Dear Joe Scarborough:

[The Witch]

I saw you at 9 this morning and I thought I should point out a few things.

1) It doesn't happen on both sides. You kept saying it did. But you never gave an example. OK, you gave ONE example. You said that when Ann Coulter says John Edwards should die, she gets flak, but when Bill Maher says the world would be better off if Dick Cheney died, he gets applause. Which brings me to my next point:

2) There's a slight difference between what Ann said and what Bill said. Ann said John Edwards should die for no reason at all. Bill said the world would be better off if Dick Cheney died because Dick Cheney is directly responsible for so many deaths in the world--that is true whether or not you feel those deaths were justified--and there may (or may not) be some equity there.

3) Finally, you said, "The sad thing is that Ann will use it to sell more books." If you truly find this sad, can I point out a way it could be remedied? Perhaps she wouldn't get in these on-air scuffles if she wasn't on air. And yet you and your friend Chris (who was on the bottom half of the screen at 9 am) keep putting her on the air. Why not, um, I dunno, STOP?

Love,

The Witch

[Catherine Vincent]

1. He and other right wing goons is the reason Ssssssscoulter does what she does.

They continue to make excuses for her or defend her. Idiots.

[janetblond]

2. I hope there's a petition

and Hardball is taken OFF the air.
WORSE than Imus!

[babylonsister]

3. And then to hear Buchanan singing her praises; it's enough to make you

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[OHdem10]

4. I like Chris Matthews but he gave Ann Coulter a platform

to continue to confirm the misinformation and lies
that some Americans still believe. Lies about Sadam
and World Trade Center --the whole pack of lies about
reasons' for going to war.

Coulter is free to believe all the stupid lies she
wants to believe but Matthews had a responsiblity
to say. ANN, you are wrong -- I cannot allow you
to continue to mislead American People who follow
you.

Her personal attack are abominable. She would not be
on TV without this scheme. The other material of hers
would not get enough attention.

Ratings at any price--even if it hurts our country.

[iloverhetoric]

5. Reply to "Dear Joe Scarborough"

Thank you to "The Witch" who wrote the open letter to Scarborough who this week gave Ann Coulter another forum in which to twist the truth. I was one of the "hundreds" who e-mailed Scarborough that morning, and without mentioning my name, he did mention the e-mail I sent him. "Mention," however, is the wrong verb. He sneered, mocked, and insulted me when referencing my e-mail in which I questioned why he was defending Ann Coulter's name calling (specifically about John Edwards), a tactic that I pointed out is never considered part of logic or fair argumentation (clearly I hit a nerve since after calling me a moron, he scoffed, "As if she knows more than I do"). Yes, folks, his response to my entirely civil request to not defend name callers like Ann Coulter by putting her on the show was to turn around and call me a name! I was amazed at the vindictiveness of his response, frankly, when I thought at times he could be fair. But that morning, his screed against all the "losers" and "leftwingers" was unbelievably bitter and mean and childish (this man was once in Congress, too). I also thought it was interesting he highlighted my email on the air — in which I did not call him derogatory names as he said so many of the others did, yet did resort to good old logic and fairness — which appeared to infuriate him (along with the fact I told him I knew a little bit about logic and argumentation, having taught it)! He responded by insulting me, calling me a moron (I'm Phi Beta Kappa, by the way, not that it matters, but moron I'm not!). Mika, his news reader, chuckled as he spewed out his insults. Go figure. I was disappointed that after he continued with the ad hominem attacks, Mika said, "I do understand your point" (about his allowing Coulter a chance to put her remarks in context). But, when is name calling ever allowed "a context" in so-called civil discourse? How can you explain away ad hominem attacks in a fair and logical argument? That was my question then — and now. Even if Coulter used sarcasm, as she said she did, in reference to the terrorist remark about Edwards, then how does that explain away her original remark in reference to him? Or her passing herself off as a serious commentator by insulting people on their looks, their weight, or their dead relatives? How can any of that be explained away in a logical, fair way? It can't. Scarborough certainly knows that at some level, but clearly would prefer not to be called out on it. And when he is, his response is to call people names. His reward? A forum on MSNBC. Yes, I'll be switching the channel.