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 ...
Lesbian, fer sure.....
That is a direct hit. Coulter is the equivalent of Arsenio Hall, "woof-woofing" her "dogpound" every time she says something. She excels at preaching to the converted, and offending everyone else.
Did you even read the posts in question? Go read them and then tell me I wasn't correct in assessing them as "liberal" debate tactics. The person with whom I was conversing chose to discount Ann's impressive resume and say she has no background to stand on because she hasn't "suffered" or "lived".
I'm sorry, but the poster in question was a caricature of what Ann has exposed and I called her on it. I wasn't throwing a "lib" accusation to shut her up, I was pointing out that there's no way to argue with someone who says you haven't suffered enough to be allowed in the conversation.
Doug, get off your soapbox and read the conversation that led to the "lib" accusation. I was pointing out that the poster in question changed the debate from what Ann had said to whether Ann had "suffered" or "lived" enough to be able to make the comments. She was an absolute caricature from one of Ann's books.
I called a spade a spade and I won't apologize for it.
Ann's message is good. Her language is harsh. Her language gets her message out. Her tactics work. I salute her.
Good day.
Ann IS effective. The left hates her, and they dare not ignore her, because she is clarifying their nuances. lol.
She won't be intimidated by them, and they can't silence her, so they are attempting to maneuver Conservatives into doing that job for them.
The more the libs attack Ann, the more I love her.
Forgive me for pointing out that the context of the argument is that of a polemic: an ATTACK or refutation of the liberal doctrine of infallibility. I suppose you make the point that "personal attacks" are beyond the pale in any argument, but I'll submit that point is irrational given that the whole point of her book is to attack personally and objectively the liberal position.
Sadly, the irrationality of your point continues in the banal citings of anecdotal evidence that the book (What we do need to worry about is the perceptions of those who are apolitical -- the 40% of the population that doesn't follow politics, yet votes.) will offend others we need to convert. Again, this is not the point of her book. AC does not engage in public relations in any of her writings. She is indeed "preaching to the choir" and to anyone else who understands the language of political debate "ain't beanbag". I'll guess that those who are offended by her wouldn't read her anyway, and for those we have the fine work of Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Prager, et. al., to convert them.
In an earlier post I used the word "meretricious" to describe the activities (from the Latin: [Latin meretrcius, of prostitutes). The usage of this word is a high-falutin' way of comparing the "jg's" activity to prostitutes plying their trade. The usage is shocking, but nonetheless you agreed with me above.
AC is attacking the left; she is not attacking "civility of discourse", etc. (which you may have noticed is not a particular concern of the left in their rhetoric). I think we are all in agreement here that we are mostly like-minded in our passion for the cause of conservatism. Your point is made that you are offended by her words. My point is that while it may be true that you are offended, the targets of her words have been gravely injured by her "vitriolic barbs." The evidence of the effectiveness of her attack grows every day.
If her goal is to sell books by preaching to the choir, she's succeeding. But that makes her just a salesperson, not anyone whose opinions matter.
My point is that while it may be true that you are offended, the targets of her words have been gravely injured by her "vitriolic barbs."
I think that's the real core of our disagreement. I think the targets of her barbs generally love it. They get free, sympathetic publicity as martyrs created by Ann. And anyone who subsequently launches a more reasonable attack on the targets of her barbs gets lumped together with Ann.
The evidence of the effectiveness of her attack grows every day.
I must have missed that. I think you equate "effectiveness" with "publicity". Michael Moore got an awful lot of publicity for his "side", and was the epitome of preaching to the converted. Yet I'd bet that he alienated a lot more people than he ever persuaded, pushed his party farther to the left, and ended up having a net negative effect for liberals in the 2004 election. He became the poster child for what voters would see if they elected Kerry, and I'm guessing a lot of them didn't like that.
That's Ann in a nutshell. Even if she's right, the manner in which she chooses to make her point makes her "effective", but not in the way we'd prefer. She the boogeyman for the left.
Exactly and thank you! :)
Not true. The mushy middle buys books based on hype. That's why Hugh Hewitt's books, though well written and insightful, don't sell very well. OTOH, Rush Limbaugh's two books "The Way it Ought to be" and "See I told you So" were massive best sellers. And converted thousands of moderates and libs into conservatives. And he had many "outrageous" comments in his books and the scared libs spent months dissecting the "lies" and distortions in his books, all to no avail.
Rush has and continues to say "mean" things about liberals and makes the occassional Coulter-esque body slam and uses hyperbole to great effect. I remember hearing blue blood conservatives in the early years of Rush's show complain loudly about this brash young talking head that is "poisoning" the national dialogue.
Yet they were dead wrong about Rush. The polite republicans were getting their clocks cleaned in the media and Rush was and is still is the antidote. So Rush helped save their sorry, polite asses, despite their protestations. Who is more influential Rush or George Will? Rush or any of the genteel class of conservative?
Ann Coulter is the female Rush Limbaugh. She has poked holes in all of the sacred cows that the polite conservatives will not do. McCarthyism is but one fine example. Who else would writet a book that basically said McCarthy was right? The left has twisted history to show that McCarthy was the evil one, not the Soviet quislings in our midst, of which there were many. Her book caused huge controversy with liberal historians trying to refute Ann on the subject, and yet, Ann won the day. There WERE commie quislings in US politics and they needed to be exposed. Ann her book was a #1 best seller, exposing a generation of people to the reasons there was something called McCarthyism, that despite its excesses, was a response to shameful acts of treason by lefties.
Michael Moore, who you wrongfully compare to Ann, would have had alot more effect with his hyperbole had his basic assertions been true. But if your over the top rhetoric is followed by nothing but easily refutable lies, then all you appeal to are the moonbats. Unless you think the conservative movement is made up of equally moonbatish stooges, then all comparison of the two are incorrect.
Ann has turned my sister from apolitical mother of three into a conservative with her book Slander. She had no idea, being a busy mom of three, that the crap she was seeing on CBSNBCABCCNN and Katie Couric was leftist propaganda. She sees it now.
A lot of us get it.
I couldn't agree more, soccermom. They were sideshows to the extent they were "shows" at all. She just gave them free publicity.
OTOH, Rush Limbaugh's two books "The Way it Ought to be" and "See I told you So" were massive best sellers. And converted thousands of moderates and libs into conservatives. And he had many "outrageous" comments in his books and the scared libs spent months dissecting the "lies" and distortions in his books, all to no avail.
I don't think Limbaugh ever went as far as Coulter, even given his exponentially greater media exposure. And even when he occasionally went over the top, he'd have a ton of reasonable, intelligent comments on the other side of the balance. His overall message outweighed the few truly "outrageous" comments he'd made.
Coulter, well, I certainly don't see her that way. She doesn't have a regular radio show for people to get to know her, so the only time she really makes the news big-time is when she says something that the leftist media wants to disseminate.
That oughta be a clue right there. If our opponents give free airtime to her comments, they must have a reason for doing so.
Say it one more time... I think I'm really close to believing you. Well, actually I'm not. But it might make you feel better to say it again...
Her message IS getting out. Now, when the media trots out Cindy (my son's coffin is my soapbox) Sheehan or Mike (Bush killed my son's killer and all I got was this lowsy attitude) Berg EVERYONE is saying, "look, they're doing just what Ann said they do."
She's caustic AND effective and I'm not going around on the merry-go-round anymore. Have a good day.
Whew! So there is hope for us yet. Glad to see the voices of reason here. Now I can give my fingers a rest. Carry on. Later!
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.