Skip to main content

Since Coulter has now spoken of taking "a shot at Clinton," presumably she will soon be visited by the Secret Service. After all, Clinton is under their protection. And we know the Secret Service takes any threat very seriously. For example, they saddled up in response to the idea that some high school kids were merely planning to sing the exact words of a 40-year old Bob Dylan song.

Contact information for the Secret Service is here. Presumably Coulter's threat would fall under the jurisdiction of the DC field office (202-406-8000). Concerned citizens should do their patriotic duty and make sure the government is aware of this assassination threat against a Secret Service protectee. Call now. CPAC is going on today, in DC, until about 6 PM. Presumably the Secret Service would want to appear there promptly to make sure that no other CPAC speakers are making further threats against SS protectees.

Also, CPAC is not some minor, fringe event. Cheney spoke at their opening banquet Thursday night. Other major Republican figures were on the schedule, including at least four senators. (The full CPAC conference schedule is here. )

Therefore, every Republican leader associated with CPAC should be asked the following questions:

The Secret Service investigated teenagers in Colorado who sang the exact lyrics of a 40-year old Bob Dylan song. When can we expect the Secret Service to investigate Ann Coulter for stating her wish to take "a shot at Clinton?"

Why were you willing to share a venue with a speaker who called Muslims "ragheads," and who publicly stated a wish to take "a shot at Clinton?" Are you still willing to participate in further CPAC events, even though they welcome speakers such as Coulter?

Given that inflammatory cartoons are front-page news, and given that Bush has recently called for civility in political discourse, these questions would be highly appropriate for tomorrow's talking-head shows.

Concerned citizens may want to contact media to remind them of the importance of these questions.

Originally posted to jukeboxgrad on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:17 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  For others' convenience: (none)
    Coulter on killing Bill Clinton:

    (Responding to a question from a Catholic University student about her biggest moral or ethical dilemma)

    "There was one time I had a shot at Clinton. I thought 'Ann, that's not going to help your career.'"

    that's it? big deal, IMO.

    Free Donuts + Beer Tax Repeal = Landslide Victory '08!

    by PhillyGal on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:27:04 AM PST

    •  I agree (none)
      I thought it was more that she had a chance to engage the presidential willy.  But if that's true, my opinion of Bill just took a direct hit. Ewww...

      One-issue voters get what they deserve. -6.25 -5.69

      by Heiuan on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 08:52:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  They had their shot (none)
     The BJ Impeachment cluster.... was their best shot, and yet Clinton remains to many a very beloved former Pres.. I'm willing to bet Clinton could have won a 3rd term by a landslide if he had been allowed to run.  BAnne C. is just another Pat R., totally off her nut.
  •  I don't know... (none)
    ...I read max's blog about it and her comment about having a "shot" at clinton could have been a sexual reference.  That maybe she secretly wanted to jump his bones.  <ugh>  Man...that is a very distasteful visual right there.  Sorry guys.

    I can't wait til they start making us wear armbands.

    by DawnG on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:39:46 AM PST

  •  Ann Coulter is an American Traitor... (none)
    The Secret Service should be very concerned about the impact of threats by individuals like Ann Coulter. Unfortunately, there is a percentage of the population that are phychologically predisposed to responding to this kind of language. It's this kind of language that killed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I believe it's also this kind of language that killed President Jack Kennedy. Ann Coulter may laugh all the way to the bank with her hefty speaking fees...but this is tantoment to TREASON.
  •  interesting slip (none)
    on one of the quotes:
    Coulter on the Supreme Court:

    "If we find out someone [referring to a terrorist] is going to attack the Supreme Court next week, can't we tell Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalito?"

    I imagine she said Scalia, but, who knows, perhaps not.

    "...no weapons of mass destruction over there, but Coretta knew and we know that there are weapons of misdirection right down here." -Rev. Lowery

    by Cecile on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 06:43:01 AM PST

  •  More CPAC coverage (none)
    Good first-person accounts here: http://www.campusprogress.org/...
  •  much as I would love... (none)
    to see Ann Coulter subjected to the "thrills" of our federal corrections system, I don't think her comment could even be vaguely taken as a "threat." If anything, you could interpret it as her saying that shooting Clinton would be wrong.

    But hey, if you or anyone else can make a case against her, go for it.

    I do want to thank you for the tip on the "Masters of War" incident. I've performed that song a kajillion times, and I would consider it a badge of honor for someone to be outraged by it enough to notify the Secret Service.

    -8.25, -6.26 ...it ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

    by snookybeh on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 07:37:28 AM PST

    •  Secret Service... (none)
      ... track record shows that they offer no slack based on the idea that a comment was only a "joke."

      It's also relevant to take into account that in the same speech, she suggested burning down the Supreme Court. When this kind of speech gets a standing ovation, complacency is not the right reaction.

      •  I dig... (none)
        I know the SS (I bet they hate it when they're referred to as the "SS") takes the jokes seriously; and if Coulter had made a comment more in line with her "joking" death threat against John Paul Stevens, I'd say bust her skinny transexual ass. I just don't think that the comment she made about Clinton can really be taken as a "threat," joke or otherwise, in and of itself.

        But, you say "potato," etc. I'd love it if I were completely wrong, and the SS brought her in for questioning.

        You probably have a stronger point regarding the pattern of her comments in various speeches. She seems to make repeated comments that come close to being either threats or incitements to others to take violent action, which seem to go over like gangbusters with the knuckle-dragging wingnut crowd.  Given that leaders of white supremacist groups have been successfully prosecuted for using incendiary language that led to followers actually committing violent acts, perhaps a case could be made that we shouldn't wait for Coulter's remarks to bear violent fruit.

        Really, I'm all for anything that'll inconvenience and embarrass the hell out of her, if nothing else. Anything more than that would be sweet, sweet creme brulee...

        -8.25, -6.26 ...it ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:46:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  IGNORE HER (none)
    The worst thing we could do to Annthrax is to ignore her.

    Treat her like Fred Phleps, a crackpot, to be laughed at, but not to be given any attention.

    That would kill her.

    So, I will no longer read anything about her, and we should all stop making diaries about her too.

    Ann who?

    •  Sorry, I disagree (none)
      It's one thing to ignore her. It's something else to ignore the fact that screaming crowds adore her. Ignoring all this doesn't make it go away. Shining a spotlight on it makes it go away.
      •  you are correct... (none)
        I wonder how many people chose to "ignore" Hitler - that didn't work out too well. Shine a light on the damn cockroaches.

        Sorry, I guess I just broke that law about making Hitler/Nazi references. Game over!! ;-)

        -8.25, -6.26 ...it ain't "schadenfreude" if the bastards deserve it. this is infidelica...

        by snookybeh on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:49:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  CPAC is a far right-wing outfit (none)
    Also, CPAC is not some minor, fringe event. Cheney spoke at their opening banquet Thursday night.

    They are out of the mainstream and quite frankly, I'm surprised the Vice-President of the United States would give credibility to such a group that's too the right of Stalin.  

    I'm sorry, but these Republicans and TV idiots are always saying how any Dem./liberal/progressive group is "out of the mainstream" and is "fringe, far left."  Why are their stupid groups, which aren't that much different than some breeding ground for mindless terrorists, be set up with the above sentence you wrote

  •  Just a thought (none)
    but don't you think that if Bill Clinton put in a request that Coultergeist be "investigated" for her/his hate-mongering the Secret Service would take it more seriously?

    And along the same lines, why didn't Justice Stevens take any kind of action on his behalf after Coultergeist suggested putting poison in his dessert?

    I mean, I don't have any trouble trying to rid our political environment of such WMD (weapons of mass deception) but we seem to only feed the beast's ego.

    If Clinton and Stevens came out and made comments publically denouncing such behavior and demanding an apology, THEN we might just get somewhere.

    Besides...I remember hearing Clinton one time (I think it was on Oprah!) say the the repubs will continue with their "way" of conducting politics until they are stopped.  Plain and simple.

    Well, here we have a situation where Clinton is used over and over and over again, and does HE try to "stop" them?  

    I don't get it.  

    •  Feeding ego (none)
      if you're concerned that it's not a good idea to "feed the beast's ego," then the last thing you want to see happen is have Coulter's remarks gain prominence as the result of a personal response by Clinton.

      When the G-men went to harass the kid with the guitar, it wasn't as a result of Bush making a personal complaint. At least it certainly wasn't the result of Bush making such a complaint publicly . It was a result of citizens complaining. That's the model that should apply here.

      •  Point taken... (none)
        but if it would feed her ego to be slapped with a lawsuit by Justice Stevens or Clinton or whomever else she wants to point at, then I say let's do it.

        At least then she'd have to spend a lot of the cash she's making.  (that, I'm sure, would really piss her off)

        And, I think it would be great to have prominent people (the very "victims" of her vileness) step up and fight back.

        I don't know.  It could also backfire like the Fox lawsuit against Al Franken...but it might not either.  Fox was just trying to be a bully.  A civil suit against Coultergeist has merit.  S/he is being socially irresponsible by using her/his platform and outreach for inciting and even encouraging violence and murder of her/his fellow citizens.

        Not only that, but if Clinton and Stevens (etc) began fighting back, then perhaps her/his reputation would actually be tarnished enough to make NBC (etc) think twice about having her/him on as a legitimate "mouthpiece" anymore.

        Then again, what do I know?  ;-)  My husband always tells me that I'm too idealistic..!

  •  Bush "christians" love her! (none)

    It's time to be a Democrat!

    by annefrank on Sat Feb 11, 2006 at 09:23:41 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site