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 ...
And ... thoughful discussion is totally lost on liberals. To make a point with liberals, you must strike a raw nerve.
Well said.
Good comparison. I read Levin's book, he is worth the price of admission.
And he is fully as caustic as she is, and in a debate is, like her, fearless.
That is correct. A case in point is that Dorothy Rabinowitz published an article in the WSJ that chastised the Jersey Girls and their protected status. But did ANYONE remember that, and did it effect the debate about the Dem's use of "sacred cows"? No and No are the answers.
But every politically aware person, left and right, knows Ann wrote a book defending Tailgunner Joe McCarthy and they will remember her for puncturing this tactic of the left as well.
Indeed. the left made this bed, now they are going to have to die in it.
Just got my copy on Friday anad really liked the grilling on educators. LOL
Facts? Who needs facts when the story is the truth?
- Dan Rather
Shalom.
One of the reasons why the current campaign by the left to demonize Ann Coulter for insulting "9/11 widows" is because the same media used the 4 Jersey girls as spokesmen and talismen for every widow of the events of that horrible day.
They are still trying to sell the same false message. They know what they are doing. Ann is trying to explain their tactics to thousands of readers, and she is succeeding.
Here in the New York area, Levin has one of the most listened to radio shows.
Did I say anything about Marianne Pearl? Here's what I was referring to:
9/11 Widows Join Kerry Campaign
John Kerry tried to re-establish his credentials on national security yesterday, recruiting prominent widows from the September 11 terror attacks to support his election campaign. In an election season dominated by issues of national security, yesterday's endorsement was designed to... John Kerry tried to re-establish his credentials on national security yesterday, recruiting prominent widows from the September 11 terror attacks to support his election campaign.
In an election season dominated by issues of national security, yesterday's endorsement was designed to reassure a doubting American public that Mr Kerry could be relied on to keep the country safe.
The self-styled Jersey Girls, widows who became minor folk icons for their persistent efforts to force a reluctant Bush administration to investigate the attacks, claim their support rises above the usual political fray.
"We will be speaking from the heart, and speaking from our conscience," Kristen Breitweiser, the most prominent of the widows, told the Associated Press on Monday.
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-14-2004-59300.asp
I am of the opinion that quite a few liberals and fence-riders may be reading Ann for the first time.
At least three of my co-workers are presently reading "Godless" (due to all the publicity) who have never dared read one of her books before. I would consider all of them to be fiscal liberals and all voted for Clinton 'twice'.
This is the first book written by Ann or any other conservative writer that any of them have read (by their own admission) and all three also admit that they paid for their copy of the book. I was shocked.
Will they become true conservatives overnight after reading this book, probably not, but in the last presidential election two of my employees vacated the Democrats due to their disgust over moral issues after reading David Limbaugh's book.
Michael Newdow's lawsuit, to try to remove 'under God' from the "pledge of allegiance" has done wonders for the conservative point of view.
That type of godless liberal extremism, such as the ninth circuit court of appeals is helping "Godless" to fly off the shelves.
You were referring to the article, not to something I posted, I think. But to answer the question, I do not remember Mrs Pearl saying much at all.
They were not included in this article and I haven't seen the quotes. I've seen "Ann called them..."
Context is king.
Shalom.
No need. You've exposed your biases quite clearly. Thank you.
There is no weakness to her argument. She isn't attacking the messenger to discredit her opponent. The entire book is an attack on their message. This one small portion in question is about the delivery of their message--through those society considers untouchable and undebatable. It begins as an attack on the MSM who value victimhood and raise victims to rock star status and only briefly touches on the Girls themselves as revelling in their celebrity (a height of society they reach by standing on the coffins of their deceased husbands).
She is entirely on message and correct.
Biases?
Please,
if I see Ann as bad mannered, it seems that I have biases instead of having NO biases and expecting the same high standards of behavior from her that appear to be expected of the rest of us.....
Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
Thankyouverymuchandhaveaniceday.
Sounds like a case of projection to me. I can't think of an unattractive conservative lady at the moment for an example for you but I know that just about nobody goes on a thread about Mark Steyn, Hugh Hewitt, Howie Carr or Michael Medved because of their looks.
Ann is great because of her mind. It doesn't hurt that she's easy on the eyes--but that also is an asset she employs fully to take the MSM on on their own turf. They are obsessed with physical appearance.
I'd like tp read more of this but my copy of "Godless" was just delivered and I have to go.
Also You: Denial ain't a river in Egypt.
Please don't let me interrupt a perfectly good conversation...
She does it without personal loss.
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.