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.

[OriginalIntent]

The very idea of the immoral left griping and complaining about language is incredible.

One of the goals of the left has always been to remove all barriers to filthy speech, lewdness, debauchery, slander and blasphemy in any and all public places.

The only speech they want to limit is the free speech that exposes and condemns the unending hypocrisy of their politics and worldview.

[Luke21]

Right on, Fred. Well said.

[FredTownWard]

No, it is an HONEST condensation.

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 because the figure is PERSONALLY unknown to the complainer he or she MIGHT be a liberal like David Souter turned out be on the theory that the Bush Administration had learned NOTHING from the Souter debacle when in fact they had given EVERY indication to date that for the first time in Republican Party history they might have this problem solved (and nothing has happened since to suggest Coulter was right to be suspicious about him). It was thus both an insult to the integrity of Roberts and to the intelligence of Bush based on NOTHING other than the sort of elitism and sense of superiority that Coulter rightly rips the Left a new one over every single day.

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

[Wolfstar]

First, there were no conservatives in the 1940's. There were very few in the 1950's. There was no real conservative movement until after Goldwater's run in 1964.

What?! Astonishing in the extreme.

Second, your statement places into juxtaposition HUAC at one end of a period and Nixon at the other, with the clear implication that conservatives (I guess, or maybe anticommunists, or just Americans) have something to be ashamed of because of what the Left said...

Huh? I place NO VALUE on the period of time I bracketed. Bracketing a period of time is a device used to -- metaphorically speaking -- set a stage, nothing more.

As for the stereotype the Left has painted (how shall I call them/us so you get it?) people who are on the right in their politics, nowhere do I even remotely imply that it is something of which to be ashamed. Rather, it is something to resent, as well as to work hard to make sure it stays on the ash heap of history.

[Jorge]

The twuth hurths...

The truth? The TRUTH?

How would you or Ann Coulter know if these women "enjoy" their husband's deaths?

It was a despicable and clumsy thing to say.

[ladyinred]

I could not disagree more. The woman is just telling it like it is. Since when do we allow liberals to dictate what we can say?

[Jorge]

I could not disagree more. The woman is just telling it like it is. Since when do we allow liberals to dictate what we can say?

The huge majority of well know conservatives including those on radio and TV are distancing themselves from Ann Coulter's comments.

Not because "liberals" dictate what we can say, but because they are personally decent people who would not stoop to this sort of inflamatory rhetoric.

It is absolutely foolish to defend this statement, and those who do so only degrade and discredit themselves.

Nobody can know if the Jersey Girls actually "enjoy" the deaths of their husbands.
That an awful thing to say about anyone.

[Ichneumon]

What's more the Jersey Girls are only like one or two lines in the book.

Uh huh. Sure. Pull the other leg now. They're discussed from pages 102-113, and even though she drops them for a few pages in the middle to focus on the 9/11 commission, even that's done in service of providing a springboard to return to the topic of the "Jersey Girls" and their role in that for several more pages.

[JCEccles]

You're annoyed because she dissed the god of Darwinism.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

You almost have to admire the 'Rats for keeping the pressure on Bush constantly over the past 5.5 years. The quality of their attacks has been lame, and I'm astonished that the electorate didn't turn their backs on them completely long ago.

But when a conservative comes up with an excellent argument in our favor, the conservapussies (great word, Dog) fall all over themselves to condemn the effective conservative. By doing so they take pressure off the 'Rats and aid and abet them in undermining our cause.

[Ichneumon]

You're annoyed because she dissed the god of Darwinism.

You're really fixated, aren't you? You bring up "Darwinism" out of the blue a lot, like you're obsessed with it. When I discuss it, it's almost always in response to the topic already being on the table.

You don't seem to be keeping a healthy perspective.

[FredTownWard]

Another problem I have with Ann's arguing that Roberts MIGHT be a Souter is that since I rather doubt she was really stupid enough to BELIEVE it, it amounts to a distracting and dishonest justification for her REAL complaint, which is that she wanted an in-your-face cage-match with the liberals. At some level I'd have liked that, too, but (like the President I'm guessing) I thought it was more important to WIN than to merely have the satisfaction. I would have thought better of Ann if she simply ADMITTED that without finding it necessary to cast doubt where none was justified.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "I compliment you by saying your initial post was interesting and made me stop and think...and #196 is your response? Amazing."

I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have a bunny-with-pancake-on-its-head photo readily available, so just do some creative visualization. I was responding to the thinly veiled contempt you've been exhibiting towards those disagreeing with your position. Of course, your latest snappy rejoinder only reinforces that impression.

You also wrote, "If you (and others) don't understand this point, too bad."

Look, sport, I understand your point well enough, as does just about anyone who bothers to dig deeply enough into your arguments to get at the heart of it. If I understand your reasoning correctly: (1) Conservatism is now acceptable to the political mainstream, finally shed of its wild-eyed extremist image, caused in part by polemicists such as Pat Buchanan and in part as a kind of psychological residue of the McCarthy era; (2) Ann Coulter's confrontational style is giving otherwise non-politically committed folks the idea that conservatism has devolved back into its old, wild-eyed ways; thus Ann Coulter is harmful to conservatism; and--as a snide aside that isn't stated as an outright premise to your central argument--(3) Ann Coulter speaks and writes as she does to sell lots of books and make lots of money (thus managing to also question her integrity with a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack).

In your last response, you invoked the ghost of Ronald Reagan, claiming that he never resorted to 'slash and burn' politics. True (at least domestically), but he would never have been elected had not some of the men and women working for him played serious, tit-for-tat, political hardball. There's a place for rough-and-tumble in-fighters such as Ann Coulter, just as there's a place for the genteel, more soft-spoken types you favor.

[Ichneumon]

But when a conservative comes up with an excellent argument in our favor, the conservapussies (great word, Dog) fall all over themselves to condemn the effective conservative. By doing so they take pressure off the 'Rats and aid and abet them in undermining our cause.

I'm sorry you misunderstand things so badly. Coulter would have been a lot more effective if she had stuck to the best points she made -- the actual "effective argument" -- and then restrained herself from doing a Michael Moore impression at the last minute which gives the liberals - and a *ton* of undecideds -- evidence to confirm the worst things they've heard about conservatives. The people whom it would most benefit us to hear Coulter's actual *points* aren't going to bother listening to see what they are, because whenever she appears they're going to say, "oh, it's that loose-cannon kook who said those awful things". You know, the way we tune out Michael Moore and James Carville, because after hearing some of their more outrageous tirades, we don't have the stomach to give them a chance to say anything that might make sense. And be assocation, they're going to wonder if *all* of us conservatives are seething vitriol-flingers, just as we write off most of the liberals because they're in bed with Franken and the Dixie Chicks and so on.

It's not that we're "pussies" -- it's that we know this is about convincing people to our side, not seeing how many people we can kick in the teeth because we're p*ssed off over something. What really "undermines our cause" is loose cannons which drive people away from conservatism who might otherwise have listened with an open mind and been won over. I've seen it happen time and time again.

Read the editorial again -- the whole thing. He explains it well. If you still don't get it after that, well, I can't help you. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

[garv]

Here's what one of those "decent" liberals thought about 9-11 widows only five months after the attack.

As I recall, February of 2002 was before any group of widows had injected themselves into the political discourse. Funny, I don't remember the outrage from all those decent liberals back then.

[Pharmboy]

And there may have been a continuum transfunctioner thrown in also.

[Wolfstar]

If I understand your reasoning correctly

You most defintely do not understand my reasoning correctly.

[Porterville]

Screw liberals

[Ichneumon]

There's a place for rough-and-tumble in-fighters such as Ann Coulter, just as there's a place for the genteel, more soft-spoken types you favor.

I don't have a problem with "rough-and-tumble". I am however concerned about loose cannons, who don't know where the line is between hardball and screwball. Ann Coulter used to be solidly on the former side of the line. More and more recently, she's taking sprints into Michael Moore territory. She doesn't yet live there, like he does, but she seems to be feeling a lot more at home there.