Posted on 06/12/2006 6:52:54 PM PDT by NotchJohnson
I was reading Ann Coulter's "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," when all the hell broke loose last week. At that point I had not reached the chapter which contained her comments on the 9/11 widows ... so I didn't see the firestorm coming. Now we have Coulter being portrayed as an alien monster and elected officials demanding that her book be banned.
Did Ann Coulter go over the edge a bit with her comments about The Jersey Girls? Possibly. Rather than write that they were enjoying their husband's deaths in the Twin Towers, perhaps Coulter could have said that they were enjoying the attention they've been getting since the terrorist attacks. That comment would have been certainly correct, and far less inflammatory.
The fact is that in her general comments about these 9/11 widows, Coulter got it essentially right. The left most definitely has refined the technique of taking someone deserving of a great deal of public sympathy, and then turning that person into a propaganda machine for the left. The obvious goal here is to create a spokesman that cannot be attacked ... one who's essentially bulletproof. Cindy Sheehan certainly fits that bill. The left would have us believe that to attack anything said by these people is off limits due to the suffering they have experienced. We saw this very concept at work in the defense of Sheehan.
When you think about it, Hillary Clinton has even approached this bulletproof status in some ways. She's a woman, and she's a woman who has endured public humiliation at the hands of her philandering husband. As such, some would say that she is beyond criticism. We've seen examples-a-plenty where Hillary's critics have been criticized for saying such things about a woman, and a long-suffering loyal wife at that!
Back to Coulter's book. I think it is brilliant. Sure, I might not agree with her characterizations of the 9/11 widows, but the larger point she was making there was wholly valid. Throughout the entire book Coulter does an excellent job of showing liberals for what they are. It is one of the most effective and hard-hitting writings of the absurdities, inconsistencies, and outright lies of today's dominant liberal elite in this country.
That is why Ann Coulter must be destroyed!
What you saw last week .. and will see continue into this week ... is a driven attempt by the left in this country, and especially the leftist media, to so completely demonize Ann Coulter as to destroy here effectiveness as a writer and conservative pundit. The focus will continue to be on this one portion of the book relating to the professional widows, without any commentary on the thousands of other very valid points she brought up. Ann Coulter sells a hell of a lot of books. There is no liberal writer out there who comes close, a point not lost on the left.
So, how far is the left willing to go in their efforts to destroy one of our best conservative writers? Well, we now have two New Jersey Democrats (state legislators) who have announced that they want Coulter's books banned in New Jersey. That's right. Banned. They weren't happy just to urge people not to buy the book, they actually want to use the police power of the New Jersey State Government to prevent the books from being sold in the first place! This is America? They're names, by the way, are Joan Quigley and Linda Stender. We'll note that unless we have some rather odd family names at work here, they're both women. These two ladies issued a press release last Friday that was carefully crafted to contain two dominant leftist trigger words. In that release they said;
"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate. .... Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."
You got the two trigger words, didn't you? "Greed" and "hate." Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is "greedy" and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching "hate." How shallow these people are.
At any rate ... please don't let the left scare you off. They've taken one paragraph from an excellent book and are using that section in an attempt to have Ann Coulter banished to some writer's leper colony on the dark side of the Moon. Hopefully they're boosting sales, rather than hurting them.
"Don't worry Notch, I will be buying my copy this weekend. The left doesn't scare me."
Bought my copy today. Wasn't going to -- my mother has one and I was just going to borrow it when she was done -- but I saw one one in a bookstore and bought it specifically BECAUSE of those NJ democraps' call for a ban/boycott...
These people are making Ann famous, it's a lift for the conservative side, I should say moral side.
Fortunately, not too many people care what the drive-by media says.
Same goes for Hitchens, who came out for the war in Iraq and has been proclaiming himself an recovering Trotskyite ever since.
I remember how the left went absolutely berserk when he fell out of lockstep with them, and they how started calling him a sellout - among other things.
Not to mention how they sent out their character assassins after him too.
Same goes for Hitchens, who came out for the war in Iraq and has been proclaiming himself an recovering Trotskyite ever since.
I remember how the left went absolutely berserk when he fell out of lockstep with them, and they how started calling him a sellout - among other things.
Not to mention how they sent out their character assassins after him too.
It sounds pretty reasonable to me. As for Churchill, any institution that employs him is damaging its own reputation.
Yes, Hannity is not the sharpest bowling ball on the rack.
But Rush Limbaugh pioneered the genre...in more ways than one can count. And in the process, revitalized the AM radio dial.
Not to mention Rush's brilliant satire, even on non-political subjects (e.g. the Pee-Wee Herman update song, "Beat It" by Michael Jackson)...; or the fake commercials (Weemsco Tuna).
Please, think it over again, at least about Rush.
Cheers!
Dbl post. Sorry folks.
As to the current outrage? She's unmasked one of their most dishonest and sleazy techniques and devices- a snippet with links:
Battered Conservative Syndrome: Defending Ann Coulter [Big Lizard: BEST defense of GODLESS yet!]--This was the first time I encountered what, fifteen years later,
--Ann Coulter would call-- "the Left's doctrine of infallibility," "using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding." (The link is to a transcript of Coulter's appearance on the Today Show with Matt Lauer; tuck it away in your grey matter, we'll come back to it at the end of this post.)
The infallibility of grief, take 2.
The Club of Grief...
Here is what Coulter wrote in her newest book, Godless, that has provoked such a fury of denunciation... not just from the left, but from the right as well:
And here is the SECOND BEST defense of Godless yet -- IMHO, from:
Book Review: Coulter Attacks the Cult of Liberalism
Human Events ^ | June 5, 2006 | Lisa De Pasquale
Posted on 06/05/2006 6:46:45 AM PDT by boryeulb
In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," HUMAN EVENTS legal affairs correspondent Ann Coulter lays out one of the most original and perceptive philosophies on the cult of liberalism.
As Coulter writes:
Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to. That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering. Liberals haven't changed the message, just the messenger. All the most prominent liberal spokesmen are people with "absolute moral authority" -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, terminal illness, or as a last resort, being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela."Whenever someone like the Jersey Girls or Sheehan appears, I try to picture wives of the men on the Arizona (Dec 7, 1941) etc., behaving that way... You immediately see them for what they are, opportunists."
Can you hide behind that with an unproven accusation? I have my doubts. As Jesus would have it, to call somebody "you fool" was like unto murder. At least if you couldn't prove it.
Hey, that's an insult to the girls here! ;-)
I wouldn't advise it. Her chapters on evolution are not only "outright stupid", they are deeply dishonest, and say a great deal about how she feels about lying to her readers, and her assessment of their intelligence.
"As a matter of fact, there is no dark side of the moon. Actually, i'ts all dark."
Of course, the flip side of this consists of everyone around here who goes ga-ga over her looks.
No Bob Seger for me, man.
Charro. Charro forever!
The book is full of statements of fact. Liberals could pretty much discredit her by showing(counterassertion is insufficient) that a couple of the dozens of assertions she makes are untrue. Liberals cannot do that without being refuted themselves so their argument against the book turns on a characterizartion that is not the characterization they would make. They are allowing that the assertions in Mrs. Coulter's book are true because they do not essay to dispute them.
How have you managed to hang in here so long? FR must keep you grinding your teeth so bad that I would guess you have removable replacements now.
I suspect the NRO guys have made an editorial decision to sit back for this one and just chuckle. Mrs. Coulter doesn't need to be defended and too much defense detracts from this defendee. I would prefer that the Big Guns on the right leave it alone until after the screaming has waned a bit. Mrs. Coulter is surely the most sure-footed advocate we have. She has calculated her target with precision and she is highly skilled in the application of the verbal JDAM.
The problem is that it is piles of FACTS. Liberals are unable to counter facts effectively with slogans any more. People have heard them too often and too long. They have nothing else with which to counter Mrs. Coulter's assertions. Their Armory of Facts is very large but quite empty.
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.