Ann Coulter Hurts the Cause

The American Thinker ^ | 6 15 06 | J.R. Dunn

[Kitten Festival]

Let me ask you this: when, prior to last week, was the last time you heard of the Jersey Girls? I can’t give a definite answer, which in itself is telling. Not that I was paying any large amount of attention, but there was a lot of noise in between the Afghan and Iraqi campaigns, intense media play building up to the 2004 election, which they did their damndest to throw to Kerry, and then… nothing.

They’d shot their bolt, they had their fifteen minutes and more, and that was the end of it. Until last week when Ann Coulter, acting unilaterally, put them back on the front pages with an attack so obnoxious that it immediately (and unjustly – it was the Girls themselves, after all, who debased their victim status for political purposes) threw all sympathy in their direction. A free ticket to a second act. Not to mention providing Madame Hillary with an opportunity to pose as, of all things, the defender of civility.

Thanks a lot, Ann.

Conservatives used to be known for this kind of thing. Much of this was the media’s doing – at any conservative gathering, be it a gun show or a political convention, reporters will make a beeline for the guy in full camo gear or wearing two dozen anti-UN buttons. But conservatives played their part.

The classic figure here is Coulter’s idol, Joe McCarthy. Bellowing about Communists you couldn’t produce (and it cannot be repeated often enough that McCarthy bagged nobody – the Party infiltrators had been cleaned out by the time he showed up) was bad enough. Doing it in an ill-cut Chicago gangland suit with a five-o’clock shadow and fifth of Jim Beam under your belt simply turned it into a circus.

[jebeier]

I disagree. The Jersey Girls were not the only Infallibles being used by the Democrats.

Cindy Sheehan, Jack Murtha, this idiot Hawaiian deserter from the Stryker Brigade, Michael Berg... The list goes on and on. The use of Infallibles has been very effective. But now their usefulness is at an end.

In order make this happen, Ann Coulter had to make a heck of a lot of noise. This she has done. If the Jersey Girls try to make a come-back, they will be lauded by the 30% who will never support the President and villified, as always, by the 30% who do, but the 40% in the middle will see through the charade.

This was most definitely worth doing.

[TeddyCon]

I couldn't agree more!

Such a coincidence that just about the only true pit bull of a pundit that we have is the one that they can't wait to try tear apart.

[TSchmereL]

The American Thinker may be a great blog, but they don't have a damn spell checker over there. I am always annoyed by the errors.

[FredZarguna]

She deliberately walks right into the public relations trap set by the Left during the McCarthy era.

Do you actually know any history at all?

The right did not walk into any "public relations trap" during the "McCarthy Era"--whatever that was, and the fact that you parrot this leftist revisionism of what happened in the 1950's calls into question the quality of all of your arguments.

During the "McCarthy Era" we discovered that there were as many as a dozen highly placed moles within the OSS. We discovered that the OSS director didn't particularly care that this was true. We learned that the Secretary of the Treasury and several senior officials in the White House were spies. We learned that the Vice President of the United States was a Fellow Traveler, and may have been more. We learned that many of our labor unions--particularly those in the CIO--were not much more than communist front organizations.

During the "McCarthy Era" we discovered the Rosenbergs' Implosion Conspiracy, several members of the Philby-Burgess ring, the Silvermaster ring, and the fact that our so-called "ally" in the late war had, throughout the course of the conflict, already been setting the stage for the confrontation with "the Main Enemy." And that enemy was not Nazi Germany.

During that time, the newsweeklies (except Time which was still conservative) and the "Papers of Record" trashed anticommunists mercilessly and lied unceasingly. HUAC was attacked as itself un-American. Elizabeth Bentley, whose Soviet husband died leaving her in control of several extensive networks was denounced, after she turned, as "delusional." Alger Hiss--a man who betrayed his country and should have gone to the gallows--was lionized, and incredibly has defenders to this day, while Whittaker Chambers was vilified as a fantasist and backstabber by the same people who manufactured an idiotic revision of events called "the Red Scare," or the "McCarthy Era" which you now casually toss in as if it had some resemblance to actual history.

All this, while millions of people were being imprisoned, tortured and murdered on literally every continent on the planet, and the enablers in the press you so apparently adore ridiculed anticommunists as paranoiacs, and heaped adulation on this diabolical philosophy as the "logical conclusion of history."

Only problem is, the (now) declassified Venona intercepts, testimonials by former NKVD, GRU and KGB officers, and the official record of RztKhdny in the Russian Archives proved that the anticommunists were right, and the leftists, who supposedly "set a trap" for us were breathtakingly wrong. The CPUSA was a front organization for Soviet espionage. The anticommunists were right in broad terms and in nearly all of the particulars. For people who've actually lived through those times and followed events, probably no historical position has been as thoroughly vindicated by subsequent events as anticommunism. Probably no group of murderers has been as successful at escaping justice, and no group of propagandists has been more successful at enlisting "well-meaning" people like yourself to casually propagate their lies as the International Left.

And all this, by the way, occurred during a time when no one in the United States of America was deprived of their civil liberties or Constitutional rights, and indeed, our understanding of those rights--for the most part-- expanded. Oh, what an incredible period of darkness that "McCarthy Era" was.

Buy a clue. The Left didn't set any trap for conservatives--Conservatism as we now know it, did not even exist--but history set a trap for them. Leftists attacked everyone, and because McCarthy had his own character deficiencies, the Left has been able to use him over and over as their quintessential straw man. Only problem is, he was a minor actor on the stage of the "McCarthy Era" and more problematically for your thesis, he was right.

[Wolfstar]

And I pity you for taking your cues from the lying whores of the mainstream media.

Not only do you resort to personal attacks, but you also resort to santimony, condescension and dishonesty. You didn't SUGGEST anything. You ordered. Read your own words:

If you didn't see it, go to youtube and watch it there, and then come back and admit you were wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself. Those are your choices right now. (Or of course, say nothing further.)

[Wolfstar]

I'm someone who challenges lies when I see them parading at facts.

Bull crap. Coulter is who she is, and you are a groupie who seems to think everyone must adore her.

[TSchmereL]

On the Jewish holiday of Purim we read the book of Esther.

The book of Esther is commonly known as the Megillah.

The villain of the Megillah is Haman, an arrogant, egotistical advisor to the king of Persia. Haman plotted to destroy the Jewish people but Haman himself was destroyed with the help of G-d.

Haman was so evil, we are commanded to prevent the name of Haman from being heard.

It is customary to boo, hiss, and rattle noisemakers whenever the name of Haman is mentioned in the service. The purpose of this custom is to "blot out the name of Haman."

What is odd is that we keep repeating his name every time the story is told, and blotting it out every time.

We keep Haman's name just to destroy it in celebration of our victory. It is a great way to celebrate.

I love Ann Coulter!!!

[driftless]

Agreed. Coulter is one of those conservatives who does to libs worse than they do to her or other conservativess. And I say its about time. Conservatives as a rule are way too nice to liberals. Like David Horowitz, she doesn't try to play nice with people, libs, who come out slinging mud. Yes, at times Coulter goes too far. But at least she is not afraid to give as good as she gets...and more. Good for her.

[samtheman]

Sorry, guy, but you are reading "orders" where there are none. When I say "these are your choices" it doesn't mean I'm laying down a list of requirements you must meet to satisfy me, rather, I am pointing out to you that you have painted yourself into a logically inconsistent corner and (as I see it) you have a couple of ways to get out of it. Or do nothing, of course, and leave yourself in the corner. But again, I wasn't telling you to do anything, I was just observing that after you'd repeated the whore-media phrase as if it were your own, you're left with the logical options of reviewing the evidence (last night's recorded video) and honestly saying how the whore-media-assigned label fits in this case, or doing nothing and continuing to look foolish on this subject.

I used the word "choice" in a metaphysical sense, not in a military-barracks discipline sense.

[Wolfstar]

I rather enjoy moralists and infiltrators such as yourself.

Bwaahahahahahahah...that's the best joke I've heard all day. Moralist? That's too rich for words.

Infiltrator? I've been active on this forum since the first year it came on the internet. In the early days, the site would go down somewhat often. When it did, people sometimes had to re-register. Eventually, most of the bugs were worked out by mid-1998, which is why you see most of the earliest FReepers with sign-up dates in 1998.

I have a nearly 9-year-long history here of support for Republican and conservative political positions. With a sign-up date of May 15, 2001, you're a jonny-come-lately by comparison.

[x]

Dunn's right about Coulter. Not quite right about McCarthy, though. Sen. McCarthy didn't have anything to do with most "victims of McCarthyism." They'd had to face either the House Unamerican Activities Committe, the FBI, state or local authorities, or freelance anti-Communists, not McCarthy. McCarthy wasn't a very positive force in American life, and there's no reason to celebrate him now, but he wasn't as influential or as powerful or as disastrous as many assume today.

[GOPJ]

It's not just about the Jersey Girls, it's about all the so called victims dems and the MSM put up that we're not allowed to criticize. This list is almost as long as the groups that support dems. Aren't you tired of all the liberal groups that get an automatic pass? This is much bigger than four harpies ... much bigger.

[Sam Hill]

"Coulter is who she is, and you are a groupie who seems to think everyone must adore her."

You are consistent anyway. But consistently wrong.

I knew Coulter before she was famous. I don't think you can be a groupie of someone who isn't famous.

But keep reciting the DNC's talking points.

I'm sure many are impressed by your concern for the conservative cause and your high regard for the truth.

(That's sarcasm.)

[Sam Hill]

"I've been active on this forum since the first year it came on the internet. In the early days, the site would go down somewhat often. When it did, people sometimes had to re-register."

In the early days there was no registration. Name the person who forced that upon the site by his antics. (LOL)

"Eventually, most of the bugs were worked out by mid-1998, which is why you see most of the earliest FReepers with sign-up dates in 1998."

BS.

BTW, Ann Coulter put her fledgling career on the line when she against the advice of her publishers and agents spoke at the first FR rally in October 1998.

A year before you signed up.

[Wolfstar]

Do you actually know any history at all?

Why, no. I was born yesterday. Sheesh! The inability of some folks to grasp context is just amazing.

She deliberately walks right into the public relations trap set by the Left during the McCarthy era.

Yep. The trap of which I speak has nothing to do with McCarthy, other than the fact that the Left was able to turn his name into an epithet. The epithet is the trap of which I speak. The Left can and does get away with saying the most outrageous, irresponsible things, but people on the Right are instantly stereotyped with all sorts of labels when they say or do comparable things.

As a conservative, I am sick to death of seeing us stereotyped like that, and I resent people like Coulter, Buchanan, Keyes, Savage, and others like them who make it all-too-easy for the Left and its MSM shills to do so.

We have made a great deal of progress since 1980 of shedding the extremist image the Left painted conservatives with between the HUAC hearings in the 1940's and the Nixon era. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and others who knew how to fight hard, but effectively, many of our ideas have moved into the mainstream. I do not want to see us go backwards, and I believe Coulter and her polemics serve only to alienate many apolitical voters.

I much prefer the style of someone like Rush Limbaugh, who has been one of THE strongest, most popular conservative voices for a long time. Rush never descends into the gutter. He is hard-hitting and effective without being cruel and acidic.

If you like Coulter, fine. I don't -- and am amused by the fact that some people seem hell-bent on forcing folks with my opinion of her to either join the club or go away and shut up.

[FredTownWard]

I wrote "I DID have a problem with her calling Roberts a 'closet Souter'"

Sam Hill wrote:

"Could you produce that quote?

I see it mentioned quite commonly by Coulter critics. But I've never seen that quote.

And I'm sure you don't want to misrepresent her words."

It comes from her July 25, 2005, column entitled "Souter In Roberts' Clothing" though like the famous not-quite-a-quote Al Gore-ism about inventing the Internet "closet Souter" is simply an honest condensation of what she actually wrote using a lot more words.

[Wolfstar]

Sorry, guy, but you are reading "orders" where there are none.

First of all, I'm not a guy. Second of all, when you use language such as the following, it is ORDERS, plain and simple.

If you didn't see it, go to youtube and watch it there, and then come back and admit you were wrong, or continue to make a fool of yourself. Those are your choices right now.

Go to
Watch it
Come back
Admit

Those are active verbs that constitute orders.

[Sam Hill]

"It comes from her July 25, 2005, column entitled "Souter In Roberts' Clothing" though like the famous not-quite-a-quote Al Gore-ism about inventing the Internet "closet Souter" is simply an honest condensation of what she actually wrote using a lot more words."

No, it is a DIS-honest condensation. Since Coulter's complaint about Roberts was NOT he was a liberal (like Souter) but that we didn't know anything about him (like Souter).

There is a world of difference between saying that we should be wary about giving a lifetime appointment to one of the most powerful positions in the country to an unknown figure. And saying that the guy IS a liberal like David Souter turned out to be.

But I'm sure you will be careful to not misrepresent her sentiments from that column henceforth.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrongly compare Ann Coulter to Patick Buchanan, implicitly positing that Buchanan is a conservative. He most emphatically is not. Whatever a 'paleoconservative' is, it isn't conservative--the rampant antisemitism among their ranks should give you a clue to which side of the political coin that bunch represents. You also argue that Ann Coulter is 'not effective for anything or anyone except her own enrichment'. Again, patently untrue. There are easier ways for a talented attorney to make lots and lots of money. Personally, I hope Ann Coulter becomes obscenely rich doing what she does. I happen to believe getting rich honestly is an entirely good thing.

Ann Coulter is smart and articulate, she has an engaging writing style, and she isn't afraid to go toe-to-toe with smarmy, supposedly objective representatives of the MSM.

Ann Coulter is beautiful.

[freedumb2003]

That's hilarious!