Posted on 06/15/2006 10:12:05 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Did you find the "Snipers wanted" graphic to be acceptable?
How about "We support the troops when they shoot their officers" signs?
How about that idiot in New York City just last month?
How about wishing that someone would poison a Supreme Court Justice? (Oh, wait! That was Ann Coulter who did that!)
There is much more at stake than politics and votes. Regardless, much of here writings, whether some consider them too harsh or not, are quite true and and match the mindset of a good portion of Americans. I sense a fear by some that her writings may present the notion that Republicans may be "harsh". Too much concern about "appearance" IMHO.
If Coulter is held up as a test to weed out the fence sitters or alienates moderates then she's doing conservatives harm by sending votes to the other side.
If people are so moderate as to find themselves turned away from conservatism based solely on what Ann Coulter writes, then they weren't likely to vote for conservative candidates anyway. I would suggest that Ann's writings mirror the thoughts of many more people than several on this forum want to admit.
At last glance, the NRO boys were in a deep discussion about Cardassians and Bajorans of Star Trek fame.
View Ann Coulter guest on Tonight Show (On NBC)
watch here
http://youtube.com/watch?v=M56HQRovUqA&search=jay%20lenoOn the sidebar to the lower right of the video window, there are a couple of other clips of her, the one with Matt Lauer is priceless.
I guess you were addressing nikos and only copying me because I never said anything about how much they were discussed. I only talked about the reason they were discussed at all, which is to attack the liberal gambit of putting forth victims who espouse leftist causes and then outlawing (culturally speaking) all criticism of both the victim and their promotion of the leftists causes. This Victims Gambit deserves a LOT of attention, not a little. Coulter is right to give it a lot of attention. The MSM are fools for playing into their hands and defending the leftist use of the Victims Gambit.
And they get paid for what they do.
Coulter has pissed off so many conservative websites and publications that she is reduced to writing for free on Human Events.
Ann boiled down a basic and unfortunate truth in today's society - there are certain people you cannot disagree with as they have been granted what can be called ' The Cloak of Infalibility ' by their victim status. They can do no wrong, say no wrong and you must not disagree with them. If you dare disagree with them you will have been branded as mocking their situation - even enjoying their situation.
The Jersey Girls are the Holy Grail of victims. They can say and do anything and if you disagree with them you are as cold hearted and evil as the swine who murdered their family members. Of course, they are entitled to their opinions and I do not begrudge them the right to say as they please. However, I should have every right ( and a duty ) to refute their charges.
Imagine if you will a conversation not long after December 7th 1941 which involves ' If that damned FDR had just sold scrap metal to the Japanese they would never have attacked Pearl Harbor! My son would still be alive if it were not for FDR! He is to blame! '. While people would feel terrible the person had lost family they'd certainly not hesitate to argue with the person - even call them traitors. But I rather doubt any such conversation ever took place after December 7th. It wouldn't even be taken seriously. Its a shame such conversations not only take place after September 11th but that they are celebrated and protected.
I agree with about 50% of what you wrote -- the other 50% isn't worth debating, except that I do believe it's all about politics and votes.
Coulter broke a fundamental rule of "media celebrity," which is never, ever come down hard on "normal people." The case can be made that the widows are no longer "normal people," since walking into the spotlight. However, they do come off as "normal" and that's what matters to viewers and readers.
I've read her book, and I read her interview with John Hawkins (from whence comes the fragging joke).
Apparently not enough, if they have to hold a Star Trek fund-raiser to stay afloat. Ouch!
And Sink, I thought you and I agreed to just disagree on Coulter?
Yes, they are...but if the normal concept of the word is the PRIMARY definition, you should have the sense to know THAT is the way MOST people are going to take it.
I can't believe I'm even having this argument with you. You know better than this.
Thank God for free lancing, right! What magazine did Voltaire work for?
Decades ago I read an interview with Prince Rainier of Monaco(and Grace Kelly!). It was largely bland, except the interviewer asked him about the concept of celebrity. He said something like, "It's like driving fast. Very exciting, but also dangerous."
Coulter would have done well to read that interview.
That tells you what the conservative publishers think of Coulter's style.
As a matter of fact, people DID say such things about Roosevelt. But they didn't have the press as a megaphone. That megaphone belonged to FDR.
But the American people are paying her millions.
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.