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.

[durasell]

Coulter may (or may not) be entering the media death spiral in which she has to say/write increasingly over the top things to garner attention. If this is the case, then other conservatives would do well to distance themselves from her since these things never include happy endings.

[ChessExpert]

Is that like "Ronald Reagan hurts the conservative cause?"

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "You most defintely [sic] do not understand my reasoning correctly."

What, no snappy comebacks dripping with contempt, oozing with intellectual superiority? You're losing your touch, Wolfstar.

[Ichneumon]

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.

I do, however, remember a lot of folks here expressing seething outrage over that cartoon, and rightly so. How many of those people are now crowing and defending the same kind of attack from "one of our own"? And no, I'm not talking about the legitimate criticisms -- there are a few good pages of that in Coulter's latest book. But she also did a perfect Ted Rall impression several times, to no good purpose other than recklessness.

[Pukin Dog]

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.

cuse' me while I choke on the furball you coughed up.

It is a fallacy to believe that people are convinced by others to join our side. If you ask anyone who used to be a liberal, you will find that typically, they woke up one day ashamed of who they were associating with. In short, Liberalism left them, they didn't leave it. Liberalism in its craziness, continues to drive out people who remember to think once in awhile.

Do you think all those people buying Coulter's book are Conservatives? If so, you would be wrong. Coulter clubs people over the head, yet is #1, baby. People will read her book and wake up to the sheer stupidity of the liberal agenda. Also, anyone who would simply accept the comments of others, and not read the book on their own and develop their own opinion, is someone we don't want on our side anyway.

As Coulter says; "The truth cannot be given with Novocain."

[Ichneumon]

What, no snappy comebacks dripping with contempt, oozing with intellectual superiority? You're losing your touch, Wolfstar.

Apparently he's letting you have that all to yourself.

[Jet Jaguar]

good post

[Jet Jaguar]

Good find or good memory.

Thanks.

[Wolfstar]

What, no snappy comebacks dripping with contempt, oozing with intellectual superiority?

In your mind, chum, not in mine.

[Jorge]

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

Yes, I recall Ted Rall's comic and the OUTRAGE posted ALL OVER Free Republic.

Now Ann Coulter says basically the same thing, that the 9-11 widows are "enjoying" or exploiting their husband's deaths and most posters on FR are defending her.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

But I have to admit, there are a lot of decent FR posters who fairly condemn Ann's comments as they did Ted Rall's.

[Jorge]

Coulter may (or may not) be entering the media death spiral in which she has to say/write increasingly over the top things to garner attention. If this is the case, then other conservatives would do well to distance themselves from her since these things never include happy endings.

I agree. I think it may well be Ann Coulter's undoing.

And I think it's a shame. I've really enjoyed her over the years.

[Ichneumon]

cuse' me while I choke on the furball you coughed up.

Try again when you learn some material you didn't pick up on the playground.

It is a fallacy to believe that people are convinced by others to join our side.

Dead wrong -- I've known many who have been so convinced. Unfortunately, the rising chorus of our own version of moonbats are starting to make them wonder if they made the wisest decision.

If you ask anyone who used to be a liberal, you will find that typically, they woke up one day ashamed of who they were associating with. In short, Liberalism left them, they didn't leave it. Liberalism in its craziness, continues to drive out people who remember to think once in awhile.

You might want to ponder that we might lose a lot of conservatives through the same kind of intra-party shift. You know, like for example when people find themselves starting to be called "pussies" and worse at frequent intervals just for trying to point out that there comes a point where more brains and less testosterone is sometimes a sensible option.

Coulter clubs people over the head, yet is #1, baby.

Controversy always sells books. That's good for Ann, at least. But a year from now, what will most of the public remember -- that she published a book that they could get around to checking out -- or that some loudmouthed conservative was shrill and insulting about dead husbands and their widows?

People will read her book and wake up to the sheer stupidity of the liberal agenda.

Actually, I've read all her books and appreciated the earlier ones a great deal. But her latest book has had the effect of "waking me up to the sheer stupidity" of a good-sized portion of the conservative movement, and I am hardly the only one. Do you think that's a good thing?

Also, anyone who would simply accept the comments of others, and not read the book on their own and develop their own opinion, is someone we don't want on our side anyway.

That is just so incredibly naive and short-sighted, I don't even know where to begin on it. Suffice to say that people will draw conclusions based on what they're exposed to, and vastly more people will see the public flap than will happen to end up reading her book.

As Coulter says; "The truth cannot be given with Novocain."

People don't usually look for it from their Crazy Aunt, either.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I'll do you the favor of assuming you're suffering from Battered Conservative Syndrome. The author holds up Rush Limbaugh as a model conservative, yet Limbaugh used to be, and is sometimes still, edgy. I can remember when I first started listening to him I was almost embarrassed that others would find out. Rush made it possible for alot of us to voice our opinions with greater confidence. Anne serves the same function, except her mind is so much more sharp. That fact that you and so many other conservapussies feel the need to apologize for a legitimate and important observation by Anne demonstrates that Anne and her style are still sorely needed. The day you and Dunn have no need to grovel and kiss liberal kiester will be the day the 'Rats aren't racking up nearly half the votes.

[Pukin Dog]

Jorge, if you don't think that the Jersey girls exploited and benefited from the deaths of their husbands, you are at best misinformed. It is a fact. I wont even bother arguing about it. These women are millionaires and liberal icons, while the Conservative 911 widows are ignored and for practical purposes banned from CNN and MSNBC.

[Doctor Raoul]

Those things are out of my price range.

[garv]

There's a distinct difference between attacking the motives and mindset of a group that intentionally thrust themselves into the spotlight for ideological reasons and attacking not only the survivors, but mocking the victims in a cartoon less than six months after the attack.

To use a hyperbolic analogy, Rall attacked non-combatants for petty reasons, Coulter attacked enemy combatants in an ideological war.

Either way, if certain conservatives want to denounce Coulter that's their business. What I want to know is where were the major media and Congressional denunciations of Rall? As for me, I'll take Coulter in my foxhole any day.

[Wolfstar]

Oh, BTW, I just noticed your [sic] next to my typo. Says all I need to know about you.

[Rembrandt_fan]

Right back at you, sport. Everything I say, think, or write has the caveat: 'I could be wrong', which is why I engage in reasoned argument in the first place. What's the point of argument if not to persuade or be persuaded? So no, I don't cop to either contempt or a sense of intellectual superiority. I often encounter folks with a better grasp of issues and ideas, most frequently on this forum. And I learn from them.

You claim to be worried about Coulter being perceived as the conservative counterpart to Michael Moore and, at least implicitly, fear that she will become the public face of conservatism--an anxiety you share with my old pal, Wolfstar. In response, I would argue that Coulter's forum--mass media--demands the memorable, sometimes pithy, sometimes seemingly outrageous statement, although I doubt all of this fuss would've been generated had Coulter just written that it is wrong for the antiwar left to use widows and grieving mothers as the political equivalent of a bullet-proof vest, immune from all criticism. As it is, she went after them using the most direct route, pulling no punches. Truth, no matter how bluntly spoken, is still truth.

[arthurus]

Ann Coulter Hurts the Cause

Whose Cause??? Not our cause.She is on a roll and we are rolling with her.

[Jorge]

Jorge, if you don't think that the Jersey girls exploited and benefited from the deaths of their husbands, you are at best misinformed.

No, I DO think they've exploited the deaths of their husbands for their personal political purposes.

To the MAX.

And I think if Ann had just said that, she would have 90% more support among conservatives than she has for what she did say.

Saying people enjoy the deaths of their spouses is just over the line rhetoric...no matter who says it.