by Alan Colmes
Kathy Ireland, the former supermodel and current entrepreneur, came on Hannity & Colmes, on July 10, 2002, and we got into it on the abortion issue.
COLMES: Where are you liberal? Give me an example of where you're liberal.
IRELAND: I'm very liberal when it comes to protecting the human rights of the unborn.
COLMES: Unfortunately the government has no place in having anything to say about what women do with their bodies, because. . .
IRELAND: Is it her body? . . . the evidence I see tells me that the unborn is a human being. If you can show me any evidence that the unborn is not a human being . . .
COLMES: When? When does it become ... I mean, is it at conception? Is that when it happens?
IRELAND: At the moment of conception, a new life comes into being with the complete genetic blueprints. The fingerprint is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined.
Throwing around words like life and human being and equating them with a zygote is disingenuous. Sperm is life, too. Should we be outraged every time some sperm is allowed to die? If a fetus is the same thing as a human being, why is it that our laws, when abortion was illegal, didn't treat the destruction of the fetus as a felony? As long as a fetus is dependent on another human being, the host body, for survival, and is part of that human being, what sense does it make to advocate for government control of that part of a woman's body? (And by "dependent" I'm not referring to what that word means on a W2 form.) A fetus is not an "individual," it is part of a woman's body that may, eventually, become another human being. Eventually. Should there be separate rights for my arm?
Kathy Ireland reappeared on Hannity & Colmes on September 30, 2002, to continue the argument, and this time we delved into the legal aspect:
COLMES: Well, we have a system of laws and a Supreme Court decision that does not define life the way you do. So legally, that's not how it would be defined. If you want to define it that way for your personal—that's how you want to do it, that's fine, but that's not the standing law of this country.
IRELAND: If you can, Alan, if you can show me evidence that the unborn is not a human being, I will gladly join the pro-choice side. If you can show me any evidence. It's very clear and simple.
Welcome aboard, Kathy. Just see the paragraph above.
From: Samuel O.
Sent: Monday, September 30,2002 I 1:06 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: Kathy Ireland got it right!
Alan:
Shame on you for trying to hide behind the law! At one time the law of the land was; only landowners could vote, a slave was not a human but property, and if you were a woman you did not have the right to vote.
How dare I "hide behind the law"! I don't know how to quite break this news to those who like to use the old, tired, slavery argument to deny a woman a right to make a personal choice, but, and let me speak very loudly here: SLAVES WERE ALREADY BORN! There is a difference between the born and the unborn. That's why the born are called "born." Former surgeon general Joycelyn Elders incurred the wrath of the right when she said, "We would like for the right-to-life and antichoice groups to really get over their love affair with the fetus and start supporting the children." In some cases, she was right. If conception begins at birth, why don't they celebrate "birthdays" nine months earlier than they do? Can a fetus get life insurance? Why don't lovers coo, "Fetus I Love You?" I can't get that Supremes song out of my head, "Fetus Love." I fully expect that one day the word baby will become obsolete and upon seeing newborns we'll exclaim, "What a beautiful postpartum fetus you have there." Of course, if I were to refer to antichoicers who come on our show as "overgrown fetuses," I don't think they'd like it very much.
And, yes, it's "choice" and "antichoice," not "life" and "pro-life." Since when do they get to dictate the language? I'm for a woman's right to choose. They're not. They have cleverly injected the word life into the argument to make those who support women's rights appear to be heartless "antilife" scolds. And yet they have no problem supporting a death penalty culture that has likely snuffed out innocent lives since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. This culture accounts for 4.5 innocent Americans reaching death row each year and that has seen more than a hundred people released from prison since 1973 after being wrongly convicted. They'll say a baby is innocent and a criminal isn't. But they're still supporting death for the already-born, and in extreme cases they're not supporting life for mothers who have to make a torturous choice for themselves. But those choices should belong to them and not to the government.
Here's another argument I love from the antiabortion crowd: "A woman has a 'choice' every time she opens her legs and has sex with a man. That's where she's made her choice." Yes, and you have a "choice" not to be a sexist male who takes no responsibility for a man's role in lovemaking. You probably think birth control is purely a woman's responsibility, as are the laundry and dishes.
From: specialtalk
Sent: Sunday, January 07,2001 9:38 AM
To: Colmes
Subject: What are you?
Are you a homo? Do you molest children? Are you married to a black woman? Would you donate more of your income to the govt.? Do you help women get abortions? If you answered no to any of these questions then you are indeed a liar and a first rate hypocrite about being liberal.
I actually have great empathy with those who disagree with me on abortion, and I realize that to many it is literally an issue of life and death. It is a great debate that will continue, regardless of what the courts eventually decide about Roe v. Wade. Changes in the law, however, will not result in changes in behavior, as evidenced by the fact that women sought abortions even before they were legal in America, albeit under less safe and more emotionally trying conditions.
We all occasionally say the darndest things. That is our right, even if there are some among us who abuse the privilege. Speaking of which, will someone please tell our commander in chief that it's "nuclear" and not "nucular"? Thanks.
TEN
Conservatives Are Downright Mean
Liberals are nicer than conservatives. They just are. They want to give to the poor, help the homeless, and fight corporate greed. And what do they get for all this? Mocked. Conservatives love to make fun of liberals by joking about how they sit around all day singing "Kumbaya." We're alternately called "naive," "out of touch" and "idealistic." During wartime, you can throw in "traitors," "appeasers," and "anti-American."
It would be ideal if we could actually agree to disagree and disagree without being disagreeable. It would be especially nice if those who conduct the dialogue on the national stage could maintain such decorum. This was definitely not the case when Indiana congressmen Dan Burton, during Clinton's Monica Lewinksy troubles, declared: "If I could prove 10 percent of what I believe happened, he'd [Clinton] be gone. This guy's a scumbag. That's why I'm after him." Not an example of the milk of human kindness coursing through the veins.
Wouldn't it be nice if we were truly "America united"? The most insightful and profound statement of the last decade was uttered by Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?" Is this something to be mocked or something to be celebrated as an ideal toward which to strive? (The second greatest statement was made by the former mayor of Washington D.C., Marion Barry, when he proclaimed: "Bitch set me up." You just don't get such pith every day.)
Conservatives and Me
My e-mail inbox is usually overflowing with messages from conservatives who tell me, in no uncertain terms, how they feel about me. Maybe this means I'm doing my job. Some of them are concurrently sad and comical.
From: Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, September 06,2000 6:18 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: (no subject)
I have never listened to anyone or any liberal who could piss me off more than you. Even looking at you I can tell your mother must of Bitched slapped you at birth.Yours & all your little liberal constituents way of thinking is so irrationa
l... you are a Disease in this society.... I hope someday that this country will come to it's senses and open season on all Liberals & put a bounty on all of you.
Does this e-mail prove conservatives are mean people? Not at all. How about a barrage of these, daily? Not proof, but certainly an indication.
Even a conservative who writes me an ostensibly positive e-mail can have a mean streak:
From: Ned
Sent: Wednesday, January 01,2003 10:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Alan,
As a staunch conservative, liking you annoys me.
Ned
East Haven, CT
Or how about Oscar's early Valentine to me?
From: Oscar
Sent: Saturday, February 08,2003 I 1:02 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: Just a thought
Hey Mr. Colmes;
You probably piss me off more than any one person I can think of lately.
But, in your defense, someone has to ask the hard questions to keep the other side in touch with itself.
So, begrudgingly.good job!
Oscar
Jersey City, NJ
I know conservatives think they're nicer than liberals and that liberals are the mean ones. That's delusional. And I speak from personal experience. My e-mails and some personal encounters with conservatives have not always been heartwarming. Liberals are more open to change, including changing their minds; conservatives have a certainty about their views that liberals don't often display. And conservatives are much better at vilifying their enemies. And while conservatives may truly believe their policies are better for America, it's my view that liberal policies help the greater number of people, especially those who need it most.
Every day I am confronted by strangers who candidly express their feelings about my job performance. It is surreal. When Hannity & Colmes first started, I was known primarily for my radio work. I love the intimacy of radio and its ability to paint pictures with sound, and I appreciated the irony that while it got my name and my views out there, it kept me relatively unrecognized to the outside world. Being seen on television nightly has changed all that. Although the e-mails I receive lean toward the vituperative, when 1 unexpectedly come face-to-face with viewers, they're generally pleasant and polite. But there have been a few notable exceptions. These exceptions show that some people can be downright mean.
My first face-to-face encounter with a less-than-satisfied viewer came one day, early on, when I was merrily walking along Manhattan's Sixth Avenue
, not far from Fox News, minding my own business. A well-dressed businessman stopped me and said, "You're Alan Colmes, aren't you?" This was going to be fun—a little acknowledgment for my work, now that I was a little more recognizable. "Well, you're awful," blasted my admirer. And he quickly walked away. Most people don't have to face such direct analysis of their work. Tool and die makers don't have to hear, "This equipment is just awful." Even restaurant cooks don't get told off so boldly, although too many waitpersons have to bear die brunt of disgruntled customers.
More recently I was headed to work on a New York subway train when a man looked at me and shouted, "You're too liberal." This seemed mean. I responded by saying, "Thanks for letting me know," but then wondered if I should have responded at all or tried to talk to him about why he felt he could heckle a total stranger. If he had said, "I really think you're wrong about Bush 43," or "Your views on affirmative action really put me off," I could understand that as an effort to communicate a point of view. But shouting "You're too liberal" is not quite an invitation to further dialogue. What am I supposed to say? "You're right. You've convinced me. I'm changing my liberal ways"? Once, while I was on the short boat ride between the Caribbean islands of St. Martin and Anguilla, a gentleman remarked that he watched my show. Wow, not only was I being recognized, but so far from Sixth Avenue
! I thanked him, shook his hand, and then offered my hand to his wife. She curtly protested that she didn't care to shake my hand, as I was too liberal for her. I hope she stays away from weddings, bar mitzvahs, and confirmations. You never know when some liberal DNA might rub off on you when you're walking the receiving line.
Not all conservatives are mean. I'd like to believe that most of them are like Sal here:
From: Sal
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 2:48 AM
To: Colmes
Subject: Thanks Alan!
Dear Alan,
I try and watch your show every night because even though I seldom agree with anything you say,... I am still very impressed with your intelligence, devotion, and articulation in presenting the opinions you believe in. Fortunately we are blessed with living in this great country and have the ability to respectfully agree to disagree.
You are one of the few people with far left beliefs that I would love to kick back and have a cold adult beverage with ...
Best Regards,
Sal
Where Right Couldn't Be More Wrong
Many conservatives aren't only mean, they're smug. They truly believe they're wiser, better informed, and smarter than liberals. Then House majority leader Dick Armey, during a campaign event for Katherine Harris in Florida on September 20, 2002, was asked why the Jewish community is divided between liberals and conservatives. Of course, the proper answer is that every community is divided between liberals and conservatives (okay, maybe not certain parts of Idaho). Instead, Armey replied, "I always see two Jewish communities in America, one of deep intellect and one of shallow, superficial intellect." He said conservatives have a deeper intellect and tend toward "occupations of the brain" like engineering, science, and economics and that liberals work in "occupations of the heart."
In a September 24 news conference, during which he tried to defend his Jewish comments, Armey was kind enough to invoke my name:
You can go back, Richard Diamond found me on Hannity & Colmes with Mr. Colmes discussing this same point. Mr. Colmes didn't like it. I can't help you. Liberals are, in my estimation, just not bright people. They don't think deeply. They don't comprehend. They don't understand a partial derivative. They have a narrow educational base as opposed to the hard scientists.
Richard Diamond was his press secretary, so it's good that he was able to find his boss on Hannity & Colmes.
Dick Armey, of course, is the same man who called fellow congressman Barney Frank, "Barney Fag," and chalked it up to a slip of the tongue. How does one glide from "Frank" to "fag" by just a slip of the tongue? I have never, ever said to someone, "Let me be fag with you." And I never went to a ballpark and in the sixth inning ordered a "fagfurter."
On the issue of whether liberals or conservatives are smarter, strong opinions abound:
From: Marie
Sent: Monday, April 02,2001 2:04 AM
To: Colmes
Subject: (no subject)
You're actually worst than the whore you partner with.
From: Colmes
Sent: Monday, April 02,2001 2:10 PM
To: Marie
Subject: RE:(no subject)
Marie,
I think you mean "worse," not "worst." "Worst" pertains to three or more, while "worse" is used when you are comparing two items. I am "worse" than the whore I partner with, not "worst."
Thank you.
Alan
Treason versus Reason
From: Nighthawk
Sent: Tuesday, October 29,2002 9:19 PM
To: Colmes
Subject: (no subject)
I HATE YOUR GUTS LIB!! YOU AND THE REST OF YOUR TREASONOUS BUDDIES NEED TO DO THE REST OF US REAL AMERICANS A FAVOR. LEAVE AND DONT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And your point is . . . ? I'm not sure, but maybe a few more exclamation points will help. And while we're at it, Nighthawk, you might want to know what treason is before you accuse your fellow Americans of it. Here's the constitutional definition in Article III S
ection 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Entire books have been written about how rotten liberals are, most notably the book Treason by Ann Coulter. Witness this piece of inclusive loveliness: ". . . liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. Fifty years of treason hasn't slowed them down." If that isn't specific enough, how about, "Liberals relentlessly attack their own country, but we can't call them traitors, which they manifestly are. . . . The inevitable logic of the liberal position is to be for treason."
On June 25, 2003, Coulter appeared on Hannity & Colmes to defend her thesis. I tried to find out exactly who today is an American traitor:
COLMES: Are you prepared to accuse any liberal of treason? You want to point the finger to anyone in particular and say this person is guilty of committing that crime?
COULTER: Keep talking. I might be able to point the finger at you.
COLMES: Am I guilty of it?
COULTER: What was your position on the war in Iraq?
