Coulter's Crudeness

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,

"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."

Dear Soccermom,

I just jumped into this thread looking for a place to make a comment. These comments are not directed at you specifically.

I simply do not have enough time to read all of the posts here.

I finished reading the latest book of Ann Coulter's earlier today.

Guess what?

It ain't about some widows from New Jersey.

Hardly.

Ann has just done a major rebuke of the Courts, Politicians, and the Public Educational System in our country.

I happen to know a few things about the Education Infrastructure. She has essentially dismembered the evolutionists and their arguments in our country. She refers to them as "Darwiniacs." I am shocked that the commentary on her latest work has focused on such a very narrow portion of her writings.

She has simply torn a new A$$hole for a lot of the people who are determined to infect posterity with their mindless, illogical platform concerning biology and the origin of life.

Don't take my word for it anybody. Go read the book.

Clearly from my review of posts, a lot more people are commenting on the book than are actually reading it.

Thanks for the allowing me the space to spew my opinion.

The difference is that Vision isn't playing politics by using the death of loved ones as a pass key to the public square.

Many years ago when I was in law school, a zany feminist law professor whose mad and vile rants in print wound up in the Harvard Law Review was brutally stabbed to death on the street. Anyone who criticized her oeuvre was immediately shouted down for being heartless, cruel, etc. A caricature of her article was parodied and one HLS professor called it hate speech. The law review editors responsible for the parody were threatened with expulsion. It took Charles Fried to observe that while this woman's memory was sacred, her opinions and writings were not.

This nonsense about the Jersey girls reminded me of that episode in annals of trojan horse politics. Assuming they had stable, loving marriages and sincerely lament the loss dear ones, their politicizing of 9/11 for leftist purposes is not sacred. I'm certain that Ann's poison pen was aimed at their deeds, not their loss.

If you want to pretend that book sales are strong indicator of public opinion, then Hillary would be immensely popular with the American people.

Fat cat liberals buy liberal books. Have you ever seen tons of Hillary's books in the "inner city"? Nah, and when you take the "high school dropout union guys", and the inner city true believers out of the mix, there aren't a lot of book buyers left. No, IMHO when a liberal pol like Hillary sells lots of books, George Sorose and friends are buying in bulk and donating them for tax write-offs somewhere.

Why is it that whenever I read your stuff soccermom, you're putting down Rush, putting down Coulter, putting down conservatives -- defending Mapes, defending Rather etc... What conservatives do you like? ( Oh, I used to be a liberal - in case you were wondering)

Fat cat liberals buy liberal books. Have you ever seen tons of Hillary's books in the "inner city"? Oh come on! Like fat-cat conservatives don't buy up conservative books? I haven't taken any book polls in the inner city lately. Have you? I know conservative book clubs and conservative magazines are buying up Coulter's book and offering it as a freebie when you join. There's nothing wrong with that. The point is, getting a best seller isn't an indication of mass appeal -- it is an indication of one's popularity within a particular niche.

"Why is it that whenever I read your stuff soccermom, you're putting down Rush, putting down Coulter, putting down conservatives -- defending Mapes, defending Rather etc... What conservatives do you like? ( Oh, I used to be a liberal - in case you were wondering)" I don't "put down" Rush. I state the truth -- that he is successful by giving people what they want -- not by "converting" people. And I'm the one who credited him with being the first conservative pundit (since I've been paying attention anyway) to expose the exploitation of tragedy with his Ron Brown clip. I'll bet I've been listening to Rush longer than you have. I "put down" Coulter for making personal attacks, when she didn't have to. Do you deny what she did was mean? Is that a Christian way to act? And please, pray tell me, where I "defended" Rather and Mapes. I stated the fact that both of them remained strident in the face of an obviously faked news story. I pointed out that Rather has been employed for nearly 2 years after the document story was exposed and that Mapes is peddling books and still peddling a story that the documents were real. How is that "defending" them? The point, and I can't believe you seriously didn't grasp it the first time, is that it is business as usual for the dominant media and you are deluding yourself if you think otherwise. (The only positive change is that "business" for them is dwindling as people turn to alternative news sources.) Yes, I am glad Rather was humiliated, but it hasn't changed him or 60 Minutes, has it?

As far as conservative commentators go, I like Michael Medved and (before he was hired by the White House) Tony Snow. Both men have the ability to make an argument without acting like wrestlers trash-talking before a WWF show. I particularly like the way Medved will use words and logic to lead liberals to conservative conclusions. Name calling and mindless, trite rhetoric gets us nowhere. As irreverent people go, I like Glenn Beck. He may not be as polite as I'd like, but he's funny and doesn't have any "sacred cows". As for who I dislike, I'd have to say Michael Savage tops the list for obvious reasons. I used to like Hannity and I still consider him a likeable, attractive man on a personal level. But, as a conservative commentator, he is a weak debator. His rhetoric is hackneyed.

Ann puts the MSM and their sycophants in their place - I don't know why that touches a nerve with you, but it obviously does.

If you don't like her, fine. But she's a hero to those of us who feel the MSM has acted the part of the bully ... and if you're concerned that she, and Rush, and Hannity haven't done well enough by the party I'm amazed.

And your comment about "Is that a Christian way to act?" is something I have heard from every liberal I know. They have a one note song, and that's that Christians aren't allowed to be judgmental. And here I would like to remind you that Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple. He didn't try to understand them or go into therapy with them. He didn't accept them. Or be careful in how he spoke to them. He threw them out.

In your opinion, was Jesus not acting in a Christian way when he did that?

But tell me, are you Christian in the way you use the phrase? Are you ever so careful not to offend? Please tell me the truth. Do you hold yourself to the same standard you want to use to box me in with? Or is it just a cheap tactic to be used against those you see as your inferiors?

"Ann puts the MSM and their sycophants in their place - I don't know why that touches a nerve with you, but it obviously does." I've already explained what touches a nerve with me about Ann and it has nothing to do with the media. It has to do with her use of personal attacks. You know that, so why do you pretend otherwise? Such attacks are not only mean, but counterproductive. They don't help our side.

"If you don't like her, fine. But she's a hero to those of us who feel the MSM has acted the part of the bully ..." I never said I didn't like her. I don't like it when she makes personal attacks. And it is abundantly clear to me that she is beyond a "hero" to many here. To those in "the Coult" she is apparently above criticism. "and if you're concerned that she, and Rush, and Hannity haven't done well enough by the party I'm amazed." There ya go again making up things I've never said. I never said Rush and Hannity hadn't done well by the party. They are great at firing up the base and the party needs that. Does that mean they're perfect? Does that mean I have to lie and pretend Hannity is an excellent debator?

"And your comment about "Is that a Christian way to act?" is something I have heard from every liberal I know. They have a one note song, and that's that Christians aren't allowed to be judgmental." And once again, you are twisting things. I never said Christians can't be judgemental. You can make judgements and criticism without using personal attacks and slander. Got it????

"And here I would like to remind you that Jesus threw the money changers out of the Temple. He didn't try to understand them or go into therapy with them. He didn't accept them. Or be careful in how he spoke to them. He threw them out. In your opinion, was Jesus not acting in a Christian way when he did that?" Your Jesus in the Temple example is sooooooo predictable. It is the only thing people can ever point to in the Bible as an example of Jesus getting angry. Guess what? I never said you can't be angry. I never said you can't make judgements. In your example, Jesus rebuked them specifically for their actions. But please tell me where,in this example or anywhere else in the stories of Christ, he ever slandered anyone.

"But tell me, are you Christian in the way you use the phrase? Are you ever so careful not to offend? Please tell me the truth. Do you hold yourself to the same standard you want to use to box me in with? Or is it just a cheap tactic to be used against those you see as your inferiors?" First of all, I am not the one seeing our side as inferiors. On the contrary, I want to hold our side to a higher level. You guys are the ones who want to lower our side to the tactics of the left. I think more of conservatives than you do if you think we have to behave like them. And, yes, if a woman is going to write a book in which she characterizes the left as being "Godless" she darn well better make sure her actions are in keeping with those of Christ's teachings. Second, as I've stated repeatedly, there is a difference between "offending" and "slandering". Of course I offend people from time to time. If I offend people by stating a truth or a relevant observation, there is nothing I can do about that. (Unless, of course, the truth is only hurtful and not helpful. If, for example, I see an enormously fat person, I don't need to tell the person he is fat. It is fairly evident and only serves to be hurtful. In such cases, it is better not to say anything.) And, yes, I've probably said something about Michael Moore's appearance at some time and that is the wrong thing to do. We have plenty to criticize him about, without making it personal.

If I say, "The Jersey Girls seem to be exploiting a tragic situation for political purposes", that is an observation that may offend but it isn't slander and I don't have a problem with it. If I speculate -- based on no evidence whatsoever --that their husbands would have divorced them or that they want to be in Playboy, that is slander. If I call them "witches" that is a personal attack. Got it?????????? Why do you continually deflect from those points when you know they are the source of my objection to Coulter's actions? We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. But Coulter refuses to acknowledge she did anything wrong and neither do most of the people defending her. Why can't you just admit that, while her argument has merit, the personal attacks were out of line?

I am nearly at the end of "Godless".

I think this is a critical point. I think there is a sharp divide between those who are actually reading the book and those who are naively relying on the MSM as they quote out of context. I read chapter 5, then chapter 1 and 2. If you get out your magnifying glass, you can find THE QUOTE in chapter 5. Chapter 5 includes discussion of Murtha, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey Girls, and others, while making a larger, entirely valid point. Chapter 2 is on the historical liberal record of being soft on crime. I learned a lot. From what I’ve read so far, the book is great.

I have yet to read anything "vile" about anything or anybody. She is exactly right about these 4 women--it's still should be okay to call a spade a spade.

Agreed.

The liberals are as wrong on Ann Coulter and this book as they are on most everything else. These attacks do help close the liberal mind - not that any help was really needed. Some conservatives can appear moderate as they distance themselves from Ann. Members of the atheist right on FreeRepublic were already hammering Ann for her position on Darwinism. So she has lots of critics/enemies - so what?

For those with an open mind, I recommend reading the book. If you can think critically and think you have a secure base with knowledge on some things, you should be able to read anyone. I can listen to Liberals and Marxists all day, because their words do not gibe with reality. They simply dig themselves a deeper hole.

Ann like Rush, before we got used to him, tells unfamiliar truths. When she says something outrageous, it is often witty because it’s technically true. It’s kind of like being reminded that two plus two equals four, after the MSM got you thinking it was five: 2+2=4, “very clever.” When the results of logic take you by surprise, you may be on the verge of learning something that you needed to learn.

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.