of the House political operation, renews his call for the GOP to take down Coulter after she attacked the 9-11 widows.

Emanuel release.........

"It has also been one week since I called on my Republican colleagues to reject Ann Coulter's vicious attacks on the widows of 9-11.

"Not a single Republican elected official has stepped forward to reject her hate, so I have to conclude they are comfortable with her as their spokesperson.

"Their silence is deafening. Apparently it's OK to exploit 9-11 to shore up your own sagging poll numbers or make a quick buck. So rather than see 9-11 as a moment to unite America, Ann Coulter and her followers have chosen to divide and demonize fellow Americans.

"I'm always amazed that the one casualty the American people would accept on 9-11 would be partisanship and that's the one casualty this Congress is not willing to give.

"Ms. Coulter is threatened by the 9-11 Widows.

"They threaten her simplistic world by daring to ask questions.

"Mr. Speaker, the 9-11 Widows have courageously stood up to demand that we never forget the horror of September 11th.

"All Americans who lost loved ones should be honored as we're doing in Arlington today - not denigrated simply because they don't fit simplistic world views."



Is Rahm Emmanual going to publicly repudiate Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and Michael Moore for their appalling name-calling of President Bush over 9/11, and Moore'sdescription of the Iraqi beheaders as "freedom fighters"? Just asking.

In the interests of honesty, Republicans should repudiate Ann Coulter only if they disagree with what she is saying.

But if they agree with her hate-filled attack on the 9-11 widows they should remain silent on the subject.

Re: Ann Coulter's new book? Too bad. She has a right to say what she wants to, as does Michael Moore and his ilk.
I didn't contribute to the fund for the 9/11 victims immediately, preferring to see how it all shook out. Now I'm glad I didn't. These women are being used by special interest groups, just as Cindy Sheehan is. They had a great loss, but have been compensated by caring people whom they're insulting now. Not all contributors share their opinions.
Lori White
Hayden, ID

Ann Coulter believes her own rhetoric just like Al Gore does. They are two side of the same American coin. Anyone who aligns themselves with either extremist political slant so voraciously is obviously unable to process opinions that differ from there own Left/Right manifesto.

What this country really needs is a good Extreme Moderate Presidential Candidate who can bring common sense back to Washington D.C. ...and we can all be sure that this person won't be coming from our own Congress!

Rham Emmoronuel should repudiate himself for stealing an election with the help of Tomczak and Daley, 2 criminals. The Jersey girls endorsed Kerry in '04 therefore making themselves political,duh! No one doen't feel sorry for them,but read what they say, they have become mouthpieces for left wing groups and candidates. I love Rham ,everyday he comes up with pointless and less meaningful arguments. Now he wants to start an argument with Coulter, she will tear him up in a debate. Why doesn't he just debate her and shut up until then. If he is a REAL MAN and not a COWARD Rham should debate her.

"Mr. Speaker, the 9-11 Widows have courageously stood up to demand that we never forget the horror of September 11th."

More like they hysterically demanded those who were least responsible for 9/11 monetarily compensate them for what they seem to think what was their loss alone. They tried to play a ruthless, illogical blame game, attacking their own country, as opposed to the real perpetrators of this tragedy.

When their story, along with their ludicrous claims about how Bush and any/everyone in any position of authority should have known better than to let 19 dark-skinned men get on several different planes, appeared in my local newspaper a couple of years ago, I was shocked that their irrational views were pasted all over several pages, yet no one dared provide any sort of rational rebuttal for fear of being deemed "insensitive."

I wrote a letter to my local newspaper at that time, explaining how I understand they are grieving, but how their crazy comments were irrational accomplished nothing. Was that letter published? Hardly.

Glad someone is finally putting them in their place. Good for Ann. These women had no problem getting out there and criticizing the motives and alleged shortcomings of others, so it seems fair that they should have grown thicker skin to take a little criticism from others, and not forever hide behind their loss to give them some sort of immunity from critique.

Julie Mann … “Good for Ann [Coulter]��?? – the whacko who thinks Nixon and Senator McCarthy were “heroes��?? If you take all the baseless, hate-filled rhetoric out of Coulter's articles, the only thing you'd have left is the punctuation! I like how your type thinks 911 was all the terrorists fault, that the U.S. govt has done nothing over the years to incur Middle Eastern wrath, and that the “busy vacationing��?pre-911 president Bush (who sat listening to a children’s book after the Towers were hit when God knows how many OTHER hijacked planes were still in the air) lies blameless. Pretty convenient finger pointing! Let me guess: You actually believe the government-supported, eight-year-old mentality that there really is a force of pure evil out to mindlessly slaughter Americans just because they hate our freedoms right? Allow me to scatter some rightful blame here ... after I stop laughing:

A simple review of the U.S. government’s foreign policy missteps in the middle east clearly reveals why 911 happened. Because the U.S. government made historical mistakes like: 1) meddling in the affairs of the Iranian government in the late 1970’s by secretly helping to organize protests to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (via the now declassified Operation Ajax) and return the exiled Shah to Iran - the same Shaw spent who billions of dollars on U.S. weapons while also letting his people live in squalor. Since it would get a STEADY SUPPLY OF OIL in return for his reinstatement, the U.S government didn’t care about what the suffering Iranian people wanted. After the American hostages were taken in response and Iranian Revolutionary teams stormed the embassy, they found and displayed secret documents taken from the embassy (sometimes painstakingly reconstructed after shredding) showing that U.S. intelligence was trying to destabilize the new regime. As Ebrahim Asgharzadeh, a former hostage taker, said the move [taking of American hostages] “was just a reaction against the US intervention in our country��?. And had the U.S. government not economically and military supported the Shaw (who trampled Iran's democratic freedoms, dismantled the constitutional limitations on his office and began to rule as an absolute monarch when he returned to power), the Ayatolla Khomeini would never have risen to power in the first place; then there’s 2) getting involved in the Iran/Iraq war instead of just staying the hell out of it, and even worse, playing BOTH SIDES against each other - selling a cache of weapons to the Iranian regime to use against Iraq in exchange for the release of hostages, then sending weapons to the Iraqi government to use against Iran, which indirectly killed one million Iranians in the process; 3) supporting Saddam politically, financially and militarily before the Gulf War - approving private business sales of biological weapon precursors to Iraq according to a 1994 report issued by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs (aka the Riegle Report) - thus sending him weapons the U.S. knew he was possibly killing over 30,000 his own people with; 4) using Afghanistan as a battleground vs. the Soviets and then leaving it in shambles, thus allowing the Taliban to step right into the power vaccume left behind … because it wasn’t so much about helping the Afghanistanis as it was STOPPING THE SOVIETS; 5) promising to help the Shiites who rose up to fight against Saddam in the Gulf war, then just watching from afar as they were mowed down by Saddam’s military when Bush Sr. abruptly stopped fighting mere days short of removing Saddam from power; 6) supporting the humanitarian disaster called “the UN sanctions against Iraq��? after the Gulf War, sanctions we knew damn well weren't working as intended, sanctions that killed 350,000 more Iraqis (10 times more than Saddam killed himself) yet also allowed Saddam to build another 48 palaces while they were in effect; 7) supplying the Israelis with weapons that they’re killing Arabs with, while the other “PR��? side of our face stresses a “peaceful resolution��? to the conflict we’re cashing in on. These reasons don’t include the suffering we caused by starting the recent Iraq War and forcing an American-made democracy on them, at gunpoint, that they NEVER asked for.

Now lets look specifically at Bush and his administration shall we? You’re telling me that, after being directly warned pre-911 by Bill Clinton that Al Queada would be the number 1 priority of the Bush administration, that Bush and his cronies didn’t know the following: 1) The Pentagon commissioned a study in 1993 called "Terrorism 2000", which predicted multiple simultaneous attacks, the use of airplanes as weapons, targeting of large landmarks and financial centers, etc; 2) A FedEx employee had already tried to crash a DC-10 into FedEx HQ in Memphis in 1994, but was apprehended before he could do so; 3) The Library of Congress Report on The Sociology And Psychology Of Terrorism warned in 1999 about suicide hijackers; 4) The Pentagon conducted a drill in December 2000 to respond to an airline crashing into the Pentagon; and 5) There were warnings from Jordanian intelligence in the summer before 911 that a major attack was planned INSIDE the US using airplanes. Do all those vacations STILL sound like a good idea? NOW what do you think of Condoleezza Rice saying, "We could never have anticipated ... a hijacked airplane [being used] as a missile." I’ll bet you believed the President when he said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees��? too!

You've been spoon-fed too much patriotic “freedom and democracy/ the U.S. is ALWAYS right��? b.s. since you were a child. Time to lose the sippy cup and grow up. Oh .. and you might want to read the 911 report sometime too – it makes for an interesting read.

Can anyone really think the repugs would stand up to their own spokeswoman? remember, this is the same woman who said her only problem with Timothy McVeigh was that he bombed the wrong building, and that she endorsed the bombing of Canada. The right stood silent then as well. Facists will never turn on their own.

GODLESS title "hijacked" by Ann Coulter: Christian-right celebrity and author to release book on 6/6/6 which conflicts with established book by the same name. Atheist author Drew Stepek prepares for literary "Holy War."

Los Angeles, CA, May 16th, 2006

Author Drew Stepek, whose book entitled GODLESS has been registered with the Library of Congress since 2001 and who has owned the popular web destination since 2000, has just been informed that Ann Coulter will release a book with the title GODLESS on June 6th, 2006.

Although principle dissuades Drew Stepek from taking legal action against Coulter, he feels Coulter's book perverts and sucks the love out of religion and the open space of the Godless, which is free of prejudices and the burdens of myth. Stepek's book is about the death of God in our society and how it leads an individual down a path of self-destruction, whereas Coulter's book is a stab at the Democratic and Liberal society of the Godless.

"If I wrote a book called BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN for the purpose of promoting hatred of gay people," Stepek says citing the popular gay novel, "I think that it would represent a perverted violation of the original literary work."

Drew Stepek's GODLESS (ISBN# 0978602412) will be released as a second edition by ALPHAR publishing on June 6th, 2006, the same day as Coulter's GODLESS (ISBN# 1400054206) is being released by Crown Forum. Both books will be available in bookstores and online. Although an underground success in atheist and eating disorder communities, Stepek has never before officially released GODLESS to the mass public. For more information about Stepek's novel, look to

ALPHAR will proceed with releasing Drew's important book despite Ms. Coulter's attempt to pervert and ride on Drew's patient career. "The power of an idea (or God) is revealed by its fruits," says Dr. Thomas Moore of ALPHAR. "We have been working productively with Drew. Stepek since early last winter, His purpose isn't politically or opportunistically motivated. He has been with the title GODLESS for a very long time."

Ann Coulter = Michael Moore. The republicans did a great job of tying Michael Moore to the party and now the Democrats are trying to do the same with Ann. Does anyone even remember that John McCain (R) and Joe Lieberman (D) worked together on the bill to create the 9-11 commission. Both of them praised these woman for their bravery and used them to push through there bill. If anything those two men should have been the first ones to stand up and defend the Jersey Girls. Ann has the right to her opinions and also has freedom of speech. I think its soo funny how people get so upset when I bring up freedom of speech because they say she is using hate speech. People need to remember that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to shut off your brain when someone says something. So instead of reacting which is what she wants people need to use their brains. Both parties use person events to champion a cause. I think we all do that in a sense. We react by our past experiences and that part of life. The Jersey girls supported Kerry and yes that did bring them into the political spotlight so in a sense Ann is right but no one said they are off limits, as Ann proved. There where also people on stage with Bush during the Republican National Convention in 2004. I heard Ann defend that saying that it was OK because they where defending the President. Again I disagree with her. We have a president not a King and if he is going to have people who experienced tragedy to help him then she should be just as angry with him. If you look back at history you will see this is nothing new. It is new that we are talking about it though

Wondering how to deal with the Coultergeist? Try this ...

Just stop talking about A** C******.

Really. Stop altogether.

The best way of dealing with the phenomenon is silence and dismissal.

Don't buy her books, don't read her work, don't review it, don't discuss it, don't discuss her. If you happen to be a professional member of the chattering classes, don’t appear with her on talk shows, don't engage her in debate, dialogue, arguments, faces-offs or whatever. And when the subject of A** C****** comes up - disregard it. If asked about her, ignore the question calmly; wait patiently for the next question on another subject. Pressed for an opinion, yield none. Charged with being “afraid to engage��? the issue, smile and wait. The best public statement on A** C****** is DEAD AIR.

Make some.

Then, move on - and leave her ranting to her choir.

More even than on the cheers of her sad supporters, the creature lives for and feeds on the outrage of the easily-baited.

And no productive purpose is served by feeding its need for that attention.

Don't be so weak as to succumb to her provocations. You have better uses for your time and energy.

We all do.


And when others raise the question of what to do about A** C****** ... say, “nothing.��?

Or ... just say nothing at all.

I thank the Representative for his comments.

I sincerely believe that not only should the Republican Party publicly repudiate Ms. Coulter, but so should everyone else.

The American Family cannot condone her farce anymore.

+Bishop James Wilkowski

What kind of bishop are you mr. political pulpit, wheres your imput on a matter that really means something like abortion. Mr man o'the cloth. Instead you write about Ann Coulter, all she is entertainment. You dodge the real issues, you hypocrite!

Just what we need a Bishop who defends the party of abortion , how nice! Your a real piece of work. What kind of Bishop preaches partisian politics? Tha American family cant take Ann Coulter ,but it can take Abortion, Priests molesting kids , and Micheal Moore, George Soros and the rest of the Wacko left. Bishop like you the ladies politicized their views making them , political. How rediculious is this , a bishop who blurts out this non sense no wonder the catholic church is in serious trouble. Then states he is a bishop , why to hide behind it? Then no one can critize you ? Those girls are fair to be critized and they supported ,like you a candidate of abortion and homosexual marriage. Tha American family cannot condone her, who are you to say that? God? Blasphamy! i am a catholic and emmbarassed by people like you. Talk about god and love as a bishop, talk about politics as James Wilkowski.

I like Ann. Go to her website and read some of the examples of Hate-filled Dmocratic bashing of Republicans from over the years. I don't condone her vicious rhetoric against Democrats, but I certainly understand where it is coming from. Democrats and all of the main stream media have been given a pass over the years as they tried to brainwash and desensitize those Americans that are less aware of the their gradual manipulations. As to Rahm. He is a joke. Only a state that would elect the likes of him, Barack, and Commisar Durbin would even listen to his ignorance. I would love to see any member of the congrssional liberals debate Ann. She is not only witty; She is a constitutional attorney and she would eat them alive in an unfettered debate. Folks, you have been lied to for years by your government and most of all, the main stream media. At least Ann's grinding axe is clear for all to see. Unfortunately, that can't be said of most college professors, the media, and even our state school administrators. As to the widows, clap them off the stage along with Cindy Sheehan.

More importantly, why is Rahm going to step down from the DCCC??

Leave a comment

Get the Sweet widget

More widgets


Lynn Sweet

Lynn Sweet is a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times.

Stay in touch

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Lynn Sweet published on June 15, 2006 10:17 AM.

Rep. Louise Slaughter: GOP moves to stifle today's House debate on Iraq War. Is this resolution necessary? was the previous entry in this blog.

Bush: On campaign trail in New Mexico, Washington State. House Iraq vote this morning. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.