NJ assemblywomen call for boycott of new Coulter book

Phillyburbs/AP ^ | 6/8/06 | staff

[pissant]

TRENTON, N.J. - Commentator Ann Coulter's incendiary words about outspoken 9/11 widows have led two state lawmakers to calls for a boycott of her book in the widows' home state of New Jersey.

Assemblywomen Joan M. Quigley, D-Hudson, and Linda Stender, D-Union, on Thursday called on New Jerseyans to stop buying the book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and for retailers in the state to stop selling it.

"Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books. By making these claims, she proved herself worse than those she is attempting to vilify - she is a leach trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others," the two assemblywomen said in a statement.

A spokeswoman for Crown Forum, the publisher of Coulter's book, did not immediately return calls for comment Thursday.

In her new book, Coulter writes that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

The comments drew criticism Wednesday from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who said the book should be called "Heartless," and New York's Republican Gov. George Pataki, who said he was stunned by the remarks.

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show and stuck by her stance, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point."

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

The women - Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza - have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack. During the 2004 presidential race, they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

[Skooz]

Yeah, I guess so. Seems to be a lot of others here though who havn't read it yet who are standing behind her comments. I read a quote. If the quote is inaccurate that's one thing. Someone said it was out of context so they must know the context.

And some who haven't read the book are excoriating her for her comments.

The fact is that, unless they have read the book, neither side has a clue what they are getting so upset about.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But this business of the Left using spokesmen who cannot be countered because they are "untouchable" has to end.

Max Cleland came to mind too. Actually, Ann was ahead of her time here. Poor old Cleland blew himself up and up until losing his Senate seat he was very humble about it until the Left needed a cripple to advance their poisonous agenda.

Cleland was only too happy to oblige being a tool for the Rats, and when Ann called him on it, she was attacked for "picking on a wounded Vietnam vet" by Sen. Jack Reed and other Rats/MSM liberals.

Socialists use the weak, the down-trodden, and the grief-stricken like pantyhose to advance the socialist agenda. When they get in power, these people, like the Joisey gals, will be the first ones to be sacrificed and hung out to dry.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Perhaps the spectacle of their suffering will cause another mother somewhere down the road to pause before embarking on a moonbat journey.

good point, xenalyte. Very good point.

My grandfather always said, "Even an idiot can do good--by being an example of how not to behave." (or something like that!)

[wideawake]

The frustrating thing is that there are about 25-30 other 9/11 widows who live within a five minute drive of Kristen Breitweiser who have never exploited the media at all and have not allied themselves with her.

[pissant]

Yep, and Ann cover that topic in her book.

[Melas]

When Ann Coulter wrote, and I quote: "And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce" she was not lying - she was asking a question

Oh please, you can't be that naive. It was not a question it was a barb that was meant to wound. It might have been phrased as a question but only a fool would consider it an actual interogative. In this particular case, questioning the love of a departed spouse, it was one of the foulest attacks upon anyone I've ever read. I'm disgusted that more FReepers can't see how vile this comment really was.

[republicofdavis]

I will just say, as I've said on another thread, that I don't care whether she's over the top or not. What I care about is that this issue has drowned out the main premises of her book. She had a real opportunity to reach a vast audience and make her case about her thesis. I'm sure that the Jersey Girls issue is a tiny part of her argument but it's getting all the attention and most likely turning off some who might have been interested in her arguments.

What if everybody was arguing about her position that abortion is the liberal sacrement? Wouldn't that be a more effective use of her time and the country's attention. Instead, she gave her opponents an opportunity to distract her from her main topic.

[Recovering_Democrat]

That's why Coulter's not married: men picture themselves on the receiving end of that and want no part of it.

That seems pretty personal, sinkspur. Do you know something we all don't about Ann's personal life? ;-)

[Dante3]

The left has made vicious, outrageous attacks on Ann Coulter by the left - not argued her position but slander her as a person. No one objected to that. But how that Coulter hits back, it hysteria time by Jeff Feiger and others.

I heard that her book hit No. 1 on amazon. For some reason I'm unable to sign on to check this out.

[DJ MacWoW]

These women have been off limits and it's ridiculous. Sheehan has finally gotten slammed as she has deserved. Now it's the moonbat widows turn. If they were conservatives, they would have been eaten alive by the moonbats long before now.

[kilowhskey]

"Wonder what else is in that book. ;)"

Check out her comment near the top of page 4 where she mocks president Clinton's comment about "saving the Constitution" after the Senate failed to convict. The only reason that little zinger isn't getting any media exposure is that it is old news.

[pissant]

LOL

[Kenny Bunkport]

Just as there are about 2,000 mothers who have lost their sons in Iraq, but who refuse to follow Cindy Sheehan's example.

[Recovering_Democrat]

What I care about is that this issue has drowned out the main premises of her book.

She'll get plenty of press--and the LameStream Media would NEVER have given her a fair shake on the book anyway...you should know the LSM focuses on some minute aspect of ANY conservative position/statement/idea and blow it way out of proportion.

If Ann hadn't said something about the Jersey Girls, the LSM would have focused on some other out of context phrase or statement.

Blame the pathetic coverage, not Ann.

[Parawan]

If you wrestle with Pigs you have to get down in the mud and get dirty. It is disgusting but necessary.

[Melas]

You're not getting it. No one is complaining that Ann has taken on these women and their political agenda. In particular, I applaud Ann for pointing out that they've used the deaths of their husbands for political gain. No problem there as it's obviously true.

However, when Coulter mocking tosses in barbs suggesting that these men were probably going to divorce these women, that was way across the lines of human decency. To challenge in any way the love of a departed spouse is nothing short of unnecessarily cruel, and it's a pity that some folks actually find it amusing. I for one am sickened by the thought.

[pissant]

I've read two of Ann's books (gifts). Fun reading, not really my cup of tea though. But will get this one for sh*ts and grins.

[Xenalyte]

I've heard it as "If you can't be a good example, at least be a horrible warning."

[Russ_in_NC]

Let's see, I'm the moron because I know the actual quote of Ann ....."And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce" Read it again, it says "HOW"

And your morally superior because you think she was stating as a matter of fact "... if Ann had evidence that those dead men were going to divorce their wives, she'd have included it in her book"

Your opinion is based upon your beliefs rather than fact and you feel hurt.

Get over it, you were wrong. Accept it and move on. Ann write satire. If Laura and Hugh said it was over the top, then they to are wrong. Do you think they are infallible? Ann's statements are sometimes it's harsh, sometimes they're funny, and sometimes she brings out the underlying truth for those with guts enough to read and think about it.

[fish hawk]

Liberal speak: "do it for the children". gag.

I admit that the children here are innocent but their media whore mothers deserve every word Ann says.