Home / Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Coulter Victimizes the Victims

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ann Coulter exploded back on the scene last week with her despicable comments about anti-war 9/11 widows. She said, amongst other awful things, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

I'm sure you'll be shocked and amazed to learn than this line comes from her brand new book, Godless, which accuses liberals of being, well, godless, and which currently sits atop the Amazon.com bestsellers list. The above link is to a Howard Kurtz column in the Washington Post in which he argues that perhaps the media ought to stop feeding this ravenous publicity beast. She might just go away.

Kurtz is entirely correct to point out, however, that there is a tiny nugget of a valid point secreted beneath all those layers of Coulterian boilerplate. Here's how he puts it: "…once widows turn themselves into political activists, their personal tragedies should not shield them from rebuttal…"

As Matt Lauer rightly noted on the Today show, Coulter disproves her own argument by attacking the widows, as many a right-winger has done to Cindy Sheehan as well. The animus directed at Coulter in this case comes not from her temerity in challenging the widows' political views, but from the inhuman callousness of her attack.

Every American has the right to enter the political debate — for any reason. The 9/11 widows and Cindy Sheehan — not to mention Terri Schiavo's parents — have as much right as anyone else to their political views. But, and this is crucial, they have no special right to influence public policy. Their stories may be compelling, even tragic. That might give them a bigger soapbox or a louder megaphone, but it should never give them an extra vote.

Their experiences may well give them a special understanding of the issues. Most people will thankfully never know what it's like to have a loved one die in a terror attack or in battle, but public policy, as the name implies, affects everybody, and no one, regardless of private pathos, has a special right to dictate how other people should feel. This is why the sentencing of criminals is done by a dispassionate judge rather than by the victim's family. Justice is supposed to serve the public good, not the frayed emotions of those personally affected.

Whenever a victim of a tragedy willfully takes to the public stage to advocate policy, they open themselves up to legitimate criticism. If they choose to open up their private tragedy to public scrutiny, they have no right to wear the unimpeachable mantle of the victim. That said, their critics have a responsibility to criticize their ideas without belittling their pain. Ann Coulter serves as a handy reminder that this is not always borne out in practice.

The irony is that Coulter goes ballistic about these women profiting from their pain and bereavement despite the fact that she is doing exactly the same thing, but in an even more underhanded manner. Even if you violently disagree with the political views of the terror widows and Cindy Sheehans of the world, you can at least understand that they are motivated by their pain and grief. Coulter, on the other hand, is motivated by nothing other than greed and vindictiveness. And she's cashing in big-time.

Powered by

About parenthetical

  • Arch Conservative

    “Coulter, on the other hand, is motivated by nothing other than greed and vindictiveness.”

    Actually it seems as if Coulter is motivated by rigid ideology and anger at seeing the other side use 911 victims as infallible spokespeople ot advance thier views.

  • “…once widows turn themselves into political activists, their personal tragedies should not shield them from rebuttal…”

    Nor have they in this case … neither have I seen Coulter or any of her hysterical defenders point to an activist whose claimed they should be so shielded.

  • Nancy

    Once again Coulter proves she’s nothing more than a skank; and the MSM prove that they’re even bigger fools & gulls than ever before.

  • “Coulter victimizes the victims” my A$$. She didn’t do anything to them. These four specific women volunteered to get slapped around like everyone else surely by about the time they climbed in the political ring to work for Kerry.

    Coulter might perhaps have been somewhat unfair in her criticism. The phrase about “enjoying their husbands deaths” was obviously carefully calculated for maximum offense, and we can’t really know what’s going on in their minds. Still, these women and especially Cindy Sheehan certainly appear to be thoroughly enjoying the fame that their losses have afforded them.

    But even if you assume for no other reason than charity that these women have nothing but the purist and most selfless motives, it’s absolute crap to say that critics are “victimizing” them.

  • Read the article before barging in, Barger. Heh.

    I do not say critics are victimizing them. I would never say such a thing. What I said is Ann Coulter is victimizing them by attacking them so horribly, and on an entirely personal level. She’s not being a critic. Instead, she calls them “harpies” and supposes that their dead husbands were on the verge of divorcing them. Is that criticism? Of their political views? I should think not.

    PS. An article is more than the sum of its headlines.

  • Joseph Emmons

    Ann Coulter’s attack on the 9/11 widows just typifies the mindset of the ultra right-wing. Since they have no objective way to counter those they disagree with, they resort to ad hominem attacks. Name-calling, belittlement, and humiliation are the right’s primary strategy in a debate.

  • Pete, I did in fact read the article, which has some good points, but you say again, “What I said is Ann Coulter is victimizing them” That is exactly the thing I’m challenging. I said nothing about your opinion of the widows’ political views.

  • My point is Coulter is not being a critic in this case. Perhaps we just disagree…

  • Arch Conservative

    Name-calling, belittlement, and humiliation are the right’s primary strategy in a debate.

    Gee sounds like what all you lefties on BC are doing to Coulter huh Joseph.

    Has anyone heard that 2 NJ state liberal dem legislators are calling for Coulter’s book to be banned? You guys still wanna tell me how much the laft values free speech. Maybe the next time one of you ultra lefties calls the right facist you ought to take a look in the freakin mirror.

  • Pete, you want her to go away yet you clearly provide a link to purchase Iraqi dinars Ann Coulter’s new book.

  • troll
  • JustOneMan

    Hey Arch.. I live in NJ…the left believes in free speech when you agree with them…if you dont you are a labeled either a racists, antisemite, homophobe, antidentite (doesnt like dentists) and any other name to try and make you shut up!! This is another great example of the lefts bizarre view of the world…big deal if you dont like what she said..dont buy the book!

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Predictably, the cons get their facts wrong, and predictably it’s because they only read the right wing press. The Jersey assembly members did NOT call for a ban on the book, as NewsMax reports. They called for a boycott.


    The scary thing is that the story about the alleged attempt to ban the book, picked up by many conservative outlets, suggests either that right-wingers are lying outright, or that they don’t understand the constitutional difference between a ban and a boycott.

    I suspect it’s a mixture of the two.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Oh… and Just One Man…

    Try standing up for constitutional rights these days without getting labeled “unpatriotic” by conservatives who think think the concept of a civil liberties is a little too quaint for their modern tastes.

    Coulter and the lot are just are simply scared live in a free country.

  • NAC is, of course, correct. The two New Jersey assemblywomen are calling for a boycott, not a book banning or burning or whatever distortion you choose. Kind of like the boycotts your friends called for when the Da Vinci Code came out or when Disneyworld was getting too nice to those goddamned homos, Arch. I’m sure you remember.

    JustOneMan makes an excellent point. If you don’t like it, don’t buy it. Sort of like a boycott. Good suggestion, JoM. I also agree that it’s stupid to call your opponents names just to get them to shut up. Why don’t you pass that nugget of wisdom along to Ann?

  • I keep seeing lefties writing stuff like this, but I’m not buying it: “Try standing up for constitutional rights these days without getting labeled “unpatriotic” by conservatives who think think the concept of a civil liberties is a little too quaint for their modern tastes.”

    Now, there are some now and again that go all rabbit-ass crazy and get called out for foolish, but let’s not be making mountains out of molehills.

    Having your methods and motives questioned is part of the give and take to be expected if your choose to insert yourself into the political arena as the NJ housewives and Cindy Sheehan have.

    On the other hand, Ann didn’t help there with her somewhat exagerated “treason” businesss, granted.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Ummmmm….. Al, if you are concerned about right-wingers who suggest that those who oppose the retraction of civil liberties aren’t helping your cause, then you might want to have a chat with a guy named George W. Bush. He’s in Washington, D.C.

    But then, you might want to “watch what you say.”

    BTW, you might also want to have a chat with a guy on this board who wrote that the Jersey Girls “volunteered to get slapped around like everyone else surely by about the time they climbed in the political ring to work for Kerry.”

    Oh, sorry. That was you! Question: are you just as scared of the Dixie Chicks?

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Our friend Al wrote:

    “Having your methods and motives questioned is part of the give and take to be expected if your choose to insert yourself into the political arena.”

    So, take a shot at this one: how much money did Coulter make off a book that romanticized the witch hunts of the 1950s? Ponder that while you question the motives of someone — hmmm… let’s say Coulter — who thinks the problem with right wing terrorist Timothy McVeigh is that he didn’t go far enough.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    So, Al….

    It seems to me that President Bush probably should not have appointed an attorney general who is “rabbit assed crazy”:

    “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies.” (Attorney General John Ashcroft, 12/6/2001)

    Maybe there was a mistake in the vetting process.

  • Ann Coulter is intentionally hyperbolic and offensive in her partisan “broad”-sides. There is no question about that.

    Yet this entire episode has simply proven her larger point: When a conservative attacks a liberal who has made him/herself into some sort of victim-icon of the left, the MSM attacks that conservative with such vile invective that the only reasonable assumption is that the MSM are attempting to silence the conservative. (And in a pre-blog, pre-talk radio, pre-Fox News era, they likely would have been successful…)

    But the MSM does not do the same for the other side, for two main reasons:

    1 – Because the Right does not generally make pathetic victims their major spokespeople…

    2 – On those rare occasions where the GOP does “use” victimhood to their advantage, the MSM does not attack those who disagree with with the victimhood spokespeople; instead, they are more likely to deride “disgusting” GOP “emotion-based” political tactics…

  • Arch Conservative

    So I guess that’s waht our elected leaders should be doing NOTA……….. calling bookstores to ask them not to sell a book whose politics they disagree with?

    Spin it any friggin way you want but the bottom line is that this is an example of two liberal politicians making an attempt to censor the free speech of someone with whom they disagree.

    I don’t recall a single GOP or conservative congressman ever calling up bookstores to suggest they stop selling books bashing Bush or the gop.

    Justone had it exactly right. Many liberals are only for free speech they disagree with.

  • Arch Conservative

    that should be agree with

  • The article about the boycott linked above says nothing about them “calling bookstores”. It says they’re calling on New Jersians to boycott the book. What’s the big deal? Is a boycott an attempt at censorship? Really?

    RJ, the mainstream media is attacking Coulter for her vile ideas. Fair enough. The “vile invective” is coming from Coulter, though. Please quote me “vile invective” from the MSM that comes even close to Coulter’s. Not some blog, but the honest-to-God MSM.

    BTW, the Republican Party basically invented the whole “victim’s family” approach to criminal justice, so don’t tell us that only the left wing appeals to pathos in political argument. I believe they also invented the “I’m an unimpeachable soldier” argument, too. They just can’t really use it now because the current Republican leadership is full of shirkers.

    No one is attacking Coulter for challenging the ideas of these widows. If she had done that, it would be fine. Unfortunately, she didn’t. She attacked them, full-force, with below-the-belt nonsense. Had she not said they enjoyed their husbands’ deaths or called them harpies, this would not be a story. You know it. I know it. So let’s cut the B.S. The only thing Coulter proved is that she’s nothing but outrage in search of an argument.

  • I love Anne Coulter. She’s a conservative, unyielding, narcissistic twit. One of the reasons why we ‘liberals’ detest her so much is because she does speak with some degree of truth. As cold as she may be, she may have a point. On the other hand a good boning by a liberal dude may cure her of her bitterness.

  • Arch Conservative

    Does that mean if Hillary got a good boning by a conservative dude she’d be striaghtened out too?

    I am not oferring my services (I’d sooner cut it off. I am just curious.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Well, I guess our friend Arch Conservative has officially run out of ideas.

  • Somehow I think when he said “cut it off” he was referring to something other than the discussion 🙂

  • Arch Conservative

    Run out of ideas? Are you freaking shittin me?

    I got ideas coming out of places you don’t even have NOTAcons……

    Pete ..that article may not say it but the legislators did actually call the bookstores. Now you know if a gop state senator was calling theatres to tell them they shouldn’t play a michael moore movie the left would be up in arms calling it censorship.

    Liberal hypocrisy rears it’s ugly head again. Gee that doesn’t happen to often does it now. Probably only happens as often as the average person blinks.

  • You know what I’d like to know? Pete tells Al to read the article…Hey Pete…did you read the book?

    I’d almost bet the answer is no…so now…who really should shut up?

  • Arch, please source your assertion. I’m not going to just take your word for it. Also, you make a straw man agrument about some fictional showdown between GOP senators and a Michael Moore movie, assume you know how people would react, and then extrapolate liberal hypocrisy from a scenario totally invented in your own brain. Sorry, but that doesn’t fly and it’s entirely beside the point. We’re not talking about Michael Moore, we’re talking about Ann Coulter. Why the rush to change the subject?

  • Andy, first of all, it’s extremely impolite to tell people to “shut up.” Abusive language in a debate is the first sign that you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed, as it were.

    No, I have not read Coulter’s book. Nor do I claim to have. Nor do I write about anything other than what Ms. Coulter herself has been talking about in an effort to promote this book. She has, on a number of occasions in interviews, backed up and reiterated what she has written about the widows. Her public owning of the lines everyone is talking about, with no claims of being taken out of context, makes them fair game and I am not required to read her book to comment upon them.

    I find it richly ironic that you would hurl invective at me for challenging Ann Coulter’s ideas. You may be aware that this is exactly the thing she accuses liberals of doing when she dares to challenge the terror wives. The fact that you seem incapable of engaging in actual debate—preferring abusiveness instead—makes me wonder if you and Ann are cut from the same cloth.

  • I never TOLD you to do anything! I made a suggestion…can you read?

  • I watched the interviews…and she told assholes like Lauer the same thing I SUGGESTED you do…read the book instead of taking one or two lines out of context…

    How can you challenge something you haven’t read? You base your opinions of Coulters book on interviews that touch on one or two lines in her book…therefore…you have no basis for your challenge other than other peoples opinions of something they may or may not have read.

  • and now after reading your commetn 31 I’d bet you haven’t even seen the interviews!

  • P.S. a book is more than the sum of some peoples opinions that never read it.

  • IgnatiusReilly

    Actually you stated a question, Andy. Suggestions don’t end with question marks. Can you read English?

  • sr


  • Ok…it was a question! I still never TOLD him to do anything!

  • Look, I haven’t read the book either…but it’s just like people bad mouthing the da Vinci code or something else without reading it or seeing the movie…I never said anything bad about F911 because I never saw it! I read and heard everyone else screaming about it but you just don’t do that! Same thing with brokeback mountain or anything else…you shouldn’t critisize something based on other peoples opinions or little sound bites…it’s wrong…plain and simple!

  • Your question—who really should shut up?—was a rhetorical one. You were telling me to shut up. You must have an extremely low opinion of Blogcritics readers if you think anyone believes you meant otherwise. Stand up to what you said. Don’t be both rude and a coward, too.

    You may notice I didn’t write a book review. I was commenting on Coulter’s public statements. As soon as someone takes the public stage and starts making political arguments—say, to promote a new book—they’re fair game for criticism. Isn’t that exactly the argument Coulter is making about the widows? (That’s a rhetorical question, too. The answer is “yes”.)

    For the record, she did not complain to Lauer that she was being taken out of context. He read lines from her book and she agreed with them and defended what she wrote. And yes, I have seen that interview multiple times. Are you arguing that she did not mean what she wrote about the 9/11 widows (despite the fact that Coulter is on the record multiple times saying she really did mean it—and every word)? If so, then what did she mean? If not, then what possible problem could you have with me or anyone else responding to her on these points?

    Is it just that a debate about actual issues instead of name-calling makes you uncomfortable? That’s a real question.

  • You’re correct that you’re not in a position to criticize the Da Vinci Code if you haven’t read it. I have and it’s terrible. Not for ideological reasons, but for lines like this:

    …the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils.

    A silhouette cannot, by definition, stare, or have red eyes. Jeesh.

    But, had Dan Brown gone on a national book tour and given interviews in which he said Jesus was married and—worse—French, then you’d be perfectly within you right to take issue with those statements, not having read the book.

    You’d also be well within you rights to make fun of the passage I quoted above, not having read the rest of the book. Even if it’s not representative of the book as a whole (it is), it’s still a glaring error worthy of censure in its own right. As are Coulter’s comments about the terror wives.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    I guess the cons in this conversation assume that somehow Coulter’s rants will make sense once you put them in context. So, from now on, I suggest that, at a minimum, when they cite a “fact” like the alleged Jersey censorship, they will take a few seconds to find some source beyond Coulter or Newsmax. I’m sure that guy who sells the Video Professor CDs could them how to operate a new technology we call Google.

  • “BTW, the Republican Party basically invented the whole “victim’s family” approach to criminal justice, so don’t tell us that only the left wing appeals to pathos in political argument.”

    Well, you have a point here.

    Generally, liberals oppose “victim impact statements” during the sentencing phase of trials that have led to the conviction of murderers, child molesters, rapists, and other bad people, while conservatives usually support them. These statements are a relatively recent development that arose out the of “victims’ rights movement” which was/is largely comprised of conservatives.

    But it’s worth pointing out that these are criminal trials in which a person has already been found guilty of a heinous crime. So it’s not purely a political thing; it’s a criminal justice thing.

  • “Abusive language in a debate is the first sign that you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed, as it were.”

    How about clichés? 😉

  • “Her public owning of the lines everyone is talking about, with no claims of being taken out of context”

    Actually, in a recent interview/debate/scream-fest on Hannity and Colmes, she DID state that the left and the media were taking her out of context…

  • juspassinthru

    What Coulter did was blaze a wide trail for others to follow.

    The ‘others’ won’t have to be as ‘enthusiastic’ as Coulter was, but will have plenty room under the bar Coulter has set to make their point.

  • A few words on context: First, she didn’t claim she was being taken out of context on the Today show. What she did was defend everything she had written. If she was being taken out of context in some meaningful way, she would be arguing that the sentences everyone is quoting don’t mean what they appear to mean. She is not arguing that.

    Probably what she means is that people are focusing on the horrible attacks she made and not on her “argument” that widows should not be sacrosanct simply because of their personal loss. As I’m sure you’re aware, my article does address that point, and I agree.

    What I have an issue with is the awful animus of her personal attacks against these women. That’s what the whole blow up is about. The only meaningful context that could change the force of those words is if she was quoting someone else, which she was not, or if she preceded her comments with a “this is just a joke in bad taste” disclaimer, which she did not. Her public, and vehement, avowal of her words in the aftermath proves that she does in fact mean what she says.

    When it comes to the personal attack angle, the “out of context” argument is a canard, pure and simple.

    RJ, that was not a cliché. You’re just jealous 😉

  • Arch Conservative

    Pete I have already condemned the things Coulter has said from where I sit… on the right…….

    my point in talking about the NJ senate and michael more was not to change the subject but to expose the hypocrisy of the left.

    the left will only critisize poeple on the right when they say things which are over the line

    here’s a little test……

    waard churchill, the liberal CU professor called the 911 victims “little eichmans”

    now pete……….. don’t you think that is just as bad as what coulter said if not worse?

  • It’s certainly on the same level. Here’s an article I wrote about the use of Nazi comparisons in politics that mentions Churchill and the awful Ted Rall (who’s a better comparison because of his terrible cartoons about “Terror Wives”).

    I’m not sure what the point of the argument is, though. Showing that the other side is bad doesn’t make your side any better if it’s doing the exact same things. For my part, I don’t really have a side. I dislike all intellectually vacant political hacks. That includes both Coulter and Michael Moore.

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re right two wrongs don’t make a right Pete. It’s just the case that the left is often incapable of critisizing their own when they make inappropriate over the line remarks. That is the point I was trying to make.

    Kudos to you for being condemning Churchill as well as Coulter.

    Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it.

    I mean let’s not split hairs……..neither side is as pure as the driven snow no matter hwat theyd like to tell us. It’s just that left pretends to be holier than thou and ignore any such behavior when it occursther are numerous examples, here are just a few……

    the ward churchill remark

    the cindy sheehan cross at camp casey incident

    so called tolerant “liberal” bloggers referring to leuitenant governor of maryland michael steele as little black sambo and other racils slurs for no other reason than he is a republican

    the same so called “liberal” bloggers calling michelle malkin a “slanty eyed gook” because she’s conservative

    michael moore misrepresenting the sentiments of soldiers he interviewed in his movies and making money off of the iraq war….

    the attempts of democratic senators to smear the character of sam alito, john roberts, and robert bork with baseless accusations intended to paint these men as racist and sexist and keep them off of the supreme court for no other reason than the fact that they don’t hold liberal views

    the general leftist strategy of using certain labels designed to stigmatize to label anyone who doesn’t agree with them (racist, bigot, homophobe etc etc etc)

    yup the right sure is evil and we have ann coulter (who most of us have recently condemned for her remarks) but the left never crosses the line of decency……

  • I think very, very few people would argue that the Left never crosses the line of decency. I’m certainly not one of them.

    As for some of the more troubling remarks you listed (ie. the racist ones), were they said by people as prominent as Coulter? I don’t think they were.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Arch…. Thanks for making our point.

    The “little Eichman’s” line was roundly criticized by thinking people on both sides of the aisle. BUT, Churchill has no following. Coulter, on the other hand, is the darling of many on right and very vew established Republicans care to rebuke her. Why? Likely because GOPers who think like Coulter are an important segment of the party, and because Coulter helps whip up base.

    Churchill has no place in the Democratic game plan; Coulter — who thinks thinks the Bill of Rights goes too far and that Timothy McVeigh did not go far enough — is important to the Republican Party.

    Now THAT is scary!

  • Arch Conservative

    Well what about Robert Byrd…..having a former KKK member as a senator in your party is not scary?

    I have said that coulter was wrong and am not a follower………. i agree with alot of the things she says but sometimes she goes too far and says things that i find over the line like her most recent remarks. How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office? how is she part of the gameplan?

    I think hillary is a far more detestable creature than coulter and she is very much part of the dem gameplan. One can not even count the people that the clintons have stepped on, mistreated, used, had sent to jail for things the clintons did, and even had killed in thier quest for power.

  • fos

    Just received my copy of Decusting Photo Magizine today. If interested check page 36 and 37. Naked pictures of Senator’s nancy pussyiosi and Senator hildabeast. YUM.

  • “Of course both sides use unseemly tactics at times in which personal attacks are often employed. I just think that those on the right admit it more often when we do it.”

    I agree. And leftists are more likely to get a free pass from the media and political elite when they do it.

    Let’s use Ann Coulter and Michael Moore as examples, because both are hard-core partisans who are rich and successful, but utterly despised by their ideological opponents.

    Ann Coulter is a right-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, she has been fired from the conservative National Review, and widely denounced in the media and political circles for being cruel and hateful. The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004.

    Michael Moore is a left-winger who says/writes provocative things. For this, he has won an Oscar and been largely praised in the MSM. The USA Today hired him (and did NOT fire him) to cover the GOP National Convention in 2004, despite the fact that he was a guest of honor at the Democrat National Convention, seated with former Democrat President Jimmy Carter.

    Doesn’t seem that their treatment is all that equal, at least to me…

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Arch…. C’mon…. As you say yourself, Byrd is a FORMER member of the Klan. That’s in his past. I’m still waiting for Coulter’s apology about the McVeigh statement.

    And, yeah, I’m sure the Clintons aren’t too happy that Kenneth Starr was jailing some of their associates.

    Oh, and if Coulter doesn’t fit the game plan, I’m sure we’ll see Frist et al. denouncing her sometime tomorrow afternoon.

    When GOPers drop their anti-American schtick, they will be a little easier to stomach.

  • “How is coulter part of the gop gameplan? you think the gop plans to run her for office?”

    There was talk a few years ago of Coulter running for a Congressional seat in Connecticut…

  • Arch Conservative

    Ok well when Ted Kennedy, liberal superhero, apologizes for drwoning Mary Jo Kapechne maybe Ann Coulter will apologize for what she said.

    Oh and as far as the anti-american schtick… we wouldn’t use it if it weren’t appropriate in some cases such as like cindy sheehan saying america is nothing but an imperialist bully bullying other nations and spreading violence?

    what term would you use to describe that if not antiamerican?

  • Arch, pointing out a “sin” from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn’t a defense, it’s moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against.

  • “relativism”, I mean

  • zingzing

    oh pete, they’re also against hypocrisy, but that also goes out the window as soon as they are the guilty party.

    plus, if bing ever gets through a comment thread without ever mentioning a)t.k., or b)pedophilia, i will kill my girlfriend and rape her little sister. not really. but. you know.

  • RogerMDillon

    “The USA Today hired (and then fired) her to cover the Democrat National Convention in 2004.”

    That’s because the article was poorly written and not on topic. Some places have quality standards. She was replaced by Jonah Goldberg.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    Ummmm…. Arch… I was saying that the right-wing conservatives are anti-American. Not un-American, but outright Anti. They simply don’t like the moderate, tolerant mainstream of American life. That’s why, going back to Nixon, a large segment of the GOP uses the rhetoric of revolution. That’s why Coulter’s rhetoric fits so well with Republican strategy, and that why Republicans don’t denounce her.

    I mean, could you imagine an Eisenhower, Rockefeller, or Ford lobbing the bombs that Coulter, DeLay, Gingrich, Lott, and the rest toss around? Of course, not. They were conservatives. But in recent years the GOP has adopted a range of extreme positions and even tried to impeach a president and (arguably) stealing a couple presidential elections. Simply put, there is little concern about mainstream politics because the objective is quasi-revolutionary change.

    As for me, I like the United States. I’m not ashamed that we grant rights to minorities, that we really don’t care what happens in someone’s bedroom, that we have an open market hemmed in by (on the whole) reasonable rules and regulations. The other side, well…

  • Arch Conservative

    “Arch, pointing out a “sin” from the other side of the aisle as a defense of one from yours isn’t a defense, it’s moral reletavism, which is something I thought conservatives were against.”

    Yes Pete but I condemned Coulter’s sin which was far less a sin by the way… I ddin’t keep electing her to congress for forty years.

  • NotAConservativeThankGod

    So, Arch, you are ready to support those who condone terrorism, so long as other things they say are accurate?