In Godless, Ann Coulter explains that one of the Left's preeminent debate techniques is to present figures so sympathetic debate simply cannot exist. You cannot call it debate when one side of a question is allowed to carry on without opposition - you can call it a campaign commercial, which is exactly what the Jersey Girls' movements throughout 2004 became.
If it weren’t for outrage, conservatives and liberals would have nothing connecting them. Here’s how it works: Liberal A releases a high profile screed against the Right and conservatives spend weeks falling all over themselves to denounce the liberal’s shoddy, selective research and dimwitted thinking. A few months later, Conservative A releases a high profile screed against the Left and the process repeats itself, but in the other direction, until all of cable news descends into a loud, quivering, over-talking mess.
We find ourselves in the latest Ann Coulter phase of The Outrage Game – and what a phase! Godless will debut at number one on the New York Times list dated 25 June, which brings even moderate Democrats to their knobby, Bette Davis knees. Other than President Bush, no one divides American debate quite like Coulter, evident in the fact that everywhere she goes to promote Godless, some degree of chaos ensues. This began with Matt Lauer and the near slapfight on Today and has continued about a hundred miles an hour ever since.
Coulter is everywhere – popping up across all of television and even crossing over to The Tonight Show, where she sat next to bitter burnout / comedian George Carlin and was asked whether she’s ever had sex with a liberal. (The proper answer is: Liberals are fine to have sex with, you just don’t want to marry them. How Mary Matalin hasn’t wound up in a bell tower with a high-powered rifle picking off pedestrians is one of humanity’s great mysteries.) There was never a middle ground with Coulter, and everyone kind of liked it that way. But now that she has taken swipes at four 9/11 widows, pundits (real and imagined) have drawn careful battle lines and have begun engaging in the ideological fistfight of the summer.
Here is the exchange giving so much offense, from Godless, page 103.
After 9/11, four housewives from New Jersey whose husbands died in the attack on the World Trade Center became media heroes for blaming their husbands’ death on George Bush and demanding a commission to investigate why Bush didn’t stop the attacks. Led by all-purpose scold Kristen Breitweiser, the four widows came to be known as “the Jersey Girls.” … The Jersey Girls weren’t interested in national honor, they were interested in a lawsuit. They first came together to complain that the $1.6 million average settlement to be paid to 9/11 victims’ families by the government was not large enough. After getting their payments jacked up, the weeping widows took to the airwaves to denounce George Bush, apparently for not beaming himself through space from Florida to New York and throwing himself in front of the second building at the World Trade Center. These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them. The whole nation was wounded, all of our lives reduced. But they believed the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process. These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoy their husbands’ death so much.
Coulter spent about twenty-four hours defending the phrase “church of liberalism” before someone actually read past the front cover, noticed “I’ve never seen people enjoy their husbands’ death so much” and decided it was the worst affront to American discussion since “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist party?” (Which, come to find out, wasn’t such an unreasonable question, given the fact McCarthy era Hollywood was positively crawling with Communists. I mean, not as many as today, but still.) Enter the media, Old and New, on their beaten down white horses, to defend the honor of the poor Jersey Girls!
Opposition comes from all directions, generally in three forms. The first also happens to be the funniest, where a television or radio host states that neither Coulter nor her ideas are worth discussing, and takes several minutes (or segments) to say so. If you missed The Big Idea With Donny Deutsch Monday night (and numerically speaking, you did), you missed Deutsch going on about Coulter and her book. Deutsch was glad Tim Russert’s new book would be knocking Coulter off the top of the bestsellers list; Deutsch thinks Coulter is contemptible; Deutsch thinks Coulter is afraid to come on his show, et cetera.
And here, the humor! Ann Coulter is afraid of Donny Deutsch (and his pink shirts). More likely she learned through osmosis the lesson Bernard Goldberg learned firsthand: If you’re an outspoken conservative, you cannot appear on Deutsch’s show, because it’s taped live and edited before broadcast, to the conservative’s detriment. And not to be indelicate about it, but it would be easier to believe Coulter is ducking Deutsch if he actually hosted a show of consequence. By Detusch’s rationale, Coulter is also scared of Nickelodeon’s Friday lineup, Bob Vila’s home improvement show and Sesame Street. “Ann Coulter is too scared to come on The Big Idea” is the rough equivalent of “Ann Coulter is too scared to come on The Wiggles.” When he stops hosting a kid’s show, Coulter may show up – and I might, too.
The second comes disguised as pleas for civility, or advice about civility, in hopes of appealing to Coulter’s more level disposition (presumably between manic phases). For an example of this we click over to Bill O’Reilly’s column “Message to Ann,” where the man who announced he would instruct his staff to trace the numbers of people who made undesirable calls to his radio show says Coulter takes too much delight in crossing the line between civil dissent and outright bomb throwing.
Ann Coulter should listen to me. But she doesn’t listen to anyone, so that’s not going to happen. [Looking for the list of people to whom O’Reilly pays rapt attention? Keep looking.] In the past, I’ve told Ms. Coulter that using personal attacks to make ideological points in short-term gain but not long-term pain. You can make money doing that, but respect in the mass market elude you. …
However, bad behavior does not justify other bad behavior, and if conservatives support the personal attacks that Ann Coulter trades in, then they must accept them from the “Bush lied” crew.
This presupposes conservatives reject statements from “the Bush lied crew” because they believe administration critics have no right to free speech, and not because so many of their statements are demonstrably false, beginning with the simple intellectual calculation about the difference between lying and being wrong. In how many ways will Iraq have to be different from Vietnam before the comparison stops coming? How much closer to the Hard Rock Hotel and Casino will Guantanamo Bay have to become until cries of “Gulag!” stop coming from unqualified nitwits?
Moreover, it becomes harder and harder to argue Coulter cannot gain or maintain respect in the mass market when she signs multi-million dollar book deals, rattles off one mammoth bestseller after another, continues a string of extraordinarily profitable speaking appearances and has yet to be fired by either Human Events or Universal Press Syndicate. Sure, I used to worry about Coulter’s viability in the marketplace (“Defying Ann Coulter”), but that was before she became Coulter, Inc. Coulter is a swiftly moving commercial force; not untouchable, but extremely hard to catch.
Incidentally, if you approached Bill O’Reilly on the street and told him his “in your face” style will end costing him ratings and mass market respect, he would kindly dismiss your concerns while lighting a passerby’s cigar with a hundred dollar bill he’d just lighted for warmth.
But back to Ann. Having spoken with her a number of times, I can tell you a few things. She likes the attention. She is a true believer; that is, her disdain for the left is not an act. She is rigid in her scorched-earth approach, believing that just about any tactic is legitimate when it comes to marginalizing liberals. In other words, she is Howard Dean extreme and just as wild as he is.
However, unlike Dean, Coulter is smart.
But unlike Governor Dean, Ms. Coulter can only sing to her soul mates. Most Americans are not ideological and respond to logic, not politically-driven emotion. Whether you agree with the liberal politics of the Jersey Girls or not, few people want to see these women harmed in any way. Thus, many unaligned people will now never be persuaded by Ann Coulter about anything because they think she’s mean.
“Unaligned people” is code for “fence sitters” and “uninterested citizens.” Politicians may care about them (once every two years), but opinion writers are under no such obligation. An opinionist (or, as Mark Steyn recently called Coulter, a commentatrix) has a responsibility to honestly and forthrightly present their view; if they respect their audience, they don’t write down to them (i.e., go out of their way to appeal to “unaligned people”). If they don’t respect their audience, well, they speak to them as though they were five-year-olds, or rubes.
Which brings us to the third method, where the objector tries to out-Coulter Ann Coulter. Better examples of this are worth the hunt – people who aren’t naturally biting and cutting have no business pretending they are, and no one has better displayed this than Leonard Pitts, the truly awful columnist inexplicably syndicated by Tribune Media Services (presumably under its affirmative action program). Pitts’ struggle came in a piece called “Ann Coulter: She’s Tall, She’s Blonde … She’s Nasty,” dated 12 June:
Coulter’s tirade has drawn bipartisan condemnation – New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton called it “vicious,” while the state’s Republican governor, George Pitaki, declared Coulter “far worse than insensitive” – but c’mon. This is all part of the shtick for this chick. I mean, we’re talking about the woman who said Timothy McVeigh’s only mistake was in not blowing up the New York Times building and that we should invade Muslim countries, kill their leaders and convert the people to Christianity.
Frankly, it’s easy to do what Coulter does. Just say the most outrageous thins in the most inflammatory way. Just give moral and mental cover to that small-minded, anti-intellectual strain of the electorate that recoils like Superman in the face of Kryptonite from complexity and incertitude. [He means you, dummy.] And when people call you on it, just wrap yourself in the flag and declare yourself a straight shootin’ conservative under siege by that mean ol’ liberal media.
It plays like gangbusters in Peoria. And never mind that it’s a brazen lie.
This will come as some surprise to the 51.89 percent of Peoria residents (totaling 24, 686 votes) who voted for John Kerry in 2004 (not to forget the 252 who votes for Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Source: The city of Peoria, Illinois’ official website; see the link at the conclusion of this essay.)
While we grant that every political party and movement has its pockets of elitism, this sort is widespread only throughout the Left. “Well, the hicks will eat this up, but real, intelligent people won’t be fooled.” Pitts would do well to remember his audience consists almost entirely of people who live in cities just like Peoria, Illinois and save himself the trouble of dinner party superiority. When the rubes buy the papers that pay your salary, it’s unwise to bite them.
۩ ۩ ۩ ۩ ۩
So, is Coulter right? In Godless she explains that one of the Left’s preeminent debate techniques is to present figures so sympathetic debate simply cannot exist. The idea is that if those in opposition start openly debating a tragic figure, they will appear so heartless and cruel that they lose the debate by default. On this there is no reasonable doubt; O’Reilly agrees with the point in “Message to Ann” and cites his own experience on the Lettermen show as an example. (You’ll recall Letterman informed O’Reilly his opinions on Cindy Sheehan were irrelevant because she’d lost a son in Iraq, and therefore O’Reilly had no real right to criticize Sheehan.)
We are supposed to believe the tragedies that befell 9/11 families make them untouchable in common debate, but it doesn’t, and shouldn’t. I’ll agree the line about the widows’ enjoying their losses is offsides, but I cannot disagree at all with the overall tone of the exchange. Kristin Breitweiser was for a while putting roots down in Chris Matthews’ guest chair, and occasionally muttering some pretty dimwitted things with no substantive challenge coming from the other side of the desk. You cannot call it debate when one side of a question is allowed to carry on without opposition – you can call it a campaign commercial, which is exactly what the Jersey Girls’ movements throughout 2004 became.
When asked about the 9/11 widow who made a campaign commercial for President Bush in 2004, Coulter has basically said that Bush was running for re-election, and things are different for sitting presidents. Meaning, I think, that the president had a prerogative Senator Kerry didn’t have. I also disagree with Coulter on this point. In the run-up to the 2004 election, I’d have preferred 9/11 relatives keep their thoughts to the voting booth and off Fox News / MSNBC / CNN. Their awful losses may make them authorities in some things, but none of those involve national security or Iraqi war policy.
There has been some talk about Coulter’s profiting from the widows’ tragedy, but I would defy anyone making this argument to prove Coulter will make more from this book’s royalties than each of the four widows made from their 9/11 settlements. Various commentators have carried on at various lengths about the idea’s tone, saying that it’s simply too rude to think, but none have quite gotten around to explaining why it’s wrong, other than to fall back on the emotionalism generated on that awful day nearly five years ago. Haven’t the Jersey Girls been lionized? Haven’t they had innumerable TV pieces produced and magazine articles written about them? Haven’t we been coddled into reveling in their celebrity by a media (some legitimate, some not) obsessed with other people’s grief?
Haven’t we?
Sources:
Bill O'Reilly: "Message to Ann"
Leonard Pitts: "Ann Coulter: She's Tall, She's Blonde … She's Nasty"
Peoria, Illinois November 2, 2004 general election vote totals
Read more articles by Brian S. Wise
Each party has their tools. Ann Coulter would be the hammer. Once someone is a rightie, or thinks they are a rightie, they read Coulter, and she hammers them further right. She has her purpose and she does it well. There are other conservatives who grab fence sitters and bring them right (for Coulter to do her job). People are just mad because she's smart, and she's almost impossible to argue with.
Comment by Kenny | June 24, 2006
I agree with the substance, if not the tone, of Coulter's argument. However, you can be sure that if it weren't for her bomb-throwing, this discussion wouldn't take place at all. Kudos for the kickstart anyway, Ann!
Comment by Andy Gardner | June 24, 2006
Like all the best demagogues, Coulter profits by loudly decrying the very tactic that she uses to perfection: a hypocritical and dogmatic assertion of righteousness. If "liberals" are to be disallowed from offering unchallengable spokespersons like the 9/11 widows, then, in fairness, "conservatives" must be willing to stop arguing that "the Bible says it, therefore it must be so, no arguments." Of course, Coulter cannot actually submit to such simple intellectual honesty, since doing so would demonstrate her awareness that the premise of her book (that "liberals" are the worse for being "godless") is just garden-variety manure.
Coulter talks (and talks and talks and talks) the talk, but dare not walk the walk.
Comment by TG | June 24, 2006
I have read Ann's whole book. Very enlightening! I agree.
Loosing a loved one in a tragedy does not make you an expert on war stragedy!! When you push for more money solely on the fact you lost your husband in an attack it appears to be money geared. I'm sure most soldiers wives would like to be offered some compensation, unfortunately they don't have the opportunity to make millions on their husbands death !!!!
If Howard Dean had the brains Ann Coulter has, he would be dangerous.As it is he's just an idiot!!
Comment by Old enough to know better | June 24, 2006
I agree with the substance and the tone of Coulter. Her words fly like true arrows to the mark. In her book, she directs satire toward any number of liberals like Sheehan and the Jersey Girls. After these women receive appropriate sympathy for their losses, can they reasonably expect front billing on the platform of political opinion based simply on their having been recognized as grieving family members? It is always appropriate to examine the ethos and credibility of any witness or putative pundit. In her book, Coulter has scrutinized these women and found them wanting, more than wanting, in this case, downright absurd and tinged with opportunism of either their own impetus or someone else’s. When there is an indication that in some sectors the political views of these individuals are being taken seriously, the time arrives for dishing out the satire, exposing the sham, and restoring some intellectual balance. Coulter is a noble warrior for our civic culture, an Athena in our time.
Comment by Bill White | June 24, 2006
Miss Coulter's comments regarding the Jesey Girls is a very small sliver of the her latest book. The other commentaries in the book are much more interesting and compelling.
Comment by Kevin Brady | June 24, 2006
Kevin, I agree. All this talk about Jersey Girls is just a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the gaping hole she tears in the fabric of liberalism throughout the book. And it is so much fun to read.
Comment by Bill White | June 24, 2006
UNAPOLOGETIC ANN COULTER PUTS ATTRACTING ATTENTION OVER ACCURACY
Like me, Cliff Kincaid, Editor of Accuracy in Media, was castigated for chiding Ann Coulter for going too far in her latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Ann, Cliff and I agree on some important issues, but we do not share the same priority: Cliff and I yearn for accuracy and fairness, while Ann craves attention and sometimes lets that craving get the better of her.
Ann has worked long and hard to develop a large following that includes some fanatics. Like the person who wrote to Cliff: "Why does Ann need 'evidence' for her opinion? The left doesn't need 'evidence' for making ridiculous claims against the president of the United States in the media."
The antidote for the Left's false charges is the truth, not other false charges. Besides, trying to out lie the Left is a fool's errand.
To be sure, the Left grossly exaggerated Ann's excess. Ann did NOT disparage all September 11 widows. She attacked four, the Jersey widows, whom she gratuitously and foolishly referred to as harpies and witches, and instead of being satisfied with opining that the widows were enjoying a newfound celebrity as a result of their respective husband's deaths, she contemptuously (and contemptibly) charged that they "enjoyed" those deaths, speculated that their husband might have been about to divorce them, and opined that time was running out for them to appear in a magazine designed to appeal to male prurient interest.
If Ann had evidence that any of the four actually enjoyed her husband's death, or was about to be divorced, or was disposed to pose for Playboy, she should have presented it. She didn't.
Cliff happily reported that conservative MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, referring to how leading liberal Democrats refused to condemn Moore’s anti-American film “Fahrenheit 9/11,” asked, “…is it not true that if conservatives don‘t come out and condemn Ann Coulter for making these type of statements, they’re guilty of the same—the same offenses that Democrats were guilty of with Michael Moore?”
The answer is yes, of course.
The good news includes the response of conservative talk-show host Michael Smerconish: “I think you‘re absolutely correct. And in my own small corner of the world, I‘ve attempted to put Republicans, conservatives in particular, on record about her” and every conservative Republican politician he contacted, including Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Curt Weldon, condemned Ann's remarks.
Bernard Goldberg is right about this: Ann “hurts her team.”
And Cliff is right that "[t]he 'team' should be the truth, not a conservative or liberal cause."
Conservatives have much more reason to be content with the truth than liberals.
Cliff's last word of Ann:
"Ann Coulter decided that the 9/11 widows from New Jersey were enjoying the deaths of their husbands because they were getting media attention for their views and had campaigned against President Bush.
"If she really believes this, she is completely out of touch with real-life human beings and the reality of what terrorism does to people. If she doesn’t believe it and made the charge only to create controversy and sell books, then she is devoid of a conscience.
"I don’t know which is worse. But I do know that human decency requires that we criticize and condemn this hateful rhetoric."
The bad news is that Ann insists that she does believe it (although her considerable body of excellent work demonstrates that she is too smart to really believe it and thus undermines her claim).
Ann has been utterly unrepentant, and moved on to make a tasteless joke about fragging Representative John Murtha, further evidence that she is addicted to creating controversy and selling her books.
Ann's last three columns have been book promotions: HEY YOU, BROWSING 'GODLESS' — BUY THE BOOK OR GET OUT!; PARTY OF RAPIST PROUD TO BE GODLESS; and 'GODLESS' CAUSES LIBERALS TO PRAY … FOR A BOOK BURNING.
Ann's latest column began this way:
"I dedicate this column to John Murtha, the reason soldiers invented fragging.
"In response to the arguments of my opponents, I say: Waaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo hoo!
"If you're upset about what I said about the Witches of East Brunswick, try turning the page. Surely, I must have offended more than those four harpies. Wait 'til you get a load of what I say about liberals in the rest of the book! You haven't seen the half of it.
"For snarling victims, my book is Christmas in July. Hey — where's Max the grenade-dropper? Let's keep this diaper-fest going all summer."
The rest of the book is much too good to be spoiled by a few outrageous remarks and epithets. Particularly the chapter on abortion.
Spoiling it is tragic.
Will Ann ever apologize?
Apparently not even if hell freezes over.
Is Ann the Right's only brilliant, bold, witty and beautiful spokeswoman?
Of course not. Thanks be to God.
Laura Ingraham is at least as brilliant, bold, witty and beautiful as Ann. And a lady.
Michael J. Gaynor
95 Darrrow Lane
Greenlawn, New York 11740-2803
(631) 757-9452 (tel)
(631) 754-3437 (fax)
GaynorMike
Comment by Michael J. Gaynor | June 24, 2006
The divide between the Ann haters and the Ann lovers seems to be founded in the fight between political realists and those who think honesty, real honesty in debate is actually a virtue. If there was any doubt to this fact just look to Bernard Goldberg's much quoted statement that Ann "hurts her team". We know as conservatives that one of the lefts greatest weapons against reality is well, lies. Its not just that they have their facts mixed up or that they use faulty reasoning ( although this is not uncommon as well), they just plain misrepresent the facts so as to prove their point. Conservatives are "racists" or "bigots" or "religious zealots". Gitmo is a camp on the same level as Nazi concentration camps or Soviet gulags. The overthrow of Saddam was "cooked up" somewhere in Texas. The list goes on and on and on. As much as we are aware of this fact of the Lefts propensity for falsehood we cannot help but be sensitive to its consequences. Thus we succumb to the lure of political correctness and police our words carefully so as to avoid giving the left raw material of any sort. Ann Coulter will never do this. She will never police her words or fashion her dialogue to the norms of political correctness. Thats scares people. It scares political realists on the right who cannot help but think that her words will scare off the uninformed after the words are run throught the Lefts Big Lie machine. The truth is that people respond to passion intermingled with humor, wit and clear thinking. Thats why I love Ann Coulter.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | June 25, 2006
Since some commentary on Ann’s book turns on her unfriendly (not necessarily unfair) characterization of the Jersey Girls, it is useful to wonder if any good can come of this. I say, yes. The left has planted bullies on the school bus far too long and far too often. Now they have been not only caught on “tape,” they have been punched back - I would say cold-cocked. This they deserve and more. Thank you, Ann. From now on when the left hides behind its human shields (professional and semi-professional victims), more people will notice and say, yes, there it is again, just as Ann described, and conservative warriors, who speak the truth, will easily pierce this flimsy facade with the time honored weapon of satire.
Ann uses satire so well - such incisive economy . And the Jersey girls are fitting subjects for satire. As Michelle Malkin noted earlier this June, Dorothy Rabinowitz had the definitive piece on the 9/11 widows two years ago. Rabinowitz wrote:
“Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them. Or how profoundly different all this is from the way in which citizens in other times and places reacted to national tragedy.”
Groomed by liberals like Gail Sheehey, “the 9/11 Four blossomed, under a warm media sun and the attention of legislators, into activists,” while “others who had lost family to the terrorists' assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers” Dubbed “the four moms,” these women became untouchable shock troops in the media war on the Bush administration. No one, including Republicans, wanted to say no to these women, who kept repeating they just wanted to know why their husbands were killed - when the answer was apparent to many, including Rabinowitz, who wrote:
“The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows . . .”
We do not require proof beyond reasonable doubt that these women seem to enjoy their celebrity status as media darlings. The evidence is circumstantial if not compelling. The urge to repeat is strong in humans and these women who have sought media attention seem to be basking in it far in excess of their right as grieving widows to do so. If one is looking for excess, I would say look to the Jersey Girls, not to Ann Coulter who noticed them (with proper distain) and applied appropriate tropes to their overwrought behavior and suspiciously political motives.
Comment by Bill White | June 25, 2006
Ann Coulter is right! In fact, we need more "Ann Coulters". For far too long the liberal media has had their way. For decades America was short changed by the liberals near total monopoly of the media. As a young teenager I grew up hearing Walter Cronkite end his news segment every evening with the ol’ “and that’s the way it is” sign-off. Fortunately, I matured, learned to search for the truth and realized that ol’ Walter was really pulling my leg most of the time. I wasn’t being told the way it really was. I was being told what ultra liberal Cronkite wanted me to hear, truth be damned. The real problem liberals have with Ann is that when it comes down to an honest debate about the facts, they cringe in horror. Remember Cronkite protégé Dan Rather. 44 years at CBS and he was still willing to go down with his ship of lies about Bush “rather” than admit it was all a lie. The facts have never mattered to true liberals. As long as maniacs like Howard Dean and Jack Murtha are allowed to spew their liberal propaganda and remain unchallenged by the vast majority of the news media - we need Ann Coulter.
Comment by Terry Strickland | June 25, 2006
Let me get this straight. All liberals are scum. Try to destroy them using any tactic possible. They lie, all the time. Anne is blessed.
As soon as someone points out all the failings of this administration attack them in a vicious personal diatribe.
Even though the verdict is in by nearly all avenues of thought
( hence the softer more prone to mistake admitting George Bush )
This administration has been proven to be bad on any scale. On any scale!
But Attack!!!
This way the conservatives win!
Please tell me exactly what do the conservatives win by using this methodology?
Comment by Patrick DeBurg | June 25, 2006
All liberals are certainly not scum Patrick (although some are). They don't lie all the time (they just lie quite a bit). It would be immoral to try to "destroy" them using any tactic possible.That said, Ann Coulter isn't attacking the Jersy Girls for pointing out all the failings of this administration. She is attacking them for hiding behind their husbands deaths as a way to advance a purely political agenda. The " verdict is in by nearly all avenues of thought" may be an idication that you need to expand on what you consider to be all avenues of thought, as clearly the divide in America demonstrates that the verdict is NOT in. The administration being "bad on any scale" depends in great part as to whom is reading the scales. In this case, you and your comrades who hate President Bush to begin with are doing the reading. So please speak for yourself.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | June 25, 2006
I had never heard of the 'Jersey Girls' until I read the publicity surrounding Coulter's book.
I think Anne Coulter is great, but not for the reasons most conservatives love her. Anne Coulter is the rope that conservatives will hang themselves by. She is so extreme, so aggressive and condescending that even more ordinary Americans will gradually begin to wake up and smell the coffee. Go girl!
Also, I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but I do not believe there is such a thing as god. Coulter would call me godless, whereas I would simply say it is impossible to lack something that doesn't exist. Besides, people who say they believe in god seem to be more violent and aggressive than those who don't, which is on the surface is ironic, but not really when you give it some thought.
Show me evidence that god exists, otherwise calling me godless is like saying I am toothfairyless.
Lastly, check out this webpage. Coulter keeps good company, at least in terms of her beautiful, inspirational rhetoric.
http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jac3he/GiveUpQuiz/hitlercoulterquiz.html
Comment by Max Godwin | June 26, 2006
One more thing I just have to mention, Michael Moore on his website provides a line-by-line factual back up for the film 'Fahrenheit 911'. That means he quotes two or three sources for everything you see in the film. If you really think he got it wrong, attack his sources. If you can't, then what does that say about the nonsense most of you talk in reference to his work?
Comment by Max Godwin | June 26, 2006
Wow! A lib just compared a prominent conservative to Hitler. Such a novel approach! Since we're on the topic of Hitler and you decided to smack yourself in the face with the comment that "people who say they believe in god seem to be more violent and aggressive than those who don’t" would you care to explain the whole Hitler atheist angle for the class? Or perhaps you could explain the Communist/atheist connection to prove your brilliant insight?
I doubt Ann Coulter would consider you godless Max. Just like most libs you substitute yourself in the role of god. Buy her book and you can read about it. Then buy 50 more for all those "average Americans" you know will be so turned off by her extremism.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | June 26, 2006
I just finished her book. Read the last two pages and you get some pure argument for her thesis.
Ann is fantastic! God did a great job on her for sure!
Comment by ruslfish | June 26, 2006
No, I think you will find that with the similarities between Coulter and Hitler's rhetoric being so substantial, it would be hard for any rational person not to take this information for exactly what it is.
Anne Coulter feels the same way about liberals as Hitler did.
Also, Hitler claimed on many occasions to be a Christian, the fact that he was a very bad man does not somehow magically make him an atheist. Besides which the word Atheist has a precise political definition, all I said was that I didn't believe in god, and that people who do often start all the trouble. You'll be telling me next that Osama Bin Laden is an atheist. There is a lot more to say about this, but frankly if I were to do anymore of your thinking for you I would have to start charging.
Anyway, here is Hitler in his own words.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited. "
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
Please check your facts before posting.
As for Stalin, he won a scholarship to a theological seminary when he was a child and was a devout orthodox christian into his early twenties, besides which he was a homicidal psychopath, the roots of which I would assume formed in his childhood.
Are you guys simply unable to use Google, or do you just not care about actual facts?
Finally, how can I substitute myself for something that doesn't exist?
Comment by Max Godwin | June 27, 2006
Max, Max, Max,
Here is my short and sweet theory regarding God. If you're right and there is no god ( your use) then I've lost nothing. ( in believing and living Christianity)
However, if I'm right and you are wrong ( regarding God and his word) you have lost everything. Do you really want to gamble that much???
Comment by Old enough to know better | June 27, 2006
Max, you sound very aggressive and angry. Before you become too enraged, help me understand you.
I often wonder about agnostics and atheists. I suppose being an agnostic can make sense, because then a person just does not believe in something in particular. However, an atheist believes in nothing. Through faith alone and no evidence, the atheist holds fervently tight to the theory that there is no God. They cannot just not believe in something, they MUST believe in nothing, which is a belief itself and based on the same amount (or lack) of evidence they claim God does not provide for His own existence.
When I see a tree, a computer, a flagellum, I see things that take an intelligence to create; a natural harmony that seems to orderly to be an accident. When atheists see them, they are simply things that are there by chance and have no value other than to satisfy their needs. We both have our beliefs.
Do me a favor and review Hitler’s Mein Kampf and try to compare it to Coulter’s Godless. Clearly, they have vastly different philosophies.
Coulter’s core belief is that ALL humans are unique and exceptional beyond our talents of language, logic, opposable thumbs and upright posture. We are unique because we are creations of God in His own image. This idea allows us to recognize individualist rights that no majority can take away.
Now think about the atheist belief in nothing. Why are you human, because you are smart? Those who are not smart, are they less human than you? Those who cannot use logic or language as effectively, are they less than you? Should you and those you perceive as equals through the genetic survival of the fittest atheists use as your creation myth hold more prominence, get more resources; control others since they are superior?
If you disagree with this, why? Did I not Google hard enough? How about stepping back from the websites and reflecting on how important you are to the world because you are you. You are not an accident, Max. I do not need wikipedia to figure that out.
Comment by Ruslfish | June 27, 2006
I believe ruslfish tries to justify the unjustifiable. You cannot speak of Jesus Christ and his life and try to in the same breath defend Anne as emulating God. That's way too far a stretch for me. Anne my be a creation of God but she does not follow the Christ I know. If you read scripture in any measure Anne is an Ian Pasley sort of Christian. She seems to hate everyone that even mildly disagrees with her with a vicious passion top the point of saying anything. I read her last site post and frankly she seems to have been pushed over the edge. There is reasoned passionate debate and then there is frothing at the mouth. The last post on her site seems rabid.
Comment by Patrick DeBerg | June 27, 2006
I try to “justify the unjustifiable”? What are you talking about, friend?
Read the last two pages of Ann’s Godless book, Patrick. It is a good wrap-up of her whole point. I will argue that she is not anywhere near Hitler-esque (my original argument with Max). That nonsense just does not compute. She is Pro-Life and Pro-Humanity and, although her rhetoric is hard and sharp and could be “mean”; she defends life in her writings. Hitler attempted to rationalize death as a means for advancement and justice. He was sick and twisted evil. Hitler cannot be justified.
As for you stating I am comparing Ann with God: again, what are you saying? I stated that Ann believes, as many religious and philosophical people believe (all the way back to Pre-Socratic times) we are made in the image of perfection and of God. I would not argue we are either, but aspire to be like both as we journey. We are on this Earth, but not of this Earth. Because of that idea, we see everyone endowed by our Creator with rights that socialists and secularists can only suppress, not take away. Death worshippers who believe eugenics, abortion, equality in homosexuality and stem cell research are somehow entwined with liberty cannot stand up to the scrutiny of this belief.
Finally, I will not seek to defend something if it merely offends another. I do not think being “mean” needs to be defended or justified. It is a relative term. That is what we are talking about, after all. Ann is mean. OK. I cannot justify her being mean to others. That does not, however, make her as evil as Hitler or her truth less truthful. It only means Ann finds more attention paid to the truth she speaks by spinning people up with “mean” comments. Are you equating “mean” with “evil”, Patrick? I cannot. Mean is up to individuals to decide, evil is a solid thing measurable and identified quite easily. Evil is a solid term.
Please consider at your pleasure and thanks.
PS: I thought her last site post was an article from a Dead Head site and how much she loves Greatful Dead Concerts.
Comment by Ruslfish | June 28, 2006
Of all the comments I've seen about Ann Coulter, I don't think I've actually seen anyone refute the substance of her arguments.
She is abrasive, overconfident, and very direct. She has an irritating voice. She wants to sell lots of books. Granted. But instead of calling her a shew and an idiot, does anyone on the left have a refutation of the many points raised in her book?
Comment by Rich Sherlock | June 28, 2006
I love Ann Coulter. She is a very intelligent conservative who cares about the future of our country. My opinion is; if we conservatives don't take drastic measures to save the sovereignty of our country, it will not be long before we become part of the globalist community (which in my mind means mass blood shed in our streets and slavery to those who submit). My solution is to be very aggressive(like Ann). Let's go to war with Latin America and Cuba. Turn those two territories into states. Have a new border with South America and of course; seal our new border with our military. Say "hi" to Hugo; then tell the globalist community, and the liberals to stop pissing us off. Plus; we no longer have an illegal immigration problem, we no longer have an assimilation problem, we no longer have a language problem, we no longer have a culture problem, and we no longer have a very porous border in the south. Not to mention, we now have the population we need for I can get my social security check when I turn 67. I will not give up my freedom. I will fight for our sovereignty! I am sick and tired of the lying, cheating, stealing, corruption, and idiot mentality that is everywhere; every day of my life. Wake up and fight; like Ann does, or we will all suffer the consequences.
Comment by Mike | July 1, 2006
Someone comes to the defense of lefty bomb-lobber (and loose with the truth) Michael Moore in a debate over Ann Coulter. What irony!! And me without popcorn!
Comment by Coowallsky | July 2, 2006
Ruslfish
She is prolife and pro humanity. Her rethoric is hard and sharp.
" Lets invade their countries, kill all their leaders and convert them to christianity."
Not word for word from the gospel of John it would seem. Would not a community of believers be a "socialistic" gathering? Where three or more are gathered in my name there I am. Does that make the Christ a communist? I think not. I do not think Anne is evil. I do think she goes far beyond "mean" using above statement. I find no pro life in this statement. I find nothing pro humanity there either. A house cannot stand against itself Ruslfish. Anne's sin is in fomenting this poision. If this is what she believes good for her. The world is full of hard hard people right now. Cruel people on all sides. I just cannot understand people that defend this by invoking the name of Christ. That is an affront to God himself. Jesus did everything humanly possible to have people meet his father. He spoke of a God of love. Of forgiveness. No left or right. You make a mockery of his words at your own peril…..
Comment by Patrick DeBerg | July 2, 2006
I just love Ann Coulter! She makes it too easy to shoot everything that she says full of holes. Thanks for making you and your supporters look even more like angry, bitter, spoiled little children who whine when they can't get their way. I'm sure that this will be answered by some sort of tantrum as well. Ann Coulter is quite possibly the most unoriginal person on the planet. For those of you who treat her like a queen, please realize that she may very well be the biggest plagiariser on the planet. If you don't believe me, Google Coulter and Plagiarism, or just visit this site…
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/because-some-things-are-more-profane.html
By the way, I love the name of your little website here! What a great oxymoron!!!
Have a nice day. Have a great 4th of July America! Yes, I am a liberal who actually loves America! We exist! Alert Fox News!!!
Comment by Popice | July 3, 2006
Gotta love the incisive clear cut debunking performed by Mad Max. Hitler gives a speech in 1922 about Christianity (clearly a political stunt to draw support) that somehow shows a relationship between Ann Coulters view of God and Libs and how Hitler viewed God. Let me clue you in Max. Hitlers Reich was based off the scientific priciple of eugenics and the complete expunging of religious faith. Christianity is a religioun which teaches the brotherhood of man, ALL MEN, the very opposite of the Nazi creed.
Your attempt to draw a corillary between Stalin and his religious experience as a youth was equally
pathetic. You would think that somehow Stalins seminary experience was the only experience of his
childhood. Are you attempting to say that religion was the only force in a young Joseph Stalins life?
And what of the Soviet Union with Stalin at the helm suppressing religion everywhere it could reach?
Would this make sense for a man who derived his "psychopathic tendancies" from religious experience?
Another tip Max. Googling together quotes doesn't make your arguments any more logical or rationalthan than if you
just make your facts up out of thin air. Get a clue.
As for our newcomer elitist lib snob Popice:
You have a great 4th too dude! Nobody here will question your love of America. Only your ability to
protect and preserve it.
P.S The whole "my opponent is sooooo extreme that I love her because she just proves my point"
line is kinda old. As is the "your website name is an oxymoron haha" line. Just a thought.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 4, 2006
Popice,
So what kind of deviant behaviour are you addicted to? One of the main reasons to be a liberal is because a person can justify their immoral behaviour by being brainwashed with factless crap. And not all conservative's are uneducated country folk with good common sense. For example; I was a liberal for 40+ years. 9-11 changed me forever. The reason why I was a liberal for so long was because I was brainwashed with factless crap. And please do not come on this website and tell us to link to some factless crap made up by your kind for you can justify your sinister behaviour. And please don't argue with me that the link isn't full of factless crap. It is a proven fact that liberals are not truth seekers. Liberals love to lie. But; I do believe you love America. Just not the USA. You love an America that includes Canada, Latin America and South America. Open borders, lower than average IQ's, chaos, corruption, drugs, pornography, less and less freedom; anything that helps dumb down our population to a point where we can no longer defend our sovereign nation. Which is why I have a major problem with liberalism. Am I being childish, Popice? Have a nice 4th of July Popice!!! And, "GOD BLESS THE USA"!!!
Comment by Mike | July 4, 2006
Patrick:
“Let’s invade their countries, kill all their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
When was this quote? Oh yeah, three days after vicious animals hijacked airplanes and destroyed over 3000 lives. One life belonged to a good friend of Ann’s, Barbara Olsen. Nope, this quote does not come from the Good Book. It comes from grief and anger and an article about her friend dying. In public, Ann would not apologize for this comment. I get the impression that she thinks apologizing will diminish what she is writing. Here is the article in full, not the one sentence out of context. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=this_is_war&ns=AnnCoulter&dt=09/14/2001&page=2
I just read it again and I can remember my anger too. By the way, I am sorry for feeling this way about those terrorists and the nations that harbor them.
Please forgive me for not defining socialism. I know it can be hard to understand what people mean, so check this definition.
so•cial•ism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
1) Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2) The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
To answer your question, “a community of believers” would not be a “socialistic” gathering unless I was trying to squeeze a point out of the meaning in an attempt to show socialism as equal to religion or religious faith.
You stated, “Where three or more are gathered in my (try My) name there I am. Does that make the Christ a communist? I think not.”
I agree with you that Christ was not a communist. I do not agree with your logical chain. Your definition of socialism is wrong. In addition, Christ did not state, “that where three gather to redistribute wealth, there I am.” I think he was talking about worshipping God. Add to that socialism is not communism, and I say that sums up the silliness (forgive me) of you argument.
You say, “I do not think Anne is evil. I do think she goes far beyond ‘mean’ using above statement.”
Again, how you think and feel is relative to you. “Mean” is neither transcendent nor concrete by any means. I see the article as a tough angry venting statement. That is my opinion and not valid in any other person’s head. Reread what I wrote you earlier on “evil” versus “mean”.
You said, “I find no pro life in this statement. I find nothing pro humanity there either.”
“I love orange juice. It tastes great.” Now, those last two paragraphs say nothing regarding pro-life or pro-humanity, and yet I am both. I guess we should not take one sentence of thousands a person says or writes and twist it to make them look bad. On the other hand, maybe we should read more about a person before making a judgment.
You said, “Anne’s sin is in fomenting this poision (sic).”
What poison? Oh, is it the one sentence of hundreds of thousands Ann wrote or said? I thought you meant the poison we all felt (well, me and 200 million or so) in our blood when terrorists killed three thousand in their death worship ritual. Sorry, Patrick, that poison was already fomenting two days before Ann spoke to the subject.
You said, “I just cannot understand people that defend this by invoking the name of Christ.”
You need to reread the conversation that took place. I was defending religion and Christianity against Max who stated that religion caused Hitler and Stalin and Coulter to unleash evil across the Earth. I did not invoke the name of Christ to defend Ann; I defended the name of Christ as not being the catalyst of genocide.
Now read some more and think harder before you answer these blogs or you may “make a mockery of his (try His) words at your own peril…..”
Comment by Ruslfish | July 5, 2006
Mike,
First of all, it is interesting that because I identify myself as a liberal thinker, you automatically attack me by asking me what kind of deviant behavior I am addicted to. Why are you so angry? I'm not trying to begin an arguement, but you made an assumption about me without knowing anything about me. This is why this country is more divided now than since the Civil War.
Let me enlighten you on my "deviant" behavior. I am a happily married man and teach 7th grade English in an urban school district in Upstate New York. I was an Eagle Scout, and proudly volunteer my time as a Scoutmaster in that same troop. Speaking of volunteer work, I also work with Habitat for Humanity n my city as a way of giving back to my community. Pretty deviant, huh?
Secondly, when did I say that all conservatives are uneducated country folk? Many of my friends are or were Bush supporters in one or both elections. These are people who are lawyers and dentists. Definitely educated people.
You say that it's a proven fact that liberals are not truth seekers. Would you please post your evidence of this proof? I would greatly appreciate it. You claim that 9/11 changed you into a conservative. That's interesting. You see, after 9/11 happened, I felt great pride as an American when President Bush stood at the rubble and stated that the people who knocked the buildings down would hear from all of us soon. At that point, he had my full support, even though I did not vote for him. I'm still waiting for us to go after the perpetrators of 9/11. I witnessed a global community completely behind us at that time. Since then, I feel embarrassed by many of the things that our country has done.
I don't love the USA? I lost a good friend in 1990 in Iraq. Although I haven't served in our military, most of my family has, and I am proud of this fact. I love the fact that you and I can disagree about many things. I have no personal animosity toward you, and yet you attack my personal integrity and morality. I think the time has long past for those of us who disagree about certain issues to be able to speak with each other civily and as adults who understand that the reason this is the reason why this country is so great.
Because of this, I would personally like to apologize for any offense I may have made in my first post, but understand that I consider Ms. Coulter to be a vindictive, crass individual who often does not have any respect for anyone who may have the slightest problem with what she says.
I look forward to any intelligent debate with all of you. I will no longer respond to personal attacks against me or my morality. I leave that judgement only to God.
Thank you.
Comment by Popice | July 6, 2006
Mike,
I hope you read my last post first before reading this. I know that you said that you wouldn't believe anything on another website posted by "my kind" (liberals). But notice that I am here on one of your sites, trying my best to see both sides of an issue. As to my first post regarding Ms. Coulter and the facts about her writing (yes, they are now proven facts) I suggest that you do some research on her latest book "Godless". Just google a program called Ithenticate and Ann Coulter and you will find some interesting information, and not all of it on "my kind's" websites.
The program Ithenticate was created to aid teachers and professors in identifying plagiarism in student work, as has become very easy to steal intellectual property from the internet. This program searches through thousands of texts to look for plagiarism. It lit up like a Christmas tree when Godless was fed into it. Interestingly, it also found plenty of other examples of plagiarism in her syndicated collumn. I know that, as a liberal, I am apparently not a truth seeker, but I guess I went out on a limb on this one to find some facts about someone with whom I have differing opinions.
I welcome any discussion on this, but as I stated before, if you want to debate, let's try and bring some civility back to the American political discussion. I know we will not agree, but it's just to easy to mudsling. I made fun of the name of this website before, and have apologized for it after some self reflection.
Who know's? We may even find some common ground, or at least begin to find our way there.
Comment by Popice | July 6, 2006
Ann Coulter is not right. End of story. Maybe some day you'll wake up and discover this.
Comment by Anon | July 6, 2006
Anon, are you saying she is a lefty, then? Would this make it the end of the story?
I love it when people use end of story, as if it means anything or carries any weight.
Popice, thanks for being understanding and reading around. I like to read the HuffPo sometimes too, and often comment on the site's blogs. Unfortunately, the responses to my opinions are usually filled with vulgarity and profanity, and no logical argument. On one occasion, I stated that Ann Coulter reads a lot like “Jon Swift”. What followed were around 20 horribly vulgar statements, and then about six people telling me I was stupid because his name is Jonathon Swift, not Jon. I forgot I was on the HuffPo and not a normal blog site where we can abbreviate for sake of expediency.
You did not receive the same treatment I did by any stretch, which I think indicates the level of civility you get form conservatives you will never see from liberals. They complain about Ann Coulter, yet Bill Maher, Al Franken, Whoopie Goldberg and others put such blatant, filthy things out there, a million times worse than Coulter, and they do not complain. By the way, I am not complaining about those three either, they are usually funny and poke conservatives and authority. Coulter does the same, just with liberals and authority.
Comment by Ruslfish | July 7, 2006
Let me get this straight. Stalin was the product of some early life influence? Is that nurture or nature? Was there some unknown genetic predisposition to his deviant behaviour? Was he born that way? If he was born that way then he just allowed himself to succumb to his desires, and the consequences were born onto millions of people. Fair to say there is more than one Elephant in the room.
Peace
Comment by Mike | July 8, 2006
Well, I think the part about Ann being smarter than Dean is correct anyway….
Comment by Ricky Lennon | July 21, 2006