Doubting Coulter -- At First (Press release politics not best venue for discussing personal loss)

The American Prowler ^ | 6/9/2006 | Mark Gauvreau Judge

[Honestfreedom]

Do you have a basis for saying the husbands of the Jersey girls were going to divorce them? There was a basis for criticizing Clinton's personal life. He had a long history of such behavior. It is not out of bounds to point out that Cindy Sheehan's family disagrees with what she is doing. However, to say nasty things about a relationship involving now deceased partners is just coarse.

[papertyger]

Do you have a basis for saying the husbands of the Jersey girls were going to divorce them?

Their subsequent behavior.

However, to say nasty things about a relationship involving now deceased partners is just coarse.

According to you, and liberals.

I'll stick with Ann.

[King Prout]

I disagree with the author's interpretation of the meaning of such precision. I think he is well outside of logic on this. He (and Ann) may be correct about the Jersey Girls, but not for the "reason" he sets forth above.

[RonDog]

Terrorist use innocent humans as targets and shields.

The left uses victims as targets and shields.

A common denominator of enemies of the Republic.

Graet minds think alike!

See also, from THIS recent thread:

Why Ann Coulter is right:
Kevin McCullough defends author for 9-11 widow comments
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, June 9, 2006 | Kevin McCullough
Posted on 06/09/2006 12:42:21 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public-policy debates: Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and true to form, liberals have been fomenting in response.

The reason they are is not because Ann has broken some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife or relative. Rather, the reason they are so outraged by this is because it stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who "can't be criticized..."

-- snip --

...Ann's criticism is legitimate. If liberals in America wish truly to have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about, then stand and make the point, but don't hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled and often wrong in their views, simply because they're victims.

For the last few weeks, Rep. Jack Murtha has been crisscrossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave Marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device, after which some women and children tragically ended up dead. The Marines claimed that they were fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out, but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the Marines' account.

Liberals are using the exact same tactics today – firing upon people of faith who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote, but they do so from behind victims against whom, they believe, no one would fire back. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[lepton]

Once she says, "My husband BURNED to death", you are supposed to shut up. That is why they say it.

That's not quite right either. They claim to have watched them burn to death.

[youngjim]

Sadly for the lefties, they think this silly trope parade passes for rhetorical prowess.

You fools! [ROFLMAO] She's the reason why our administration has such a hard time getting things done. She's making money off of the very thing she's accusing the women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. It's like she's feeding off of this war like a parasite. . . .

First the liberal insults her audience:

Anyone who falls for Coulter's rehtoric and actually believes she is representing the conservative mindset is a fool. I'd exect such inane stupidity from the liberal left, not our base. Certainly not my base of critical thinkers.

I address the poster: What do you mean "we", kimsoabe?

Then she insults the writer:

She is not a christian or a conservative or an American for that matter. She's a money grubbing wanna-be Rush Limbaugh, except she'd stoop as low as Satan to achieve the status Rush has achieved through actually making constructive points.

Amusing the inept use of the ad hominem with the mighty verb "is not" leading the charge of the argument.

Back to the reader:

Most of you side with Coulter because A) You think she's hot or B) She's a woman and thus she's 'speaking out!'.

And this is bad, how?

Then polishes off her argument with some fatuous commentary:

Let our soldiers and our true leaders and figureheads shine on for America and for VICTORY. VICTORY. . . America's Victory Overseas is What Matters People! Stay Focused!

Of course, such unhinged imagery serves well to illustrate why I'm happy this is an anonymous forum.

I'm not sure which is sillier: the post or the idea that the post would be persuasive.

[Soul Seeker]

he nails it.

No more to say.

[Sal]

Nice album covers. They can call their group The Coffin Jockeys.

[PghBaldy]

When I read the part about watching our husbands burn to death, I thought "they did it again." VERY cunning. They should be involved in politics... ONE thing though - the right does this too. The presence of victim impact statements in trials, IMO, is very similar. It's always given me the creeps. Either a case is about the law, and the facts, or it's not. I'm not too thrilled by MADD or the Million Mom March either. It is a common ploy, which the left seems to do more often. None of it is good for public policy.

[TASMANIANRED]

Liberals love to use a coffin as a soap box.

[AmericanRepublican]

Sorry if you're such a strung out Coulter fan, but calling people lefties for not agreeing with your heroine is absurd and quite frankly a MSM leftie tactic. And if me thinking she 's a wannabe Rush is insulting her, then so be it. The truth hurts.

[IIntense]

Normal minds just don't process that way.

You are right. Both of my parents have died, along with ten of my aunts and uncles, and many neighbors. No one who was with them discusses the details of their dying moments.

Just a few months ago my younger brother died at his home. I last spent time with him a day and a half before that. (I live in another state.)

His wife did not go into every graphic detail of what occurred that morning...just enough for me, his sister, to be informed. I won't ask her to relive this pain, for her sake and mine.

I'm thinking that "normal" people treat such sadness as mostly private and want dignity for the person who died.

I'm not sure if the Jersey women deserve to be crucified for the "burned alive" comment. They obviously believe the U.S. Gov't. could have prevented this attack. How sure are the rest of us?

[flaglady47]

Ann has challenged the sanctity of the victim propogandist.

The Democrats do this on everything. They really go at it if the subject matter is a controversial topic where they believe they can make political inroads. Remember the AD of the black guy being dragged behind a car by southern racists and blamed on Bush41? Every time the subject of poverty comes about, you get visuals of some shack down south with a child with a distended belly sitting on the dirt floor inside. Most perpetrators of crime are portrayed as victims of society by liberal Dems. When given the death sentence, all the defenders of the murderer are out there with their candlelight vigils commenting on the hard life or childhood of abuse that caused the bad guy to do what he did and we should pity him more than the victim. The liberal MSM attacks our troops for atrocities rather than the enemies that are trying to kill us, and show visuals of blood-stained walls and poor Iraqi victims.

Liberal Dems always seek out the anecdotal example, the one case out of thousands that is the exception to the rule to justify whatever outrageous position they are defending at any given time. And then they swing right into moral equivalence. Putting panties on the heads of Iraqi prisoners is as much torture as jihadists lopping off heads. It's all the same you know.

[Alain Chartier]

I watched my stepfather die. It was awful, but at least I could be thankful that his death was peaceful and painless. That this Jersey Girl calls attention to the horror of her husband's death makes me wonder how much his death bothered her.

[Lancey Howard]

Great, great thinking and writing here.

[singfreedom]

How sure are the rest of us that the government could have prevented the horror that was 9/11? Well, that probably requires a comparative answer. Was the Bust administration any better able than the Clinton administration to prevent the attacks of that day---were they better prepared than ANY other administration in our history?

Would the government of any other nation be "prepared" to stop such an attack? Say, maybe Britain? (They obviously weren't.) To be totally capable of stopping such an attack just how restrictive would a society have to be? Perhaps Ms. Breitweiser needs to consider that question before she unleashes her "grief" on OUR lawfully elected government officials.