Save the Sharks : James Dobson, Ted Kennedy and Ann Coulter

RealClearPolitics.com ^ | 06/11/2006 | Kathleen Parker

[SirLinksalot]

June 11, 2006

Save the Sharks By Kathleen Parker

The poor shark can get no rest these days. Everyone is jumping him.

For those whose shark metaphors stalled on "Jaws," "jumping the shark" refers to the moment when something, usually a dramatic production, runs - or strays from - its course. Coined by Jon Hein (jumptheshark.com), the phrase evolved from the episode of "Happy Days" where the show's writers, apparently out of ideas, had Fonzie literally jump a shark while water skiing.

It was so over-the-top that the show was deemed dead by those who monitor such things. People are said to jump the shark when, desperate for ratings or attention, they make over-the-top statements.

Of late, we seem to have armies of shark-jumpers, from Dr. James Dobson to Sen. Ted Kennedy to Ann Coulter to my hands-down fave, Sen. James Inhofe - all of whom have taken their own mantras a trope too far. Through them, hyperbole and hysteria have formed an uncivil union, casting national debate into a miasma of self-mockery.

Let me put it this way: Dobson and Inhofe, who seem to think that the devil made gay people, make me want to marry a lesbian transsexual; Coulter, who has attacked a group of 9/11 widows to make a political point, makes me want to wash Cindy Sheehan's feet and hug a war protester; while Kennedy, who has been baying "bigot" about anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on even rational grounds, makes one yearn for the comforting sound of a car alarm.

No wonder Americans can't stand politicians, or that our nation has become a quagmire of insult and ad hominem. Here's a sampling of what has passed for debate in recent days.

Commenting on the proposed constitutional amendment to declare marriage a union only between a man and a woman, Dobson said during a recent chapel service (later broadcast on radio) that "marriage is under vicious attack ... from the forces of hell itself."

Same-sex marriage has plenty of intelligent, knowledgeable supporters and critics, from clergy to laymen to legal scholars. However this issue gets resolved, whether as a federal or state issue, the process can't be helped by implications that gays (our friends, family and neighbors) are evil for wanting to marry.

Meanwhile, if Satan's crib is what stimulates the Republican base, Democrats may enjoy an embarrassment of riches come November as rational conservatives seek saner company.

Giving you-know-who his due, perhaps Dobson was just joshin'. And perhaps Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was just braggin' during the marriage amendment debate when, in a memorable show-'n'-tell, he displayed a poster-sized photo of his extended family and said:

"As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

Quite likely, the operative words here are "recorded history." I'm pretty sure our family Bible doesn't reflect the sexual orientation of our gay cousins, either, but just the same, Inhofe might consider dusting off the family rabbit's foot and padlocking the closets.

Kennedy, whose self-caricature is helping put political cartoonists out of business, has declared that all opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots. Right. And all opponents of state-mandated seat belts are child abusers. And anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. Next.

Finally, Coulter may have jumped the shark with her unfortunate tirade against the 9/11 widows in her new book, "Godless." Which is too bad because Coulter had a point that got lost amid the inevitable outrage.

Her point was that debate becomes strained to impossible when one of the gladiators on the other side has recently suffered a grievous loss. No one wants to challenge a wife whose husband has been killed - or a mother whose son has perished in battle - even if they have become public political players.

The opposition will always look like insensitive bullies, as does Coulter, who undermined her own message more than her critics could. Calling the widows "witches" and saying they were enjoying their husbands' deaths was chum to the other side.

Rabble-rousing, fear-mongering and race-baiting may keep local constituents happy, but none of it gets us where we need to go - toward sane remedies for a united nation. And, yes, happier days.

In shark-free waters.

For the children.

While staying the course.

Because we love freedom, and they don't.

Glub, glub, glub.

kparker@orlandosentinel.com

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Kathleen Parker is the one who has jumped the shark by taking Coulter so far out of context as to pervert what Coulter was actually saying.

Coulter didn't make her comment about ALL the wives who lost husbands on 9/11, only on those who have become politically active. And she did not say they enjoyed the death of their husbands, but enjoyed the notoriety, fame, and soapbox that their loss has afforded them.

There are many wives we never hear from. They are not the ones who are "enjoying" the notoriety after their losses as the "Jersey Girls."

[massfreeper]

What Coulter, Kennedy, and Dobson have in common . . . is that they appeal only to the choir.

That's one school of thought. The other school of thought is that by stirring up controversy and getting all the media attention she's getting, there's bound to be some moderates who pick up her book in the bookstore and thumb through it just to see what all the buzz is about. And when they do that, they might just realize that beyond the invective, she makes a lot of excellent points in her book. I bought the book, and read the chapter about the 911 widows. If you look past the 3 or 4 sentences that have all the Libs fuming, the other 300 pages are brilliant!

Just think of all the conservative authors who've written excellent books, but couldn't get booked for an interview on the Today show (or other MSM outlet) to talk about it. Most people you talk to have never heard of those authors. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

[driftless]

FYI, Kathleen Parker recently wrote an article stating that Hillary Clinton was "well qualified" to be president. She surmised that Shrillary's problem was one of proper presentation and not political views. My estimation of Parker's worth as a pundette went down considerably after that column. This latest one doesn't help bring it up.

[driftless]

See post #43.

[sinkspur]

I'd say it's Kathleen Parker who has jumped the shark.

Parker's pretty sane, which is why she is paid to write a column.

She is right about every single one of her examples.

Coulter may sell a lot of books, but her influence in all but the most far-right fringe circles will definitely decline after this cruel and totally unnecessary ad hominem on these women.

Michael Savage got where he is today--viewed as a psychotic nut--travelling the same road Coulter is headed down.

She is in Savage territory already.

[IronJack]

If in defeating liberalism you resort to the same disgusting tactics they use, aren't you becoming the very thing you despise?

Yes. I'm not real big on the equivalency defense, so I won't try to justify it by saying you have to give as good as you get. I will say that there's nothing particularly offensive about this level of discourse, nor is there anything particularly novel. "Spirited" political exchange has been a hallmark of American politics for a long time, so I find it amusing that suddenly we're so put off by Ann Coulter and James Dobson. Harriet Beecher Stowe had no qualms about calling down the wrath of God on slavetraders 150 years ago, and she's hailed as a liberator. Why is Dobson so wrong in invoking the Almighty in defense of traditional marriage? Why is Ann Coulter so wrong in impugning the motives of the Jersey Girls?

In politics, nothing is sacred. And it shouldn't be. If you can't stand the hurly-burly, you're in the wrong line of work.

[soccermom]

"Kathleen Parker is the one who has jumped the shark by taking Coulter so far out of context as to pervert what Coulter was actually saying.
Coulter didn't make her comment about ALL the wives who lost husbands on 9/11, only on those who have become politically active." And Parker didn't say ALL the wives, did she? She initially refers to a "group" of 9/11 widows and never said Coulter was referring to all of them.
"And she did not say they enjoyed the death of their husbands, but enjoyed the notoriety, fame, and soapbox that their loss has afforded them." Actually what she said was, "I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Yes, she said that after citing ways in which the widows were living it up, but she didn't merely say they were enjoying the things that resulted from the deaths -- she said they were enjoying their deaths. So what, pray tell, did Parker distort?
Laura Ingram had Ann Coulter on her show and gave her every opportunity to clarify, but Coulter dodged rather than address the quote directly. She kept saying, something to the effect of,"These women shouldn't get a pass just because they are victims." Yeah, Ann, we get that. They don't get a pass for their political comments. What does that have to do with accusing them of being glad their husbands are dead, speculating their husbands would divorce them, that they want to be in Playboy etc? No, Ann was not taken out of context. She went too far. Perhaps she, like Rush, was "illustrating absurdity by being absurd", but instead of simply acknowledging that, she remains strident.

[Dreagon]

"If in defeating liberalism you resort to the same disgusting tactics they use, aren't you becoming the very thing you despise? "

I don't know, did we become the Nazi's by shooting back at them? Did we become the Japanese by sending warplanes back in their direction later? Seriously folks, lets not be guided by fortune cookie philosophy.

[IronJack]

did we become the Nazi's by shooting back at them?

No, but we became murderers.

Did we become the Japanese by sending warplanes back in their direction later?

No, but our bombs killed innocent people.

Seriously folks, lets not be guided by fortune cookie philosophy.

Let's not abdicate our moral responsibility either. There is no defense for this on equivalency grounds. But none is needed. This is nothing more than political hurly-burly. The Dems want to attach some moral weight to it, like they, of all people, have any kind of moral high ground.

In fighting an amoral foe, your only salvation is that you can never stoop LOWER than your opponent. You are bound by morality only if you choose to be; they have no authority to impose it on you. They sacrificed that right when they denied its existence.

It's the same with the diaperheads. To hear them howl in outrage over the deaths of innocents in Haditha is laughable in its hypocrisy. These are people who routinely behead strangers, who murder planes full of random passengers, who blow up train stations, busses, and subways for a hobby. Yet we're supposed to believe they're outraged because a handful of bystanders were gunned down in dubious circumstances in the middle of a war zone? Uh huh.

And it's the same for the Left to feign umbrage at Ann Coulter or James Dodgson. With people like Michael Moore, Randi Rhodekill, Cynthia McKinney, Sean Penn, ... speaking for them, they long ago forfeited the right to a civilized discourse.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

First of all, I have no idea what your reference to Parker's comments about "all" the wives means.

Second of all, don't copy and paste my comments. I wrote them today. I remember them just fine. It does nothing for logic but gunks up the threads.

You, like so many other 'conservatives' who are more than willing to turn other conservatives loose to the wolves, missed the point entirely.

The point is this, those wives would be nobodies today had they not lost someone in 9/11. They are 'somebodies' today because they are exploiting their losses of 9/11. Not all, only a few. A few that the DNC loves to use, because they are "victims" and the political pronouncements of "victims" seem to carry much more weight than non-victims. Just like Mike Berg is exploiting his son's murder to soapbox a political agenda he has been spouting since his anti-Viet Name War days in the 60's all the way up to his current campaign for office as a member of the Green Party.

Liberals use these victims, and these victims ALLOW themselves to be used in order to further their own agenda and the agendas of their parties. That's what Coulter was talking about. That's what Parker either doesn't get or doesn't want to get.

How many "victims" do you hear of repeatedly supporting the President and the WOT? I can't remember the last time I heard of such (though some have in fact spoken in support of the WOT, the MSM plays a short clip and moves on). The Republicans certainly don't soapbox them.

I heard Ingraham, too. And I also heard her explain Coulter's quote in context. The context, as you mention, is right after listing their avenues of notoriety. That makes all the difference in what she said.

Why are you so willing to crucify Coulter? Are you eager for this one poor choice of words to be exploited by the Left to to destroy Coulter's reputation and ruin her books sales? Or do you have liberal objectives in common with these victims that exploit tragedy to further an agenda?

Turning on Coulter over one poor choice of wording is just playing into the hands of the Leftist MSM. We should say, "poor choice of words" and "you're taking her out of context" and move on. But no, here we are putting her on a skewer. We should be attacking the poor wording of Leftists, instead. And take your pick, because they say some pretty stupid things that the MSM hushes up immediately.

I was going to buy a copy of her book. But now I think I'll buy two and give one to a friend of mine.

[Cicero]

I don't pay any attention to Savage. Doesn't interest me. Ann Coulter is fun to read, writes well, has a good sense of humor, and often shows sharp political and legal insights. Sure, it's unpleasant to be on the receiving end, but she's intelligent. So, I'll give you Kennedy and Savage.

[outlawcam]

When I think "Controversial," James Dobson is one of the last people to come to mind. When Dobson uses the word "evil," he does so in a very biblical way. So when Parker insinuates that Dobson is looney, what she's really saying is that Christians are looney. She can't come out and say it, though, because it's easier to set up an effigy without any context and claim superior enlightenment.

[bigjoesaddle]

Ann is doing the exact opposite of jumping the shark, she is pushing the envelope further than anyone, she is basicly the only one making these points. She will be more famous now, but also with a bigger target on her.

[soccermom]

OK, so you can remember your comments just fine with out me copying them, but you have no idea what my reference to Parker's comments about "all" the wives mean? You were the one who accused Parker of distorting Coulter's argument by implying Coulter was attacking "all" the 9/11 widows. Parker made no such implication. She referred to a "group" of widows.

No, I did not miss the point entirely. I thought that was pretty clear with "Coulter had an excellent argument -- that these women cannot use the "victim card" to escape rebuttals to their charges" and "Yeah, Ann, we get that. They don't get a pass for their political comments." It seems pretty clear to me that Parker got the point,too, when she wrote : "Which is too bad because Coulter had a point that got lost amid the inevitable outrage.Her point was that debate becomes strained to impossible when one of the gladiators on the other side has recently suffered a grievous loss."

What you seem to have missed entirely is that, no matter how many times Coulter and her apologists repeat that point, it is not an explanation for what she said. On the contrary, it undermines what she said. She laments the fact that conservatives are portrayed as bullies for daring to offer a rebuttal to the charges made by "the victims." And how does she dispel that portrayal? Why, by being a bully. Brilliant! The fact that we are here arguing the point illustrates how her point was lost due to her own subsequent words.

Your suggestion that I am "crucifying" Coulter to drive down book sales is preposterous. First of all, everyone knows that controversy sells books. Her words are "red meat" to her target audience and she is reveling in it. Besides that, I don't care one bit about her book career. I care about the damage she is doing to conservatives. I have no objectives in common with the "Jersey Girls." I want them to be marginalized. But, thanks to Ann, they are now sympathetic heroines again. Ann has done as much to further their promotion as her own.

Yes, we could say "poor choice of words" if Coulter would simply do that, but she doesn't. She makes no apology whatsoever for what she said. How can we dismiss this as a poor choice of words, when Coulter, when given the opportunity to correct it, stands by those words? I do attack the rhetoric of the left. The difference is, I have the moral authority to do so because I am willing to be intellectually honest when someone on my side uses such rhetoric. You, on the other hand, have no grounds upon which to complain the next time Franken or Moore engage in such attacks because you're willing to excuse such tactics when they are used by our side.

[Guenevere]

so very true!

[epow]

Dobson said during a recent chapel service (later broadcast on radio) that "marriage is under vicious attack ... from the forces of hell itself."

All of which is absolutely true.

Marriage and the family are the sacred institutions God created to propagate the species. Other beneficial institutions created for man are government, law, and the Church. Marriage is also intended to satisfy men's and women's natural desire for the companionship of and appreciation by the opposite sex, and of course to also provide a safe, healthy, legitimate channel for the natural sex drive of both sexes.

OTOH homosexual behavior is not natural, safe, healthy, or legitimate, and it is expressly forbidden by God in holy scripture and severe penalties are prescribed for those who practice it. One of Satan's favorite tactics is counterfeiting God's works and institutions, and the abomination of bogus homosexual "marriage" is a prime example. If God's enemy can undermine the institutions of marriage and family by introducing sick, perverted, counterfeits that debase and make a mockery of the real things he will have made a master stroke in his never ending attempt to cheapen, weaken, pervert, and ultimately destroy all of the good, beautiful, beneficial, and wholesome institutions and gifts with which God has endowed his ultimate creation, man.

Anyone, the author of this article for one example, who isn't taking very seriously the slick and extremely well funded efforts of the combination of a wealthy homosexual lobby and Hollywood's libertine stars working together to further the homosexual agenda is in for a rude awakening when our laws are changed to create special "rights" for sexual deviants to the detriment of the authentic rights of normal Americans, as is happening right now in the UK and other PC parts of western Europe where Christianity has become little more than an impotent charade.

[epow]

Perhaps Dobson should contemplate "What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"

Dr. Dobson is in no danger of losing his soul, far from it. He is doing the work God called him out of his lucrative profession as a prominent Los Angeles child psychologist to do for him. If you really believe that fighting the evil, ungodly agenda of the homosexual lobby and it's show biz accomplices is something frowned on by God, your conception of God didn't come from holy scripture or from the teaching of the church of Jesus Christ.

[altura]

Well, Parker got one thing right... she wants to wash Cindy Sheehan's feet.

I have an idea they need it.

[Lucky2]

Dobson said during a recent chapel service (later broadcast on radio) that "marriage is under vicious attack ... from the forces of hell itself."

I happen to agree with Dr. Dobson. A lot of Christians and non-Christians alike feel the same. Jump the shark, hardly. Dr Dobson is speaking the truth.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

You are so focused on particular weeds, not only can you not see the forest, but you cannot see the trees.

The "all" comment is completely irrelevant to the debate.

And the point you are missing in all these inane details is that the the Left has successfully used victims to further their agenda for 40 years.

Coulter is attacking the use of victims.

Guess what. In order to do so, you're going to have to say something striking, which is what she did. I'm glad she said it.

You want to marginalize the "Jersey Girls?" Really? Coulter is doing a far better job of it than anything you've done in your arguments. Why? Because she has brought so much attention to them that their underhanded tactics have now come to full view. Anyone who would have considered having them speak at their events will now reconsider whether or not it will be as successful as it once was.

Moral authority? How is it moral authority to wrongly attack someone? You sound just like those RINOs in both houses who are immediate in condemning anything that the Left reports of unseemly nature about Republicans, regardless of the evidence or truth or falsity of the claims. They, too, think that it makes them appear above the fray.

To resist attacking someone over a few words out of an entire book, the thematic importance of which is critical to the 06 and 08 election cycles, does not put you in league with those who are defending her. However, to join in the fray as you have done in your numerous posts on this and other threads (really, it appears you have an ulterior issue with Coulter), is no more above the fray than Connie Chung writing an imaginary letter in which she accuses Coulter of having a drug and alcohol problem. That's the side you're backing up in all this. Where's your condemnation and moral outrage of those who have burst blood vessels in their rage against her?

Her choice of wording was taken out of context. That is a trick used by dishonest people to cast their opponents in an unfavorable light. But you focus on the detail of the word "enjoying." Coulter has explained her statement ad nauseum at this point, but that's not enough for the MSM and those who are attacking her. The focus of this debate has been on those words taken out of context, not on the substance of Coulter's point, which is an excellent point and finally begins to knock the legs out of a tactic that the Left has continued to use successfully partly due to the numerous conservatives who believe we have to allow them to use that tactic, that we can't criticize it, that we can't use shock to overcome their constant barrage of dishonest statements and tactics.

Coulter has done so. I'm glad she did. And I don't think she's harming the conservative movement all. The appeasers in the Republican party and the conservatives who do not back other conservatives rather join in with the Left in attacking conservatives when they get the chance do more harm to the conservative agenda than those who throw some cold water in the country's dozing faces once in a while.