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 because they cannot that justifies Coulter? How can we criticize such behavior in them and excuse it away in her?
Her points are there in the background, getting their message across subliminally, every time the liberals rant and shriek. The title of the book gets mentioned. Of course they will never deal with the main issue head-on. That would be actually Dealing With An Issue.
It is a question of style. I might never make the case in the manner Ann does, but you can't take away the fact that she is right.
She is a political satirist who exaggerates to get attention and make a point. This she has certainly done very well, as well as sell books.
How many people out there, liberal or fence-sitters, will miss the point because she hits the raw nerve with her sledge hammer? Let's be honest here. Coulter isn't interested in converting anyone. She doesn't preach to liberals or reach out to those towards the middle. She's tossing raw meat to her many devoted followers. Those who wouldn't buy her book without her aiming for the raw nerves. She's after the money and that's it.
I've yet to see anything from the Jersey Girls where they claim to speak for anyone but themselves.
???
You lost me bud.
S'right.....
Gotta go play with the bad girls now ;)
From her bio:
Coulter clerked for the Honorable Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and was an attorney in the Department of Justice Honors Program for outstanding law school graduates.
After practicing law in private practice in New York City, Coulter worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan. From there, she became a litigator with the Center For Individual Rights in Washington, DC, a public interest law firm dedicated to the defense of individual rights with particular emphasis on freedom of speech, civil rights, and the free exercise of religion.
A Connecticut native, Coulter graduated with honors from Cornell University School of Arts & Sciences, and received her J.D. from University of Michigan Law School, where she was an editor of The Michigan Law Review.
Care to put your bio against hers?
Always followed by dishonesty...
That whoosing sound is the point of their statement going right over your head.
Ann may have a million degrees and a pedigree that the AKC would adore,
BUT,
She hasn't lived or lost.....she's a zephyr.
You are again exposing your biases. Liberals see the world conferring expertise through loss and failure. Conservatives gain expertise through hard work and achievement. She has earned her right to express herself on these subjects and has the pedigree to prove her aptitude.
They are afraid that they will "get beaten down" on the internet? My word! What a fearsome group of conservative warriors you speak for. Afraid to write their opinions in an anonymous forum.
Right. I was commenting on the article comparing Ann's comments to Rall's.
It is one thing to attack the messenger when they are not the originator of the message, as in an envoy, for example. It is entirely different when the messenger originated the message, helped to make the message and/or approves of the content of the message. That would make them part of the message, and fair game.
Just out of curiosity, what do you define as "lived"?
Must have missed the Welstone funeral and cheerleading event.
A lovely appeal to pity that. You claim you can't speculate on AC's (or Rall's) motives, because you don't know what they are. Yet when AC "trashes" the "Jersey Girls" she does it without personal loss. This is nothing but speculation on your part, and it is wrong. AC has written about the personal loss of her good friend Barbara Olsen (another friend of this forum as is Ann Coulter).
Let's be honest here. Coulter isn't interested in converting anyone. She doesn't preach to liberals or reach out to those towards the middle. She's tossing raw meat to her many devoted followers. Those who wouldn't buy her book without her aiming for the raw nerves. She's after the money and that's it.
What was that about 'not speculating about true motives?'
Here's a word for you: polemic--defined as "a controversial argument, especially one refuting or attacking a specific opinion or doctrine."
Her book is not a public relations tract, it's a polemic and a fine one. Your criticism of her rhetoric shows no understanding of this legitimate rhetorical device, and displays not a little intellectual dishonesty on your part.
Yes - the point is, she doesn't claim to be immune to criticism because of her loss, like the Democrats' victim spokespeople do. She stands up to and answers criticism with fact and yes, one-liners; she doesn't cut and run from the argument by claiming immunity because of victimhood. The liberal icons like Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey girls, Murtha, Kerry, and McCain scream about disrespect for their loss or wounds whenever they are criticized and try to shut down the argument.
Mark Levin is very good and is just as insightful and "biting" as Coulter. I think there is something to the fact that Coulter is female and is judged differently because of her gender.
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.