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.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - 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.
2 - blogenfreude
"...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.
3 - 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.
4 - Al Barger
"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.
5 - Pete Blackwell
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.
6 - 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.
7 - Al Barger
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.
8 - Pete Blackwell
My point is Coulter is not being a critic in this case. Perhaps we just disagree...
9 - 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.
10 - Matthew T. Sussman
Pete, you want her to go away yet you clearly provide a link to purchase
Iraqi dinarsAnn Coulter's new book.11 - troll
here's the story
troll
12 - 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!
13 - 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.
nbc10.com
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.
14 - 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.
15 - Pete Blackwell
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?
16 - Al Barger
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.
17 - 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?
18 - 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.
19 - 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.
20 - RJ Elliott
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...
21 - 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.
22 - Arch Conservative
that should be agree with
23 - Pete Blackwell
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.
24 - Silas Kain
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.
25 - 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.