Posted on 06/19/2006 8:25:28 AM PDT by pissant
SEVERAL years ago, left-wing cartoonist Ted Rall published a cartoon mocking the ``terror widows" -- the bereaved of the Sept. 11 attacks as well as Marianne Pearl, the widow of kidnapped and slain journalist Daniel Pearl -- as a bunch of greedy and shallow attention-seekers. The outrage was universal. A number of press outlets, including The New York Times website, pulled the cartoon. Subsequently, when the Times and The Washington Post stopped carrying Rall's work, conservatives called it a victory for decency.
Now, the right has its own Ted Rall in the infamous Ann Coulter. In her new book, ``Godless: The Church of Liberalism," Coulter takes a whack at the ``Jersey Girls," four Sept. 11 widows who have been highly critical of the Bush administration. She refers to them as ``self-obsessed women" who ``believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony," and then concludes with this zinger: ``These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief -arrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much."
A number of conservatives, including prominent Republican blogger and radio talk-show host Hugh Hewitt, have denounced Coulter's statement. Unfortunately, many others have rallied to her defense. Radio and Fox News talk-show host Sean Hannity has mildly suggested that she may have gone too far, but has avoided condemning her outright and has given her plenty of airtime on his show.
Bill O'Reilly, the host of the Fox News show ``The O'Reilly Factor," has been harshly critical of Coulter's comments. Yet several of his conservative guests vigorously defended her. Republican strategist Karen Hanretty opined,
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
The whole media storm surrounding her remarks are designed to avoid dealing with her larger point.
First of all, her comments were true; the DNC and the Left in general are trying to insulate themselves from debate by using people who are supposed to be beyond criticism. Its one of their favorite tactics; they seek to win arguments by shutting off any argument at all.
And the media left is doing it again. They've seized upon one throwaway remark as a way of demonizing her and the book, and in doing so they don't have to answer any of her charges. She has done far worse than simply criticize four individuals, she has labeled en entire movement as a godless religion and proceeds to back it up, mocking them and laughing at them and (worst of all) quoting them for a couple hundred pages. They prefer not to answer her so they try to shut off any argument at all.
Most people here have assumed she made the remark purposely to attract attention and sell books. She wasn't the one who publicized it; they did, in order to prove that she was beyond the pale. They have yet to even answer her point there either, that it is the Left that is using these women, again, to win argument by avoiding argument.
You will notice that Rall's attack on the widows came when it was imagined that they were a powerful symbol for the need for war. Not all widows favor war, certainly Danny Pearl's wife does not (although in my opinion she has always conducted herself with great dignity).
Nothing is sacred to the Left unless they can find a way to use it. The widows certainly were not sacred to them, until they found some they could use.
Look,
most of the 'non-political' boards I hang out on are a pretty average cross section of the world. Ann up until now, has gotten a relatively fair shake. Some calling her names, but just as many jumping in to defend her.
This is the first time I've seen no one post anything to defend her remarks. She hit a nerve with the divorce/Playboy remarks and really came of as mean.....the only positive post I've seen was "Well, she stays true to herself"....
ok......
BTW, how much of a fan base would she have here if was the same age and appearance as Helen Thomas?
Rall made a wide attack on a broad group of individuals based on the actions of a few which he didn't even bother to document and present. He also did so a relatively short time after 9/11 without waiting to gather facts, and it was part a consistent message of attacking people without presenting any real justification for his attacks.
Coulter on the other hand gathered a huge body of evidence to support her stance on the Jersey Girls. She researched their actions extensively and presented justification for her opinions.
In her whole book I've seen one sentence where the literal meaning of the words she used attacked the grief of the Jersey Girls, rather than their actions.
While I personally feel she should have reworded that particular sentence, that sentence isn't what has these liberals up in arms.
Rall is now getting another undeserved 15 minutes of fame, and is using the same malicious dishonesty he has used in the past.
His cartoon criticizing the 9/11 widows doesn't load on his web site, but the rest of the site appears to be working fine. His blog archives don't go back far enough to read his comments which fanned the flames, and while he links to an article comparing him to Coulter, that article quoted parts of two sentences from his blog entry.
He accuses Coulter of plagiarizing from him, but doesn't appear to be willing to make his own comments available to support that claim.
The liberal media is once again trying to twist the debate away from the facts, and the obvious lack of integrity they have shown.
However, despite their efforts, the facts are important to the public. That is why Rall is despised by most everyone, and while Coulter is controversial, she is respected by a large percentage of those who agree and disagree with her. Rall can only bring more than a tiny group to care what he says by being compared to Coulter. Coulter once again has a bestselling book.
I don't always agree with how Coulter presents her ideas, but I generally agree with the ideas, and am impressed with the research that goes into them.
Even O'Reilly has tempered his criticism by saying that, unlike left-wing satirist Al Franken, ``Coulter doesn't lie." Yet the website spinsanity.org, equally tough on prevaricators whether on the left or right, has documented a number of egregious distortions and misstatements in Coulter's earlier books, ``Treason" and ``Slander."
LOL! spinsanity.org. The blatantly liberal site that appeared in April 2001 and claimed to exist to expose manipulative political rhetoric. Coulter's response to their article debunked their claims of "egregious distortions" and provided ample evidence that they were the ones spinning things and misrepresenting the facts.
Coulter's books have contained some errors, all books do. Her errors were not regarding pivotal pieces of information, nor do the corrections detract from her points.
However, the authors of that site did use it as a forum to push their own book attacking President Bush just before the '04 elections.
I've often thought that one of Ann's ancestors must have been the little boy who pointed out to the blinded masses that the emperor wore no clothes.
I'll admit that Ann's comments make me cringe from time to time, and I've wished that she had worded some of them differently, but I seldom disagree with her intended meaning. And, how many times has that same meaning been said in a "nice" way that was either ignored or swept immediately out of the spotlight while the Left carried on successfully with their TRULY outrageous tactics and lies.
Ann is a very intelligent, and articulate person and there can be little doubt that she knows exactly what she is doing. At the least, her tactic focuses EVERYONE's attention on the subject that otherwise may never have been noticed on that scale.
After the shock, and gasps, and self-righteous "outrage" (feigned or otherwise) at the "crudeness" of it all, any honest person with a modicum of common sense has to recognize the truth of her intended meaning - even if they don't like HOW it was said.
I'm a lot more outraged by LIES, no matter how nicely they are spoken or portrayed, but I want them EXPOSED - not SILENCED.
The agenda is to silence Coulter, and any other Conservative voice that speaks the truth, no matter how nicely or crudely it's spoken.
Maybe someone here can find it, but I recently stumbled upon a pamphlet online written by the guy who was one of the NEA's first political "advisors." His advice - fight nasty and ugly because nice guys finish last.
Although Ann makes us uncomfortable sometimes, she's fighting a fight that we didn't start and on their terms. GO ANNIE!!!
Fair enough. She made a joke about him entering the Jew-bashing political cartoon competition. When I get some time, I'll see of she criticized Rall for widow cartoons specifically.
Exactly. Because, dont'cha know no one can possibly understand what they've been thru. Just like Kerry or McCain think they can't be criticised because they've received medals in the services.
Those of us who lose family members in more "ordinary" tragedies like car accidents and murders just would't understand how the suffering of others gives the lefties spokespeople the right and the duty to tell us how we should think, without questions.
OK I'll quit the sarcasm now.
Good point. The libs abandoned the whole concept of civil debate in 1968.
I didn't catch that first hand, but I believe it. I agree, Coulter crossed the line from "critic" to "bully" a while ago.
When did Marianne Pearl ever cut a commerical for John Kerry of speak out against President Bush?
I was just curious. I probably feel the same way about Savage as you do about Coulter, but I only occasionally toss a barb his way.
And you don't get beaten down if your arguments are up to snuff. I've defended GWB vigorously on more than a few anti-Bush threads and flipped a few critics and made others pause. And despite the scorn from some, I do it because it's important. Not sure that wasting my breath slamming Savage in front of his admirers has much merit.
Don't get me wrong, it does not bother me that you choose this topic to post an "alternative point of view". Like I said, just curious.
Saying that someone's late husband may have been going to divorce them anyhow.
Calling an potential SOCTUS nominee a cleaning lady.
Being unmarried, childless at 43, and pretty much a one trick pony or one note Wanda......but holding one's self up as a beacon of conservative thought.
Sniping by saying that you think that the next step a woman will take is pictures in Playboy, implying low morals and sleaze.....when you're sitting there, bare legs crossed while wearing a leather micro mini just centimeters from your hoo hoo.
Shall I go on?
Not only does that qualify her as a harpy, but....
as white trash whose Mama didn't raise her right.
Methinks she has two left arms.
I agree with your analysis.
And the mothers of our slain warriors who admire and support GWB CERTAINLY have no value to the MSM.
Look....
Ann is an icon because of her looks as because of her bite....
If she looked like HT, why there'd be one thread about her book with about 15 posts.
And half would be making fun of her looks.
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.