I have often been a critic of Coulter, and this controversy illustrates my point: Are we discussing the substantive issues she raises in her book, or has this just turned into an argument about Coulter? The latter, obviously, and that is the problem. As for the outrage of liberals, I'd like to see their outrage at some of the over-the-top claims that liberals make about Bush, conservatives, etc. Someday, when pigs fly and hell freezes over . . .
If you or I had read the chapter without hearing the controversy, we probably would not have focused on that statement.
Her point is also that these women do seem to enjoy the result of the catastrophe in that they seem to enjoy the cause it has given them. Which would be fine if it meant doing something helpful - but instead it has resulted in them doing something rather awful that would result in many more catastrophes and many more widows. That is the obscinity that is far greater than any insult Miss Coulter could come up with or could ever achieve. Remember who the good guys are here, and don't forget the evil ones. The left brings up this controversy to confuse us.
They do it ALL the time: Speaker-elect Livingston had an affair a long time ago. So now he cannot criticize Clinton for perjory, obstruction, subordination, etc and he has to fall on his sword. And this isn't because the left pushed him to it but because the right would.
And here we go again - insisting that Lady Ann must fall on her sword, too, for saying mean things about women who would - intentionally or not - would turn this country into Mogudishu.
Remember guys - don't treat the good guys like you treat the bad guys.
>>>As for the outrage of liberals, I'd like to see their outrage at some of the over-the-top claims that liberals make about Bush, conservatives, etc. Someday, when pigs fly and hell freezes over . . .>>>
Not to mention the statement Howard Dean made today that Rove 'committed perjury' even though he was not indicted by Feds.
BTTT