According to the doctrine of liberal infallibility, certain people are simply above criticism and the Left presents them in an attempt to stifle rather than stimulate discussion.
Ann Coulter had the makings of a good point. However, instead of making a good point, Coulter chose to ascend the heights of idiocy.
In her latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter takes to task a group of 9/11 widows known as “The Jersey Girls” who played a role in the establishment of the 9/11 Commission. Before I focus my attention on Coulter, let’s examine the statements of their most prominent member, Kristen Breitweiser.
Since May 2005, Breitweiser has been an occasional contributor at The Huffington Post. Breitweiser has made what I would describe as some rather odd statements and points subject to debate and discussion.
In January 2006, Breitweiser criticized the NSA’s surveillance program. On the one hand she criticized the Bush Administration for conducting “illegal surveillance,” and on the other criticized the Bush Administration for not kicking out al Qaeda sleeper cells out as a result of the surveillance:
Now we find the Bush Administration carrying out illegal surveillance on U.S. citizens who are allegedly receiving phone calls from al Qaeda. We are told that these individuals are so dangerous and so in the midst of plotting attacks against us, there is simply no time to adhere to the law and secure judicial approval (even 72 hours after the fact) for their surveillance.
One would assume that the targets of the NSA program would be defined by the Bush Administration as “al Qaeda sleeper cells living inside the United States.” One would also assume, then, that the Bush Administration’s justification for ignoring U.S. constitutional law, if it is valid, would mean that these individuals are currently in the process of planning, preparing, or committing terrorist attacks against this country in the near future.
So, why is President Bush letting these sleeper cells stay here? Why is President Bush giving them any opportunity to carry out their plans of attack? Doesn’t he understand how dire the situation is? Surely, he must…So why are they still here?
I want to know why President Bush does not attach “enemy combatant status” to such individuals and kick them the heck out of our country NOW…before they can perpetrate another 9/11. End of story.
But then Breitweiser goes on the state that she does not condone the use of “enemy combatant status” to al Qaeda sleeper cells. She opposed the use of enemy combatant status before she supported it. I can see why she endorsed John Kerry. Breitweiser then argues that by using “enemy combatant status” it would end the need for what she deems to be illegal surveillance. Of course, how exactly the NSA would gather such intelligence without conducting surveillance she does not elaborate.
After Coulter’s statements on the Today Show (which I will get to shortly), Breitweiser and the Jersey Girls came out with a statement which included a list of eight areas “in need of attention and public outcry.” One of those areas was border security. The Jersey Girls state, “We continue to have porous borders and INS and Customs systems in shambles. We need a concerted effort to integrate our border security into the larger national security apparatus.”
Yet in April 2006, Breitweiser wrote another article for The Huffington Post praising the demonstrations of illegal immigrants:
What I find ironic is that these men, women, and children are not even American citizens, and yet they have galvanized, mobilized, and organized their sentiments to create quite a movement. Even more impressive is that these protesters are here illegally and risk the real threat of being herded up, detained, and deported while participating in such mass protests. And yet, they are out there in the streets having their voices heard. Without taking a stand on the immigration issue in this blog, I will say that I admire their incredible unity and courage.
O.K., let me see if I get this straight. Breitweiser affixes her signature to a document that laments our porous borders and yet she does want to take a stand on the immigration issue. Again, I can see why she endorsed Kerry. She wants al Qaeda sleeper cells deported yet immediately praises illegal immigrant protesters as courageous because of the risks they are taking. The risk they are taking is that they are breaking the law. Something she lambastes President Bush for allegedly doing.
Besides, if al Qaeda sleeper cells were immediately deported, the Jersey Girls, Not in Our Name and the ACLU would state that the U.S. government was violating their civil liberties faster than you can say truth to power.
In another post written in April 2006, Breitweiser criticizes former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani for giving a victim impact statement at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial:
Can someone please tell me why Rudy Giuliani gets to give a victim’s impact statement at the Moussaoui penalty phase hearing? Which family member did Giuliani lose in the attacks?
Forgive me, but Giuliani is the person responsible for deciding to locate NYC’s emergency command center in the World Trade Center along with a diesel fuel tank (against the advice of certain FDNY officials) before 9/11. Locating the city’s emergency command center in a known al Qaeda target (the towers were struck in 1993 and al Qaeda publicly promised to return to finish the job) was a colossal failure in judgment on his part that cost hundreds of lives on 9/11.
Anyone who wants to witness the results of NYC’s abysmal emergency response to the attacks need only listen to the recently released 911 tapes that chillingly reveal a total lack of coordination and flow of vital life-saving information plaguing the city and its emergency response apparatus that day.
Furthermore, Giuliani is also responsible for giving FDNY inoperable Motorola radios. This, too, cost hundreds of lives when firemen did not hear the order to evacuate the towers prior to their collapse.
How is a man who is responsible for such horrific and deadly judgments invited to give a victim’s impact statement as to how 9/11 impacted him?
Where do I begin? Breitweiser fails to remember that Giuliani very nearly lost his own life while temporarily trapped in a building near the World Trade Center along with other city officials. Breitweiser fails to remember that Giuliani attended hundreds of funerals of 9/11 victims and gave comfort to their families. Does Breitweiser think this did not have an impact on Giuliani? Does Breitweiser think Giuliani intentionally provided the FDNY with radios that did not work? Does Breitweiser think Giuliani was responsible for the terrorist attack? That the hijackers who navigated two airplanes into the World Trade Center are not responsible for “horrific and deadly judgments?”
Kristen Breitweiser has made plenty of statements that need to be challenged and criticized. Coulter could have drawn attention to Breitweiser’s statements about the NSA surveillance program, about border security and about Giuliani. Instead, Coulter chooses an ad hominem approach. She writes:
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.
Coulter also queried, “And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”
As we all know Coulter was taken to task on the Today Show by Matt Lauer,who questioned her regarding that the Jersey Girls were enjoying their husbands' deaths. After some persistent questioning by Lauer, Coulter interjected, “Look you are getting testy with me.”
In late 2004, I wrote an article about Coulter titled, “How To Talk To Ann Coulter (If You Must),” after she gave a talk at Boston College. I argued that it is useless to get angry at her because she feeds off anger. Coulter has a sense of humor. A very, very black sense of humor but a sense of humor nonetheless. I suggested that liberals approach her with humor and with an element of surprise. However, in light of her comments about the Jersey Girls I am not sure if that is such a wise prescription. It might be best to offer her a piece of pumpkin pie and to simply move on. Perhaps Coulter’s next book will criticize Elie Wiesel for writing about his experiences at Auschwitz.
Coulter is not concerned with ideas and challenging them but rather with image and with selling books. Nothing against selling books and making money but it is a triumph of style over substance. So instead of focusing our attention on Breitweiser’s public statements, we shake our heads at Coulter and feel sorry for Breitweiser.
It is a shame because Coulter could have made a good argument. The argument Coulter was attempting to make was one of what she described as “liberal infallibility.” While appearing on The Today Show Coulter said, “That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson…You can’t respond. It’s their doctrine of infallibility.”
There is a kernel of truth here. In other words, there are certain people who are simply above criticism and the Left presents them in an attempt to stifle rather than stimulate discussion. Cindy Sheehan might be the best example of the doctrine of liberal infallibility. Last August, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd took President Bush to task for not visiting with Sheehan and wrote, “the moral authority of parents who bury children in Iraq is absolute.”
Of course, Dowd did some sanitation. Christopher Hitchens pointed out a few things that Dowd omitted from her column. Amongst them was Sheehan stating her son “was killed for lies and for a PNAC (Project for the New American Century) Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.” Furthermore, Hitchens challenged Sheehan’s so-called “moral authority” ():
I dare say that her “moral authority” to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my “moral” right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?
Christopher Hitchens was pretty tough on Cindy Sheehan. But Hitchens did not question the sincerity of Sheehan’s grief. If anything, Hitchens was far tougher on Dowd than Sheehan, stating that he distrusted “the hysterical noncombatants who exploit the grief of those who have to bury them.” Never did Hitchens claim that Sheehan enjoyed the death of her son.
Needless to say had Cindy Sheehan not been opposed to the War in Iraq and not been vociferously opposed to President Bush, Maureen Dowd would never have given her the time of day. Just ask the mothers who have lost their sons and daughters in Iraq and still believe their mission is a noble enterprise.
Days after Coulter’s appearance on The Today Show, U.S. and Iraqi military forces killed al Qaeda leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi. It is widely believed that al Zarqawi personally beheaded Iraqi and Western hostages including American Nick Berg in 2004. Consider Berg’s father, Michael, who blames President Bush, not al Zarqawi, for his son’s death and lamented al Zarqawi’s death. When asked by CNN about his reaction to al Zarqawi’s death, Berg replied, “Well, my reaction is I’m sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being.” Berg also stated, “I’m not saying Saddam Hussein was a good man, but he’s no worse than George Bush.”
The elder Berg told Fox News Channel’s Fox & Friends program, “I don’t think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. I think George Bush is. George Bush is the one that invaded this country, George Bush is the one that destabilized it so that Zarqawi could get in, so that Zarqawi had a need to get in, to defend his region of the country from American invaders.”
During the CNN interview, Berg even went as far as to justify suicide bombing:
Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?
Let’s keep in mind that Michael Berg is a candidate for the United States Congress in Delaware for the Green Party ticket. Anyone who runs for public office is subject to criticism, especially on their public pronouncements, and should be expecting it. Why would the good people of Delaware want to elect a man who empathizes with suicide bombers who want to kill Americans civilians and soldiers?
Now, I have just criticized Michael Berg, a man who lost his son in the most horrific way imaginable. I have just implored the people of Delaware not to cast a ballot for him. I believe that Michael Berg is severely misguided. Anyone who likens President Bush to Saddam Hussein or Abu Musab al Zarqawi or justifies suicide bombing is just plain loopy. Michael Berg has been staunchly anti-American since the early days of the Vietnam War. He was loopy long before his son was killed in Iraq and will likely be loopy until the day he dies.
But not for one minute do I believe that Michael Berg is enjoying the death of his son. I do not believe that Michael Berg derives any pleasure from this fact. And even if I did believe that Michael Berg is enjoying the death of his son I would not say so. Why? Because it serves absolutely no purpose. If I were to say such things about Michael Berg most people would end up feeling sorry for him instead of focusing their attention on his public comments. In the grand scheme of things it is more important to me that people discuss what Michael Berg said or what Kristen Breitweiser said or what Cindy Sheehan said, rather than what I might think is running through their minds.
There are certainly those on the Left who would prefer whatever was said by Cindy Sheehan, Kristen Breitweiser or Michael Berg was accepted at face value. If you do not accept what they say at face value then you are a heartless bastard. That’s not the way it works in a democratic society. No one is either above or beneath criticism. Just because Kristen Breitweiser’s husband was killed on 9/11 does not exempt her from criticism. Just because Cindy Sheehan’s son was killed in combat in Iraq does not mean that her public statements cannot be challenged. Just because Michael Berg’s son was beheaded by al Qaeda terrorists does not mean voters cannot be critical of his public policy positions. The American people are free to challenge their ideas and opinions.
But by suggesting that Kristen Breitweiser and the other “Jersey Girls” are enjoying the death of their husbands, Ann Coulter chooses not to challenge their ideas or opinions but rather to rub salt in their wounds. She ought to be careful for what she wishes. This means that Ann Coulter is not above criticism. She, too, is not infallible. Coulter is engaging in defamation masquerading as satire. Instead of partaking in salient public discourse she has become a purveyor of infantile buffoonery. I have no desire to prevent anyone from purchasing Coulter’s book yet I believe your money is better spent elsewhere. But I am sure that she is proud of her work. Now that Coulter has conquered the summit of imbecility she might not want to stay around for too long because its foundation is weak and wobbly. She might also not want to look down because it might be a slow but long fall to the bottom.
I like Ann Coulter. She is entertaining in her over-the-top views. However, with that one statement she has gone too far over-the-top. And maybe that was on purpose. It got her what she wanted, press time. The really horrible side-effect is that these “Jersey Girls” are back in the spotlight again.
I agree with most everything in this article, except for one thing:
“So instead of focusing our attention on Breitweiser’s public statements, we shake our heads at Coulter and feel sorry for Breitweiser.”
No, I don’t feel sorry for Breitweiser. I shake my head at both of them. I don’t pity Coulter because she’s probably enjoying all this attention. I don’t pity the Jersey Girls because they’re making careers out of their tragedy.
Cold? Yes, but pity is not something that can be demanded.
Ann Coulter has spoken for the silent majority. Listen up! I agree with her.
The author extensively quotes others, but only quotes the MSM lift from Coulter. But the entire remark, in context, is as usual for Ann, right on the mark. She is saying exactly what the wimpy Republicans in Congress aren’t willing to. We need more cut-through-the-crap people like Ann.
Nothing I could say about Ann Courter and her remarks could possible top what was said in this blog. http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/06/defending_ann.html
I love finding people who actually think and are able to put it in writting. This guy is a must read!
For purposes of clarity I was referring to the blog at: http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/06/defending_ann.html
I was not referring to Mr. Glodstein’s blog above. I really like Ann Coulter and her wit.
Coulter’s comments did not shock me, nor did they elicit surprise. It seemed all too fitting, given the kinds of things she has said in the past, who (or what) she represents, believes, etc.
About “liberal infallibility”, I don’t know whether it is fair to put an ideology on this. Indeed columnist John Tierney, writing for the New York Times, identified within very broadly similar bounds as Coulter (though not to the same degree of invective) the idea that the bereaved are not automatically accorded ‘pundit’ status, e.g. Cindy Sheehan, whose loss is terrible, but has not become an ‘expert’.
The tone of Coulter’s use of words was shockingly inept and stupid. But all too typical.
Aunt Pitty Pat is right on target. The site she recommended (big lizards) says it best. Our dear friend Mr. Goldstein suffers from the same maladay as all misguided liberals, Reduced to calling names syndrome. The only treatment is to become better informed on the issues.
Mr. Goldstein is off base in this article. While Ms. Coulter is indeed a master in the use of hyperbole, not for one minute is the substance of her ideas diminished. While a relatively mild mannered person myself, I have certainly been taken aback at many of Ann’s comments over the years. But then when I allow her “blatent” obeservation sink in, I come to realize that she is typically precisely correct.
Mr. Goldstein prefers a more polite and measured exchange. Fine. I have no problem with a softer approach in the expression of ideas. Unfortunately, soft-spoken and polite conservatism has led to the almost complete destruction of our society! Not wanting to “ruffle feathers” has led to homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, failing government schools, single parent homes, condoms handed out by school nurses, the ripping of crosses out of cemetaries, etc., etc., etc.
As far as I am concerned, I hope this “controversy” leads to more book sales for Ann Coulter, as her ideas need to be read by as many people as possible. We are in not only a war on terror ladies and gentlemen, but a culture war! War is hell, but let’s fight and fight hard before there is nothing left to fight for.
Ann Coulter did a brilliant job of getting her book promoted. She should be given credit. If anyone remember Morton Downey, she’s a Morton Downey clone. I doubt she believes half of what she says. It’s her shtick. She’s interested in selling books and making money. She’ll sell books to her adoring fans and her worst enemies. That’s brilliant.
Don’t take what she says seriously. She’s not writing to further her philosphy. She’s writing to provoke and inflame people. She’s marketing herself.
Ann Coulter, may be a little brash, but is right! I read an article about her today stating that if she had been polite and nice, no one from the MSM would have even talked to her. The fact that she is so “in your face” is the reason she is on all of the lib’s morning shows and the covers of lib magizines. Though the purpose of these interviews is to call her “heartless” and what not, not to debate her points at all. God Bless Ann
We fought a 50-year Cold War in which tens-of-thousands died. But if the Communists are in our own country, we have to be nice? Screw them!
Being rude to Leftists is a hell of a lot nicer than putting bullets in their brains.
GO ANN!
Satire: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled …
… But, as to my self, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expense and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging England. For this kind of commodity will not bear exportation, and flesh being of too tender a consistence, to admit a long continuance in salt, although perhaps I could name a country, which would be glad to eat up our whole nation without it.”
Killing babies and eating them to solve the famine in Ireland? Americans are cannibals? England would eat all of Ireland? What kind of evil person would say such a thing? Why? Gosh, it really got my attention when I read it, and now I cannot think of anything but the horrible notion. I bet it makes others think a lot about it too, maybe even act on it.
Now, we were talking about how Ann Coulter is too mean and horrible, and drives her point home by insulting people and stirring up the pot, right?
One thing for sure, a Libby will think twice about using a victim as a rhetoric shield. At least when they do, I will certainly be watching for it now that the idea is out there…really out there. Yep, O’Reilly, Hitchens, and others have made the point, but to whose notice? Bill gets 1/20 the viewers the alphabet channel news gets even now. Coulter just made everyone stand up and listen. LISTEN! They can argue it, agree with it, or act ashamed, lamed and blamed for it, but now it is out there and everyone is watching for the next victim shield.
Stop shaking your finger, Goldstein, and start shaking up world!
Bravo Ann Coulter ;-) She’s dishing it out better than she gets.
Leftists have been hysterical for years, and no one has taken them to task for it,
no one that is until Ann came along. While logic is the preferred medium for a discussion, it
often does not work against arguments which are themselves illogical (or dishonest), as so
much of what passes for leftist “thought” is these days.
While the Jersey Girls are probably genuinely mourning the loss of their husbands, they
are not above using their husbands deaths for their own political advantage. It’s time
somebody put an end to this monstrosity, and Bravo to Ann for having the guts to do it.
I say ( to use an overworked phrase)-You Go, Girl! I’m tired of the continuous barrage of leftist propaganda insulting our President with the crudest insults and Republicans seem to just let it go. We need a fighter who doesn’t put up with the nonsense the left spews through their allies in the MSM. I loved the book ( as I’ve loved all her books) She’s not over the top-she’s dead on.
Greg in NY said, “I doubt she believes half of what she says. It’s her shtick. She’s interested in selling books and making money.”
You have no idea what you are talking about Greg. Could you please provide an example of ONE thing she said, that she possibly might not believe? No, you can’t. Based on what SHE has said, she is “popular” enough, and really doesn’t need the money.
You have almost identically parrotted what I heard on the MSM talking head shows over the weekend. Just more hogwash from a person that has not read the book, or Ann’s other books. Baseless commentary with no information.
Everyone seems to think that Miss Coulter has some sort of hidden agenda. She is an extremely intelligent person and she is not afraid to speak her mind. She is very provocative, and that is one thing we should admire about her. The world we live in today needs more gutsy conservatives to step up and fight for all we have. As a strong Republican I feel that it is very important that we don’t burn our bridges with Ann. Look at all she has done for the conservative battle. She knows what she is talking about and when she made these comments, not only did it benefit her by selling books, but she is drawing the attention of millions of Americans and showing them that their are Republicans out there and that just because they might live in an extremely liberal place, doesn’t mean that the rest of the country has lost all sense of intellect. If we listen to Ann Coulter we can find light in a dark place.
Another issue I have with this paper is look at what Breitweiser says. She criticizes Giuliani saying that everyone knew that the World Trade Center was previously attacked and would be attacked again by the terrorists. If that is the case then I don’t feel sorry for any of the Jersey Girls because they knew that the World Trade Center was a target. Why did they allow their husbands to work their? These idiots should realize that just because their Democrat friends in high places shelter them, doesn’t mean the rest of the world will. You can look at it like this.
These women got into a water gun fight. They had casts on, so they would shoot someone in the face and if anyone tried to shoot back they would be considered “evil” because they had casts on. Don’t feel sorry for these women. And don’t be upset with Ann. She just took a water gun and sprayed them right back into their cast. These women deserve worse so they really need to stop or else they will be sprayed!!
Having been married once myself, though I do find Ms. Coulter’s
assertion that the Jersey girls are enjoying their husband’s
deaths a little, shall I say, over the top; nevertheless, I do not think
such a prospect is entirely out of the realm of feasibility. Whereas the
bond between father and son, as illustrated by Mr. Goldstein, is such that
no father, regardless how loopy, can be said to enjoy the death of his son,
I have known a few who would not object to the deaths of their spouses.
Whether this applies to the Jersey Girls, however, is another matter
entirely.
It is, in any case, offensive to see anyone, whether a widow or mother,
exploiting their loss to the political disadvantage of a president they don’t like.
If my own mother, upon recieving news of my death in Iraq, were to behave
in such a crass, disgraceful, and shameless manner as Cindy Sheehan, I would
certainly disown her, though I were under the shadow of leaves and grass.
Bereavement does not give one the moral imperative to cast aside one’s
grace, class, or decorum. Cindy Sheehan’s conduct is no more dignified or
praiseworthy than lap-dancing.
I have not commented on the Jersey Girls’ conduct at length because
I have only just now heard about them. However, everything I have
written about Cindy Sheehan could reasonably be applied to the Jersey Girls
if they are indeed exploiting their loss for political capital.
What Ann has done has made her and the Jersey girls the story instead of the politicizing of death which she states as her goal. She has in effect failed to have the real discussion which she had hoped to create. It is my belief that the media uproar created, which will hit its pinnacle Wednesday night on Leno, should be regarded as a weakness for Ann. Two theories of thought stem from Ann’s comments:
1. She really wanted to have a discussion about how the left picks and chooses martyrs for their causes. This hasn’t happened and thusly, her comments were unsuccessful.
2. She went over the top to bring attention to herself and her book. This would be the saddest state of affairs. This would be the “pot calling the kettle black” situation. Its pretty tough to riducule the celebrity status of these widows while cashing the checks over the same horrific events of 9/11.
I enjoy Ann Coulter wity, no holds barred comments, but look at her for what she is; a blonde bombshell opportunist who makes a living insulting people. Frankly, I am not impressed.
1. “Instead of partaking in salient public discourse she has become a purveyor of infantile buffoonery, says Mr. Goldstein. Her remarks are childish and foolish only if one thinks they are not an effective way to counter liberal propaganda. Much salient public discourse has already derived from Coulter’s point about using victims as human shields for liberal cant. Despite the MSM attempt to discredit her point by isolating her comments on the “Jersey girls” out of context or by applying her description of them to all 9/11 widows, discerning people are penetrating the obfuscation to realize that the liberals hiding behind the shield of victimhood is a deliberate and shameless strategy and that it will be harder for them to continue this practice with impunity now that Coulter has called them out.
2. “She really wanted to have a discussion about how the left picks and chooses martyrs for their causes. This hasn’t happened and thusly, her comments were unsuccessful,”
says honker. Like Mr. Goldstein, honker is flat wrong. The discussion has happened and is happening on a higher level and greater scale than before her book appeared. Even Murtha, who has leaped to judgment about the actions of Marines in Haditha will be viewed more critically. Credentials of victimhood and medals on chests can be shields for all sorts of outrageous liberal behavior. Perhaps less so now that Coulter has exposed the sham.
Ann Coulter is the best writer in America. The current spin is that Ann is promoting her book being ridiculous, but I would suggest that liberals are scared of the sublimity of Ms. Coulter’s work. If you go away from this scribe thinking it’s a debate about social etiquette you miss the point entirely. She does what great philosophers try to do but often fail. She points out to the atheist, agnostic, and libertine that their “tolerant”, “enlightened”. and “progressive” ideas are no more new today than they were when another woman was deceived into thinking she could be God if she followed the provocations of a reptile instead of remaining faithful to Love itself. We’ve either been learning or lying to ourselves ever since. Ms. Coulter points out, graphically, the lies that kill bodies and lose souls.
Aaron Goldstein has really missed it on this one!! He must be headed back toward his socialist, Democrat beliefs.
“But by suggesting that Kristen Breitweiser and the other “Jersey Girls” are enjoying the death of their husbands, Ann Coulter chooses not to challenge their ideas or opinions but rather to rub salt in their wounds.”
Coulter’s point is that nobody is able to challenge their idea or opinions because they have wrapped themselves in a cloak of grief. And all the hoopla over what she said is proof of that.
Cindy Sheehan appeared in Vanity Fair lying down on her son’s grave. Of course she’s not enjoying her son’s death, but she sure is enjoying the attention that it brings.
“Now that Coulter has conquered the summit of imbecility she might not want to stay around for too long because its foundation is weak and wobbly. She might also not want to look down because it might be a slow but long fall to the bottom.”
The last two lines are why I will no longer read Goldstein.
See number 8….I join the fight. You are a Great American Rob Kiley!!! The Left knows no decency,
has no empathy and lives their “religion” where God = Political Power and humanity be damned
until “we Communists” steal it. Once stolen, “we” keep it via lawlessness and use of gunpowder
(USSR, Red China, N Korea, Cuba….and soon to join the club….Venezuela) because “we” fight
for our God!!!
I find the reaction people are haveing to this episode funny.most of what has been said negitivly on this page isnt an indictment of her coments but of her. Its almost as if you have always thought her “mean” and “insulting” and an “opportunist.” I bet if her son had died in Iraq or her Husband died in WTC, you would say any of this. Also, i wouldnt go so far as to say she is the “best” or the “worst” writer out ther, I take her at face value: she is an entertaining conservitive author who tries to defend, in her own way, her political views. And she very much believes shes right and therefore has then obligation to defend her beliefs. but to go to extremes in your opinion of her may be a projection for your own political views.
Not only is Ann Coulter right about this and everything else Ive ever heard her say, she delivers it in a way which is stinging to Liberals. She gets under their skin like no one else on the Conservatilve aisle. I love her for this. She is the only conservative I know of who isn’t afraid of the typical liberal namecallings, racist, homophobe, etc. So she says what she feels but does it in a way that enrages liberals and cant be rebutted. I love Ann!!! She is the only person I know that loves too piss off Liberals as much as I do!
Reading Ann Coulter is a guilty pleasure for me, but I do think that sometimes remarks like this do more harm than good. The difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals don’t have facts to back them up. Ann Coulter has and is able to successfully and intelligently relate those facts, but her vitrolic tone sometimes just makes her sound angry. That too is the domain of liberals.
Mind you, I suspect that Ann’s take on issues relating to 9-11 stem from the fact that her very close friend (Barbara Olsen) was on one of the planes. She too is welcome to express her grief cathartically in this fashion, but the problem comes when liberals have a point to attack a conservative intellectual. I tried to challenge a liberal talk show host complaining of her remarks to consider the underlying point beneath, but got no results. He did however concede my point that Al Franken, Michael Moore, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky et al spew liberal hatred and get applause.
My case would have been much stronger if I could clearly show how conservatives are different. This should be especially easy since Coulter can use whipsaw wit to drive home a point well without sounding like an Air America host in a parallel universe.
Tom
Anne has no astounding rebuttle skills. She’s but a mean spirited shell of a human being that does little but call people names and launch vicious personal attacks. Most people on this post have said she’s an opportunistic shrew that does more harm than good. I have to agree with them.
enjoy v.
1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or benefit of.
Coulter may not be saying they leapt for joy at the news of the deaths, but that they at least partially received some pleasure or satisfaction also, in the form of attention that they would not otherwise have for their political opinions. We certainly know they are using and benefiting from the deaths.
Dissecting what Ann has stated from an intellectual perspective may bring you to the conclusions you have converted to written word above. Consider this, (and I’m sure Ann Coulter HAS considered this) mot that walk the face of the earth do not dissect anything from an intellectual perspective. Most people want it raw and understandable. Whether they agree or disagree with what was said, if you wrote Ann’s book from an intellectual point of view, your message would be lost on the masses. Ann has done a great service in her own style. There’s no doubt in even the simplest of humans as to what she meant.
It seems as if Mr. Goldstein was in such a rush to demonize Ann Coulter and jump to the defense of “the poor helpless Jersey Girls”, that he didn’t actually take the time to read Coulter’s actual criticism of them. So she insulted them. She spends pages ripping apart the 9/11 Commission or “the Clinton whitewash machine” as she called it. She uses their own quotes and shows they have no factual basis. NO VALID CRITICISM. I haven’t seen much of the Jersey Girls, nor do I remember them on TV much (other than their message), but let’s look at Sheehan. She used the death of her son to spread lies, and vile propeganda. And the author of this piece would be hard pressed to prove to me that she is not enjoying her celebrity status. Watching her at conventions, smiling, laughing, cracking jokes, and showing her rump to the crowds, it seems like she’s quite enjoying herself. Mr. Goldstein seems furious that Coulter refused to make a distinction, between enjoying the death of a loved one, as opposed to enjoying the publicity they have gotten over the death of a loved one (which is a small difference indeed), and then ignored 10 pages of arguments that she made and presented one paragraph (as if that was all she had to say on the subject), before denouncing her arguments as stupid.
Sometimes as Republicans, we are so damned determined to present ourselves as “kinder and gentler” that we demonize someone who’s right on, just because they don’t sugar coat their message. However, in his attempt to come across that way, Goldstein also came across as someone who’s criticizing a book he hasn’t even read.
Ann Coulter uses words designed to make a lasting impression of what she believes. As you can see, it works. The truth is powerful and Ann uses it as a weapon to defeat the spineless liberals that attack her. Polite rhetoric doesn’t work with the anti-american elitist. Thank God for Ms. Coulter for telling it like it is. I look forward to many more of her books.
That’s strange, I can remember vividly Bill O’Reilly imploring his viewers not to criticize the President after the invasion of Iraq begins, and to ‘support our troops’ (what ever that means) instead.
I guess that was a right-wing attempt to elevate George W. Bush above criticism, and to make his actions unquestionable.
Anyone see the double standards here, the irony? Of course not, you’re conservatives.
P.S. I will let you into a little secret. Liberals laugh at Coulter, they think she’s hilarious.
To Max-
You will not find an honest conservative elevating George W. Bush above criticism. Many conservatives are criticizing Ann Coulter (including myself) on this very site. There is no double standard here whatsoever.
As for who laughs at who, conservatives have been laughing (as well as the voters) at liberals for 25 years. Being labled a liberal is equivalent to a communist in this country on a national level- how hard do you think conservatives are laughing at that?
To Honker-
I have not ever found an honest conservative.
Also, do you know what I find really funny, if George W. Bush were really the right man for the job then Republicans wouldn’t have to rig the vote. That one will have’em laughing a hundred years from now.
Gentlereaders;
While I admire Miss Manners ability to craft a nasty retort in the most socially elevated verse, I am equally impressed with a verbal “beat-down” when the need arises. Surely Ann Coulter chooses the more “direct” approach to express her viewpoints. I find her style to be refreshingly blunt. Perhaps we should think of her as the Strunk and White of conservative punditry. Cut to the chase. Use your words compactly, and efficiently. Pull no punches.
I particularly enjoy the irony of such vile rebukes eminating from a delicate female commentator. I wonder why political “progressives” don’t applaud such blunt speech, delivered by a woman ? Shouldn’t her gender innoculate her with a measure of “feminine infallability” ? Quite the contrary, I regularly read vile comments about her possible gender dissociation.
Christopher Hitchens surely equals the verbal and social skills of Miss Manners when he so skillfully puts “Mother Sheehan” in her rightful place:
“I dare say that her “moral authority” to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my “moral” right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?”
Hitchens is … well … simply brilliant ! But I find it perfectly reasonable to admire speech which is surgically polished, alongside that which appropriately blunt and stunning. Ann Coulters comments are decidedly brusque and biting, and I LIKE IT !
The Marquise du Queensbury rules may apply to civilized political sparring, but I suggest to you that in the no such rules have governed the Democrat Hooligans who have been kicking and flailing their way back to power. I find Ann Coulters bare knuckle comments to be necessary in this era of political cage-fighting.
Vive Free Speech. Vive Ann Coulter
Max, get over it. Bush won, you’re done. At least have the good manners to be a gracious loser.
And stop living in the past. You leftists can’t seem to live in the present and look to the future, but you insist on calling yourselves “progressives.”
Honest conservative. That, sir, is a redundancy. Conservatives say what they mean and mean what they say, unlike leftists, who can’t be honest about what they really want.
I mean, who would vote for a leftist if their obfuscating phaseology was stripped of its misdirection? “Universal healthcare.” Translation: Have government take yet more monet from workers and give to the unhealthy. “Tax fairness.” Translation: Have government take yet more money from workers and give it to the unemployed. “Raise minimum wage.” Translation: Have government take yet more money from workers and give it to the lazy.
Sorry, I am purposefully trying to turn your crank. But it is clear to anyone that leftists believe that government is the answer to every problem in society. I only wish that leftists could point to one problem government has actually solved. Poverty? Nope. Hunger? Uh uh. Unemployment? Sorry.
With such a legacy of failure, it’s a wonder you leftists can get anyone to vote for you.
To Max Godwin:
You “have not ever found an honest conservative”? Well, George Bush’s conservative critics are all over the place. But I have not ever heard ONE liberal EVER criticize Bill or Hillary Clinton.
Don’t worry Max you’re leaving comments on a conservative propaganda website. All of these comments above consistently use double talk to argue their claims of a supposed leftist media. Liberal derives from Liberty. I suppose most conservatives don’t see a need for Liberty.
Excellent, commend Ann on using these insulting comments to bring more press attention to herself and make more money. What a beautiful person. How much of your profits are going to charity Ann?
Rich you’re as ignorant as most of these commentors; poverty, hunger and unemployment have all decreased through government involvement. Try reading history a little more, maybe something before the Reagan era.
When did liberal become synonomous with Communist? That must be another piece of misguided information from the Right.
Idiots, Ann attacks the First Amendment! How can any one stating their PERSONAL OPINIONS on a free internet not appreciate the First Amendment?
I am reading Ann’s book as I write this. I have read the part about the Jersey Girls.
I can not believe so many are up in arms over her comments. Had the Jersey Girls taken their
approach to the death of their husbands with more intelligence, perhaps they would now not be
the brunt of Ann Coulter’s remarks. Come on, it does not take a rocket scientist to realize the
WTC was a target of terrorism, especially after 1993. As one commenter said, why did they
continue to allow their husbands to work at the WTC after 1993. When a building is targeted by
an act of terrorism once, it is conceivable it would be attacked again. However, no one, not even me,
could predict hijackers would take planes and crash them into buildings.
Did we have a failure of intelligence, you bet we did, but rather than blame it on one guy,
President Bush, research when the failures actually started. You would find a series of errors were
made by all those previous. This is not to say that Bush is totally innocent, but he is not the one
person solely responsible either.
I love Ann Coulter, she calls the Democrats and Liberals on their words and actions. I’ve read all her
books and I can say about 99% of what I read, I agree with Ann. Since reading Ann, I have started
observing what Democrats and Liberals say, and I can honestly say I don’t want such negative thinking
people near me. I have coined them “The Doom and Gloom party”. Ann, if you want to use that
phrase, you are perfectly welcome.
Obviously, I don’t have typing into the comments box down pat. It extends past my screen and I can’t scroll to see what I’ve typed. I apologize, if my incessent returns drive you crazy. Apparently, you have to be a rocket scientist to type in the box.
Excuse me,Caleb, but the poverty rate has hovered around 12% for four decades now. That’s solving povert? Unemployment is 4.2%. That means that there are a lot of unemployed people around. Problem solved here as well? And there are no hungry people in the US? Really? Another problem solved by government?
“Conservatives don’t see a need for liberty.” Gratuitous pot-shot, sir. We debate ideas here. Do you have any?
Liberal became synonymous with communist when liberals left JFK behind and started advocating wealth redistribution, class envy, and the approved of strong-arm government forcing law abiding citizens to do things they don’t want to do.
So, let’s see, what will be your response? Will you actually bring up a counterpoint or two, or will you call me ignorant? No, you already did that, so maybe bigot or homophobe? Oh, I know: Hatemonger. That’s a good one, and you don’t even have to think, thanks to me.
I understand that politics is, by nature, dirty, and sometimes not everything can be high-minded, reasonable discourse, but I think that there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed. Ann Coulter has been continually ratcheting up the crudeness level of her comments in order to keep her shock value fresh and remain relevant. At what point will conservatives finally say, “Enough”? I mean, she said that Rep. John Murtha is “the reason soldiers invented fragging”. I’m no fan of Murtha’s, but come on! That kind of statement does nothing to further the conservative cause. I understand that at times, simply pissing off liberals can be a valuable catharsis–after plodding through some liberal article, tome, or blog entry on the “racism/homophobia/misogyny/etc. of the right”, a good liberal-bashing screed can be a blast to read–but statements as disgusting as her comment about Murtha aren’t even funny. They just fuel the propaganda of the left.
For example, after Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos.com said of the American contractors who were killed in Fallujah, “Screw them”, and said they were mercenaries who deserved it, conservatives posted his comments all over the internet, bashed him, and snickered about how having such a hateful jerk for a prominent spokesman would hurt the left. Well, doesn’t having a hateful jerk for a prominent spokeswoman hurt the right? Wouldn’t it be better if only our ideological opponents had nutcases like Michael “Iraqi Insurgents Are Minutemen” Moore on their hands to worry about?
I believe the point that nick makes is simple. The regression into name calling does nt lend itself to reason. Most of the people here believe Anne is a warrior princess of some sort. She is not. She merely distorts and destroys. Even Rick Sherlock in his august wisdom must recognize this.
Ann Coulter is an opportunistic, morally and intellectually bankrupt entertainer for the right wing. Her level of discourse is juvenile, and its a shame that the right no longer produces writers who have the intelligence of William F. Buckley. Read her book and discover how vapid her “arguments” against evolution and science are. Why do some neocons hail the Princess of Ignorance as some sort of conservative goddess?
“She’s but a mean spirited shell of a human being that does little but call people names and launch vicious personal attacks. Most people on this post have said she’s an opportunistic shrew and I agree with them.” Yeah, Patrick, I’m glad that YOU aren’t name-calling.
I’ve been waiting 50 years for someone to come along and talk to the Democrats and liberals in the same manner as they have spoken to Republicans and conservatives. Ann Coulter hasn’t said anything more outrageous than things the Left has been saying forever. Go Ann! We need more of your insight.
I wouldn’t say the Jersey gals are enjoying their husbands death…..but I bet they’re loving all the attentin they’re getting now…..Ann, you put them back in the spot light….thank you….btw, I loved your book!
Ann Coulter is a satirist. It is only natural that she would be a little over the top. She says outragouse statments to make a larger point. Further those four women had been using thier husbands deaths as a way to make political comments. they werent even making intelligent political comments. She is NOT an oppertunist and she certanly is intelligent. To be sure her views are a bit extreme but on the whole she is a very woman.