Coulter's Crudeness

Boston Globe ^ | 6/19/06 | Cathy Young

[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,

[pgyanke]

Just admit you don't get her! Surely you have seen the bile pour from the left? Ann matches them blow for blow. She is nearly a lone voice against a coordinated DNC-MSM cabal and she takes no prisoners. I don't fault her for being in their faces.

Reality check: We wouldn't be having this national conversation about how the left hides behind their victims to insulate their arguments if Ann hadn't made the argument controversially. They haven't bothered with any other part of her book because they think they can attack her for her harshness in this one area. However, by doing so, they are making her point for her and it has gotten far more exposure than if she had been all sweetness and light about it.

You can not like her style but the results speak for themselves. The left would ignore her if they could.

[soccermom]

Oh spare me! I get her. You're the one double-talking. A few posts ago, the term "harpy" was attacking the messenger. Then, when I pointed out that was Ann's tactic, suddenly it becomes a valid part of the argument.

Of course I have seen bile from the left. I am an adult and I understand that you don't need to counter bile with more bile.

You want a reality check? There is no "national conversation" about how the left hides behind their victims. There is an orgy among people on rightwing sites like this one who are giddy about being spoon-fed their ration of red meat. Meanwhile, there is an orgy on the leftwings sites about how "the right" was once again "exposed" as a bunch of meanies, thus validating the "human shield" "strategerie". If you think the apolitical people -- the ones whose votes we are trying to win -- are sitting around discussing the sneaky tactics of the left, you are deluding yourself. At worst, they see Ann Coulter as that leggy blonde that said mean things about the 9/11 widows. At best, they have mercifully forgotten all about the whole issue when news of Zarqawi broke. God willing, that is what happened.

[T'wit]

In its "The Week" section, National Review used to have a trademark on the same kind of sassy wit that Ann Coulter wields today. The editors, including Buckley, were a witty bunch, and they started firing at the "liberal establishment" from the very first issue, in 1955. NR has taken a much more establishmentarian view over the years, and its sass is gone. I miss it. Ann Coulter is easily the best purveyor of that kind of spirited wit who's writing today.

I can quote or almost quote some of them all these years later:

-- In the FIRST issue after the assassination of President Kennedy: "The Editors of National Review regret to announce that their patience with President Lyndon B. Johnson is exhausted."

-- "The plot to kill Indonesian President Soekarno had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everybody in the room was killed but Soekarno."

-- "Our congratulations to Mr. Carter for managing to rise from Jimmy who? to Jimmy who? in four short, make that interminable, years."

Even NR's stellar editors got into an occasional scrape. Once they criticized the John Birch Society's famous slogan that called for (chief justice) Earl Warren to be impeached. There was no basis for impeaching Warren, said NR, but they could make a case that he should be hanged. THAT gave them a quick lesson in why you don't use irony when you talk to liberals :-) :-)

[mjolnir]

No, Cathy Young isn't conservative or right wing. She's a left libertarian of characteristic of the sort who writes in Reason magazine these days.

One of her main focuses has been to attack conservatives from the left who are too effective, i.e. too big for their britches, whether its Tammy Bruce for seeing her conservatism as better serving the principles she held as a feminist than her feminism did (how dare she!), http://www.reason.com/0308/co.cy.tammy.shtml , Michelle Malkin for defending profilinghttp://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/23/the_profiling_puzzle/ , Michael Fumento for being a supposed corporate tool http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/02/20/cleaning_house_on_opinions_for_hire/, or Ann Coulter for... Well, you get the idea.

Each time, her accusations echo some typical leftist accusation of conservatives, and each time, her accusations have been shown to be spurious (Fumento in particular exposes he claims as smears and proceeds to demolish them. This is just one representative example of how shallow the basis of her claims inevitably turn out to be, from Amber Pawlik's rebuttal of smears against Tammy Bruce:

Some charge against her, like Cathy Young did in her article, “Tammy Bruce’s Journey,” that Tammy had some pretty feminist beliefs. Yes, she did, and I disagree with many. But, guess what. She still has those beliefs today. Cathy complains Tammy "lambasted" against a judge who would not let firefighters have nudie magazines at their job. This was taken as proof that Tammy used to be a feminist, but now is not. But Tammy will tell you the same thing regarding the firefighters today. There was no conversion. One only has to browse her articles at frontpagemag.com to realize Tammy is still a feminist (although some seem to be too intellectually sloppy to do that).

Cathy Young wrote that Tammy was a hypocrite because she started a very public boycott against the book American Psycho, but also criticized the gay establishment for trying to ruin Dr. Laura's career. Let us look at the content of these two events.

At first, I also personally thought Tammy was being a radical feminist for boycotting American Psycho, until I read what was in the book (which was not the same as the movie). The book describes a man who sends rats up women's vaginas and electrocutes women. It had promise of being a bestseller. Do you consider this something only a radical feminist could be offended by?

Tammy started a one-year boycott of retailers who sold the book. She did not get the government involved. Many people, radical feminist or not, appreciated her crusade. Like I’ve said, I always found her work respectable, when she was with NOW or not.

Now let us look at the campaign against Dr. Laura. I won't even mention the fact that their tactics did not just involve a boycott of a store, but death threats to her house. I'll just focus on the dishonesty. Everyone was led to believe Dr. Laura said homosexuality is deviant. Here is what she actually said, in reference to a letter a person sent to her show.

I read the entire report from the Catholic Church, and that’s exactly what is said: that people with a homosexual orientation are to be loved, nurtured, helped, protected, not hurt in thought, word or deed. I’m paraphrasing, but they say that it is quite possible to believe that a sexual behavior is deviant and disordered and not wish to have any harm come to that person; moreover, to have spiritual and psychiatric help come to that person. But the radical activists do not allow that; they just jump on the bigotry word. And that is so offensive.

Commanding love, nurturing, help and protection for homosexuals while reminding people what the Catholic Church believes, how dare Dr. Laura! Dr. Laura also made another reference to homosexuality being a biological error, but she it was in reference to the sexual orientation, not homosexual themselves.

It is obvious the gay establishment went after Dr. Laura not over one statement, but because they hate her ideological message. The thugs of the left do not want you to hear opposing ideological viewpoints. As Tammy calls them, they are thought police.

How a person cannot see the difference between pressuring a smutty book, which glorified the murder of women (of which Cathy Young was too intellectually dishonest to mention in her smears), out of existence versus ruining a woman's career because of her ideological views is beyond me. Giving only half accounts of the two events, however, seems to aid in that.

I'm proud of Tammy's work in boycotting American Psycho. I don't approve of that smut being in our culture. They have a right to print it; we have a right to criticize it. Taking a moral position is not going to threaten civil liberties, like so many seem to believe. Tammy is a true and enduring voice against the intellectual and moral swampland our culture has become. You could argue that this activism of Tammy's, back when she was a supposed radical feminist, was actually a conservative move.

As someone who writes for major opinion outlets, Cathy Young is worth keeping track of (sometimes she even writes useful and true stuff, though you wouldn't know it from the above)--- but it should always be remembered that she is a left-libertarian given to attacking and smearing conservatives, NOT a conservative herself, despite the fact that she often writes in National Review.

[T'wit]

>> ...inspired by blonde hair and short black skirts.

It's a guy thing.

[bfree]

Well, she's right about the Jersey girls and Murtha, even though you don't like her choice of words. However, her choice seems to be more accurate than your's. You are just plain petty.

[bfree]

there is an orgy on the leftwings sites about how "the right" was once again "exposed" as a bunch of meanies, thus validating the "human shield" "strategerie

I'm proud to be mean to the left.

[untrained skeptic]

I understand what you are saying. However, I'm really not convinced Ann has become more coarse or less harsh in how she criticizes.

She has always made those couple comments per book that I felt just went too far.

She has from time to time added that one extra low blow while talking about an issue.

It seems to me what has changed is that she is getting more and more attention, and the media is concentrating more and more on those few comments. She will present volumes of information and makes lots of strong comments, but the only ones we hear about from the media are the one or two that seem too harsh.

I also know that the irritation I feel with her for taking things a bit too far does have a cumulative effect to some extent.

I did not like how Ann handled the Meirs nomination. I was openly disgusted with how a large percentage of those from the right who opposed Meirs' nomination conducted themselves in that fiasco, nor do I think her sarcastic comments about Meirs' were even close to the most shameful lapses in integrity we saw from those claiming to be conservatives in that debate.

However, I don't think Ann's approach has changed significantly. She has always reminded us where the line of good taste is by unapologetically stepping across to the other side letting some comment fly that makes us all cringe.

She's used it as a tool to get the important things she has to say heard. However, as the left keeps bringing our focus to those few comments over and over again it gets less amusing.

However, what she says that makes me cringe is usually only a slight step from being justified. Her comments about Meirs were an exception to that, however, they were also outrageous enough to not be taken seriously.

I don't think she's really changed, but she definitely makes it hard to support her at times. However, I've never found any political figure I could say I completely support.

[dougmilner]

Why do you label people as liberals when they disagree with you? Are you the leader of the Conservative Thought Police?

I came to FR to be able to read and learn about politics and news stories. No one learns anything if we all act like a bunch of bobbleheads nodding yes to each other and patting ourselves on the back because we all agree.

This is the second thread today that I saw dissenters being called "liberals" and told to "go back to DU" just for disagreeing with someone else's point.

"Free Republic" -- isn't that the name of this website?
Does FREE thought and FREE expression and FREE thinking come under that? I hope so.

[Smedley]

And because they cannot that justifies Coulter? How can we criticize such behavior in them and excuse it away in her?

Respectfully, you seem to be equating Coulter's behavior with those of the Left. I don't think that it gets there.

Anyway, my point is that it may take EXACTLY the behavior that Coulter is exhibiting in order to press the issue. Think of a Jewish suicide bomber taking a stroll into Hamas headquarters. Its certainly not the equivalent of Hamas bombing Israeli school children, and it would be a hoot to watch the Hamas apologists scream about bad Jewish behavior.

[EveningStar]

Like any lib...

Quite a few people on this site have objected to Ann's choice of words, and none can be described as lib. Moreover, several prominent people on the Right, although agreeing with her basic argument, felt that her specific language was over the line.

[freespirited]

In other words, you're not reading it. You're hearing about it. That's no way to form an independent opinion.

If what others have to say were not useful in deciding whether to read a book, there would be no book reviews.

I think commentaries like the following one, which reveal Ann to have fallen short on matters of accuracy, are very useful in forming an independent opinion.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html

I've also heard Ann describe her book on multiple occasions. That's helping me form an opinion, and it's going downhill.

Liberals can drive me up a wall, but the fact remains that lots of them aren't Godless. In a recent survey by the Pew Center, almost 30% described themselves as creationists. I have also pointed out before that specific subsets of the left are extremely hostile to Darwinian thinking, most notably feminists. Another fact against her thesis.

I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw what Ann is alleged to have written about biologists. "Barely scientists anymore"? If that is what she wrote, she has gone too far--AGAIN.

[maica]

At worst, they see Ann Coulter as that leggy blonde that said mean things about the 9/11 widows.

####

You have fallen under the spell of the drive-by media. Ann never said mean things about "the 9//11 widows". She specifically took on the four women who enjoyed a year or more of celebrity by being treated as "spokeswomen" BY the media.

[soccermom]

Fine -- just don't delude yourself into thinking anything other than that has been accomplished.

[ladyinred]

As I am more than half way through this book, I can see why the left is having such a fit ! Ann is exposing these anti American idiots for what they are even more than her other books. The poor widows are just the tip of the iceberg, and I am sure they hope no one reads this book except we on the radical right!

[soccermom]

You have fallen under the spell of the drive-by media. Ann never said mean things about "the 9//11 widows". She specifically took on the four women who enjoyed a year or more of celebrity by being treated as "spokeswomen" BY the media.

Unlike those who think Coulter can do no wrong, I am under no "spell". Yes, she specifically took on four of the 9/11 widows and she said specifically mean things about them. And, regardless of how you want to nuance it, the perception among those "undecideds" is that she said mean things about 9/11 widows.

[Radix]

I realize that this thread is more than 8 hours old, and that I have not read any post other than the first.

Why?

Well, for one, I do not read the Boston Globe....It is a rag that is maintained by subversives... I grew up with that pretentious publication. I read it everyday of my life for decades, the only exception being those days when I was stationed in Germany.

Lately, for the last couple of days, I have been really busy, busy reading. I'm actually reading Ann Coulter's book, and I am almost finished with it.

That book is not about the Jersey Shrews despite what the Boston Globe may want you all to think.

This book is a laugh a minute, and the Globe is simply too painful a thing for me to indulge myself in.

They suck!

READ ANN'S BOOK!

It is awesome!

[Radix]

"I'm not going to speculate on the true motives of those that they trashed because I don't pretend to know what they are."

Well I suppose that this is technically "not speculating" but it is certainly a technicality from my perspective.

Read the book, and then not speculate. You might seem to appear to be a bit less subjective.

[NCLaw441]

Must Coulter, and the rest of us, suffer the misPERCEPTIONS of those on the left? Should/Must we anticipate these wrong perceptions?

[pissant]

I'm in the middle of her book. It is very funny and truthful at the same time.

Her hyperbole does not bother me, despite being over the top at times.

And for all who are offended by her quips, I hope you are bitterly enraged by seditious comments that come out daily from democrat politicians. And the anti-troop fever swamp lies that the MSM regularly tells. And the hysterical, know nothing diatribes of the jersey harpies against GWB. And the relentless negativism of all things traditional by the left. By the disgusting revisionist history school books that praise Maya Angeliou and castigate Cristopher Colombus. By the ACLU and their ilk taking aim at any mention of God in the public square. And CNNABCNBCCBSNYTIMES treating the Swiftboat vets like a bunch of ex convicts. And the Dems pretending recently that they too were cold warriors and helped Reagan bring down the USSR. And that their heros are Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and Ted Kennedy and Mumia and Chavez and the retard Kos, etc, etc. And that they lie consistently and are only meekly challenged by GOP politicians.

These are the things Ann goes after with bare knuckles and and a sawed off shotgun. And they deserve it shoved back down their throats. Ann does that, and for that, I applaud her.