| Rocky Mountain News |
| To print this page, select File then Print from your browser |
| URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion_columnists/article/0,2777,DRMN_23972_4777940,00.html |
June 16, 2006
Ann Coulter is a pistol. That's a compliment. It's not to be confused with a loose cannon. (Cindy Sheehan is a loose cannon.) She's pretty, tall, sexy, brilliant (that's Coulter, not Sheehan) and certainly sassy. Disclosure: We've met on several occasions and, darn it, I like her. We're both conservative, but not in an identical sense. I'm a free market, pro-defense, nationalistic, limited government, individualist type. We agree in those areas but she's also a social issues conservative so we part company in that area. That's OK. I don't know anyone with whom I agree on everything. I've publicly disagreed with Coulter on occasion, but when she's right I'll defend her, as I will, forthwith.
We have different polemical styles, as well. I'm more measured. I like to cool things down and deal in reason. There are some who would yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I'd prefer to yell "theater" in a crowded fire. Coulter deals in reason, too, but she delights in throwing a bomb here and there. Her rhetoric can sometimes be overblown but there's usually substance undergirding it.
It's her style and it gets attention. It's served her well, as a string of best-sellers attests. Left-wing columnist Maureen Dowd of The New York Times is at least as combative and considerably nastier. But Dowd escapes stylistic criticism from other media liberals because they share her ideology and her disdain for the conservatives she attacks.
Well, the liberal hive is in a dander over a passage in Coulter's new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism. (Which, as a result, is selling like hotcakes.) Writing about a group of raging, anti-Bush widows, especially the particularly acrimonious Kristen Breitweiser, Coulter wrote: "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much." While that might sound unduly harsh to those who haven't read the book, in context she makes a valid point. So here's the context:
"After 9/11, four housewives from New Jersey whose husbands died in the attack on the World Trade Center became media heroes for blaming their husbands deaths on George Bush and demanding a commission to investigate why Bush didn't stop the attacks . . . They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims' families by the government was not large enough . . .
"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
The same could be said of Cindy Sheehan, exploiting the death of her son Casey to advance her political agenda. One can only wonder if Casey, a soldier who volunteered for this duty, would approve of his mother's antics in his name.
Obviously, in none of these cases did these women take pleasure in the deaths of their loved ones. But they've "enjoyed," as in an alternate definition of that word, deriving the benefits from that tragic event.
Just as a mother whose child dies in a drunk-driving accident might seek meaning and therapy by becoming an activist for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), these women have redirected their grief, bitterness and aggression toward President Bush, his party and his policies.
The celebrity status, media attention, ego gratification and political influence can become addictive. These women have no standing to speak for others who lost loved ones on 9/11. But the liberal media spotlight doesn't focus on widows, mothers and fathers who support Bush and the mission in Iraq.
As for another grieving parent and political opportunist, the misplaced-aggression poster boy must surely be Michael Berg. He's the father of Nick Berg, a civilian construction worker who was captured by al-Qaida terrorists in Iraq in 2004 and personally beheaded by Osama bin Laden's chief executioner, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Michael Berg is an anti-war activist and Green Party (that says it all) candidate for U.S. Congress. Following the death of al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air strike last week, Berg absolved the terrorist leader of responsibility for his son's death, declaring that "George Bush is more of a terrorist than Zarqawi is." "I have no sense of relief (from al-Zarqawi's death)," said Berg, "just sadness that another human being had to die." Do you suppose Nick Berg would agree?
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
Copyright 2006, Rocky Mountain News. All Rights Reserved.
