Posted on 06/11/2006 4:58:39 AM PDT by harpu
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" and true to form liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they do is not because it breaks 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 simply stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who 'can't be criticized'.
Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in GODLESS in reference to the 'Jersey Girls'. The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9/11, they jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, they cut commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.
In recent years liberal spokespersons have grown infamous for self destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give and take response, and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words liberals use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized. So the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.
An interesting point, when the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the President's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked. And their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
The Jersey Girls on the other hand have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9/11 Commission’s findings, to the operation of the global War On Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words - they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them - to enter the fray, to don the gloves, and to mix it up.
But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror - does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?
Which is Ann's point.
Ann's criticism is legitimate - if liberals in America wish to truly 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 a victim.
For the last few weeks Congressman Murtha has been criss-crossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device and as a result tragically some women and children ended up dead. The marines claimed that they were then 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 that they believe no one would fire back to. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose on substantive, equitable, fair debates.
Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well being of political discourse in general.
By paying the price for us she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance, and to not fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.
What a twisted world it would become otherwise...
This is extremely funny to watch. In their "outrage" the left is proving Ann's point.
right on Ann!
Kevin is right on, and the sooner more people of authority realize this, the better off we will be and the liberals will be exposed for how they operate.
Bumperoo
The best thing the Left has come up with is the low flow toilet and I know for a fact that that particular implement stinks.
It is funny but it is more serious than funny because the populace that listen to liberals and take their word do not have the ability to think for themselves and that is dangerous. The Liberal Democrats,NEA and Unions must have sheep to follow them so than can survive. Along with these groups and the MSM they are doing this nation a disservice and actually brainwashing a segment of our population that is uneducated and does not have the ability to reason. Nest you have a segment of the Judicial System that are truly activist and indoctrinated also as liberals and they even over rule the Supreme Court. Ann Coulter is on the money and the Liberal left is furious for being outed by her.
Reading her, I certainly would not assume that Ann Coulter is a person of faith
so if one is a 'person of faith' they cannot tell it like it is, huh? interesting that no one really comes forward with admonishment that she is flat out wrong....
........and I would judge not, lest you be judged.
:)
The low flow toilet wastes more water than a regular toilet because you have to flush 4 or 5 times. Typical of liberal projects: they cause more problems than they solve.
Reading her, I certainly would not assume that Ann Coulter is a person of faith
They're also doing a GREAT job selling Ann's book. Little do they know that it really "rips the libs a new one" from cover to cover. For example, in the first 70 pages that I've read so far, she proves Sacco and Vanzetti were guilty, shows what a great job Guiliani did reducing crime in NY in spite of intense opposition form the Clinton administration, and shows why it was entirely legitimate and appropriate for the 1988 Bush campaign to use Willie Horton as the poster boy to prove how soft on crime Dukakis really was.
You are exactly right.
Bill O'Reilly made an assessment with which I agree: the electorate is made up of 4 groups: Two of the groups are the hard line left and right.
One group analyses the candidate's positions and votes based on those positions.
The other voting block is the largest. They are the clueless. They vote for whomever the MSM says will give them more stuff.
Don't forget the larger point that these women were paraded around by the liberals because they're victims. You aren't allowed to challenge their statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.