Faithful reader NinjaR raised an interesting query t'other day. To wit: "Air America's latest is to play the sound of recorded gunshots being 'fired' at the President of the United States." Besides the person targeted (POTUS), how is this any different than when Coulter calls for the killing of liberals?"
The Coulter quote in question:
Interviewer: You've caught a lot of heat for a couple of quotes you made. In your column three days after 9/11, you said, "We know who the homicidal maniacs are.They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
You also said in an interview with the New York Observer, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." Do you stand by those quotes or do you think that perhaps you should have phrased them differently?
Ann Coulter: ...Of course I regret it. I should have added, "after everyone had left the building except the editors and reporters."
First, I don't believe that Air America or Ann Coulter seriously advocate or endorse killing anyone; that said, the devil is in the details... the difference (and it's a very big difference) is that making "threatening" comments about the President can be unlawful... not necessarily so with the news staff of the NYT.
Therefore, it seems to me that one is far more serious and in possible need of investigation than the other. Is the President more important than news scribes? Well, yes... an attack on a president or a judge, a cop or a crusading prosecutor is an attack on all of us, on the fabric of the nation and our freedom. An attack on a reporter is merely an assault in comparison.
That brings us to "bomb throwers"... Coulter is a bombthrower, faithful reader Yotanka over at A Collective of Thoughts http://www.jenmartinez.com/mt/ hurls explosives, as do I on occasion.
For example... one walks a fine line calling people "traitors" as I have... it's an emotional charge, but also a very high crime--one very hard to prove, as well it should be. Calling Baghdad Jim McDermott a "traitor" is technically incorrect, but it certainly is satisfying.... plus it stimulates dialog and disagreement... as this has.
Another facet... what's funny? I heard the gunfire bit on Air America and it was not only in bad taste, but it was a poorly written attempt at humor.... "AAARP... American Association of Armed Retired People."... hardee-har-har. Think about it, when was the last time Ann Franken or Janeane Garofalo said anything approaching funny?
Coulter has great timing, is incredibly agile and quick in a verbal joust and writes the way she talks... an formidable arsenal of skills. The point being, she can pull it off whereas a Michael Savage or Franken or Randi Rhodes are merely angry, ranting talking heads.