Redstate

This is what drive me crazy about Coulter and many of her fans and admirers.  They don't seem to realize that her inability to approach anything with caution or discretion makes it that much more difficult for other conservatives to draw lines and make legitimate points.  She muddies the waters and poisons the debate.

But she'll get rich doing it.  She's genius in her marketing.  And she's a gift to moderates and liberals everywhere.  By so publicly embracing her hatred, bigotry, and racism in the same breath she uses to praise conservative Republican values, she does the dirty work all by herself.  Little left for us liberals to do, other than point to her literature and try to pass it off as an example of the conservative mindset.  (which yes, I know all to well how logically incorrect using her to paint a broad picture is, just pointing out what will be done.)

it's how she said it. Right?  You disagree with her volume and tone, not her content?  

But I do understand wanting to keep to the high road, and being embarrassed by those who don't. I'm not a big Coulter fan, myself.  She rails when she ought to argue.

There are implicit factual assertions there that are just wrong in every way, starting with the notion that these women have enjoyed losing their husbands.

I personally can't stand Coulter and like nearly everything else she writes, she takes what may be a worthwhile point and then blows it so out of proportion as to destroy her argument, but on her main basic point of this latest tempest, that the 9/11 families have had such an incredibly disproportionate amount of power and influence in our national debate since that horrendous day, I actually agree with her.

I'm a native New Yorker, I lost several friends in the attacks and knew several others that got lucky and survived, but the 9/11 families have been perpetually indignant about their right to see all of their political prioirties enacted, their priorities in the re-development of not just the WTC site but all of lower Manhattan be fully seen through and that somehow because they lost a loved on 9/11 that they suddenly know how to cure all ills in America today.

Frankly, while I surely grieve with them and feel for their sorrow, why should their voice be heard louder than the voices of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, why are the deaths of the 3,000 men and women killed that day so much more important and sad than those lost in the US Cole bombing, or the bombings of the embassies in Africa (or the family of a cop killed in the line of duty).  

I know it may not be a popular position, but I have been offended by the 9/11 families for their sanctimonius sense of entitlement and their view that their losses are on a much higher level than the losses of others who have lost loved ones who have served our country.  That the families have tried to use the overflow of national grief and compassion and turned it into self-serving (no development at all of the WTC site?) and impose their political pursuasions on the public as a whole has been offensive... and on that single point I agree with Ann Coulter.

That certainly doesn't give anyone the right to make false claims about them, though, and unless Coulter can show they didn't care about their husbands she was out of bounds there. Nonetheless, legitimate criticism of them is deserved, and richly so, if it is based on fact. They did outrageous things and at times showed disrespect to the requests of other family members.

I guess I don't see a conflict with reality there.  It's the Cindy Sheehan Syndrome.

The title of her book is Godless.

Heck, I worked in the Trade Center and was just blocks away when the planes hit.  Had things played out differently, I could have died that day.  But the media values these women's opinions and not mine . . . why?

None of that, however, justifies Coulter's intemperate and nasty attacks.

If that is the case, then debate them on the points and on the facts.

What Ann did was make this completely personal and clearly done to get attension and money. Its literary pornography.

But the grain of truth hidden in her hyperbole is spot on.

The left trot these professional victims out when they need someone to make ridiculous points that no one would agree with and hope sympathy gets them heard. And with someone with a modicum of sense disagrees that person is attacked, not for their ideas, but that they would dare speak up against someone who had lost a family member. It's an unacceptable thing to try, just as Ann's rants are. But the MSM will villify Ann but not the insane ideas of the professional victims.

. . . and I wish she could have made that point in her book and interviews.

It's a very valid point that a small group of rabid-BDS 9/11 widows gets all the press, and press for all they can get, holding their "absolute moral authority" out as a sword. (Gawd, I hate that entire concept - someone who has suffered personal loss probably has LESS credibility than someone who can look dispassionately at an issue.)   I feel for them only a sense of sad pity, and I certainly don't make decisions based on the logic they put forth.

But now, Coulter has dispensed unto them even more of this faux authority.  Damn.

Its literary pornography.

Nope.  Pornography is fun.  This was just bad.

But she is so rude it buries her message.

in that category, too.

Given that the Jersey Girls have pretty much spent the sympathy they deserved, I can't muster much outrage over this one. In fact, Ann Coulter may have perversely given those of us who are more, well, measured some room to voice the legitimate criticisms we have wanted to make.

A hypothetical. Suppose, that while visiting me in New York City, my parents are flattened before my eyes by an ill-maintained piece of masonry falling from City Hall. I receive a large settlement and go off to lead a life of indolence in Alaska. If I find that life pleasurable, does that mean I enjoy the death of my parents? The widows, Sheehan, etc. are clearly enjoying certain of the consequences of the death of loved ones, but I don't think that's the same as enjoying the deaths, pe se.

I don't have enough hair left to start splitting it like this.

I include Cindy Sheehan in that category, too.

I can't muster much outrage over this one.

I like her because she does not even think about being PC. Things have gotten so bad that I see value in that alone. She says things no one else (with any audience) will say. You might not agree with the delivery, but a lot of what she says is, when you boil it down, true.

She has beliefs and doesn't compromise them so she can be chummy with leftists.

and Ann C. has only done it a few times.

I have no problem with what she says and how she says it. Oh BTW... Who the HELL are you to tell her what she can say and how she can say it?* I actually prefer her speaking more than her writing. It takes the skill of a swordsman to say the things she does... less so of the written word. Why? You don't get a second chance to edit what you wrote.

Why have a problem with Ann?

She's not running for office.

You won't ever see a political ad "This ad sponsored by Ann Coulter".

There are a hell of a lot more 'Over the Top' people invited to college campi than her.

It's a free country.

You should see her as a freedom fighter for the 1st amendment and against 'hate speech' censorship. I know I'm sick on not being able to say what I want.

She's not potty mouthed.

She's not a hypocrite

*Doesn't apply to everyone posting here.

Ok first of all, lets not all jump on the Ann Coulter's too over the top to convert anyone to conservatism and blah blah blah. Let's be honest-Ann Coulter is not there to draw people to the Right anymore than Michael Moore is there to draw people to the left. Ann Coulter is there to make liberals mad and make conservatives laugh. I think shes funny, a lot of the stuff is tongue in cheek but blown completely out of proportion by the Treason Times and other members of the liberal media. She was on Hannity and Colmes last night and tonight and said that she was talking only about the Jersey Girls and that she does feel sorry for every person who lost someone in 9/11. Her point about the women is that they cut commercials for John Kerry, they criticize Bush, they step into the political arena and then they aren't allowed to be criticized because they're victims of a tragedy. Nobody is allowed to criticize them on politics and their liberal views because they suffered in 9/11? I mean these 4 women have been given a platform to slam Bush, Condi Rice and Rumsfield and no one called them on it until Coulter. It's honestly not fair to slam Ann for having the balls to stand up to liberals-I think on RedState as conservatives we shouldn't be so quick to go with the MSM line on Ann Coulter without a little research on what she said and meant. Full disclosure-I'm a Coulter fan who's had a Coulter quote as my sig since I've been on this site.

I am a native NY'er, grew up in Manhattan, worked downtown, ate my lunch in the WTC atria a hundred times, had dinner at Windows on the World a dozen times, had at least a dozen HS buddies killed in the Towers.  My pain, shock, horror, fear, sorrow, etc only was surpassed by someone who lost a loved one, of which there were THOUSANDS of examples.  So why did the MSM pick those four, shrill harpies?

As anyone who follows it knows, they were everywhere, spouting every lib Dem talking point they could.  Bob Kerrey at one of the 9/11 Commission hearings told them to quiet down.  A slight scratch of the surface showed that at least two of them were employed by Dem organizations and none of them were certainly non-partisan.  Not a one had any background in security, terrorism, engineering or anything else of any value for the subject of 9/11.  

Coulter is right, these "Jersey Girls", like Cindy Sheehan, are despicable.  Carolyn McCarthy, now a Congressman from LI, took her tragedy and made something positive of it (whether u agree with her politics or not).  The "Girls" (the name they gave themselves, btw) are a media creation who have no authority other than a loved one died.  Period.  If they want to get onstage they have to take the rotten tomatoes that come with their bad act.

There simply is no way that anyone could confer legitimacy on the Jersey Girls, and this dialogue needed to be opened. They tapped into the well of public sympathy far too long and did far too many horrible things while they had the cover.

I think that Ann Coulter has allowed people who will be more measured to vent their legitimate outrage at the Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, and to be quite frank the Hollywood ghouls who rolled Christopher Reeves around like a prop. If you regularly watch Chris Matthews' political version of Jerry Springer you know the people I mean. Coulter doesn't have a right to be factually inaccurate but she does have the right to her indignant rhetoric--and these targets richly deserve it.

As a matter of fact, I may buy her book the more I think this one through.

and she's right; the country, or at least the MSM, only values the "victim class."  People have learned to make a very good living and attain celebrity from being "victims."  Where was the fame and fortune for the families of the 3000 Americans who died at Pearl Harbor, or those who died on the Luisitania, or in Charleston in both the WBTS and the Revolution, or Tarleton's victims, or the widows and orphans of the Boston Massacre?

Ok, so she can be a shrew; some of us like that in a woman.

Though her point may be made in uncomfortably pointed terms, she is absolutely correct in her assertions.

The Witches of East Brunswick belong to the same coven as Cindy Sheehan. Their religion is liberalism, and they care more about that then they did their dead husbands.

based on the other comments, maybe she does embody the mindset of more conservatives than I thought.

I assert that your statement, "There are implicit factual assertions there that are just wrong in every way, starting with the notion that these women have enjoyed losing their husbands." is indeed factually wrong.

Ann's statement that these women are "enjoying" their husbands' deaths doesn't mean they are happy their husbands are dead (but, perhaps they are, hence the divorce statement), but that they seem to be enjoying the aftermath of their husband's deaths.  

Regardless, it' not a statement of absolute fact, but Ann's opinion, a conclusion drawn from the actions of these women themselves. I'd say they certainly are passing as useful idiots to the MSM and the Democrat party in an attempt to demonize George Bush and blame him for Islamofascism.

While we're talking about factually inaccurate statements, consider some of the Jersey Girls' utterings:

"President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

Really? What about that wall that was constructed to keep the FBI from being able to share information with intelligence agencies?  

"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."

Well, true, but did W do it?

"On September 11 ... President Bush failed to protect my husband,"

Again, somehow enough true to be a decent sound bite.  But, was Bush really responsible for this, or were Islamofascists?  And, what about that wall?  Doesn't Bill Clinton have some culpability here?

"This administration took their eye off the ball. They let Al Qaeda go. They let Osama bin Laden go."

Wait a minute, wasn't that Bill Clinton that turned the government of Sudan down when they offered Osama to us?  I believe this is a reference to the Tora Tora thing, but it wasn't George Bush that let him go (if he was even there),it was exigencies on the ground.

So, bottom line, these women spout liberal propaganda, and Ann's point is they think they should be insulated from criticism because they are victims of a horrible tragedy.  Guess what Jersey Girls, you decided to step into the public arena, and while I empathize with your losses, if you're going to be wrong, wrong, wrong, someone ought to call you on being wrong, then shame you for wrapping yourselves in your husband's death.

Thank you, Ann Coulter for doing it.

oops!

that it's possible to make the point that Coulter was presumably attempting to make -- id est, that certain of the 9/11 widows have a disproportionate influence on the national debate while relying on their status as victims to poison the well of discourse and insulate themselves, and their policy prescriptions, from criticm -- without stooping to calling them "broads" and claiming that they're enjoying their husbands' deaths.

Also, I don't think Coulter has much license to be characterizing other women as self-absorbed, limelight-seeking harpies. Unclean hands, and all that.

Are you suggesting that because it's a free country, nobody should ever criticize anything that anyone else says?

She might have potential for brilliance, but I haven't seen it, so I have to conclude she's just our Markos Moulitsas until proven otherwise.

This is apparently her "Screw 'em" moment.  So I think decent people should never let her say one word without having her be reminded of this, until she retracts and apologizes.

Yeah, and even your sig captures the adolescent tone that is so typical of the woman.

the widows; just that you have the basic decency not to suggest that they enjoyed the deaths of their husbands.

Honestly, that's not exactly controversial, is it?

I would take offense at Ann Coulter's distasteful remarks about those women who do in fact shamelessly exploit their status, if Coulter was a politician or otherwise regarded as a serious political comentator. But she is not, and some people here are taking her way too seriously. I enjoy her when she's funny (which is very often), and don't worry about it when she says something obnoxious (which is less often, but guaranteed to happen again).

How worked up do you get when you hear (or hear about) something in similar bad taste from Howard Stern or South Park? If their kind of humor isn't your cup of tea, maybe you feel vindicated in your disapproval, but you don't take it seriously enough to call on people to denounce their remarks. And if you do like "edgy" humor with a political or social barb, then when it occasionally strays past the edge to over the top, you wince and shrug it off, trusting a really funny joke will come soon after.

The only people who need to denounce Ann Coulter are those who have lent her credibility as a serious commentator - e.g. if they host a Coulter column in a place otherwise occupied by serious political columnists. National Review recognized that and terminated their relationship with Coulter because of her joking advocacy of forcibly converting Moslems to Christianity. I agreed with National Review's decision (too serious a forum for that kind of comment, or for Coulter generally), and also had a good laugh when I read the Coulter article with the forcible conversion joke.

I agree Coulter went to far with "enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" so it wasn't funny, but I will still occasionaly check out Ann Coulter's humourous rants*, and most of the time thoroughly enjoy it.

* I usually verify links I put in a post, but can't reach the Coulter page - maybe because the controversy is generating a lot of traffic for her site ("Say anything you want about me as long as you spell my name right"), or maybe some whackos are waging a denial of service attack.

in her tact, which everyone should know by now.

The widows in question haven't exactly been helpful overall, whatever they believe their intentions to be. Blaming the president first and suggesting the Bush administration actually caused the attacks is McKinney territory at best. These women's moral authority is no more absolute than that of suicide bombers' families.

This doesn't match the "raghead" quote, anyway.

Vicious lies in the name of humor are still vicious lies.

Actually "wrong in every way" exaggerates the error in this diary. It's more accurate for me to say that that this diary and the author's comment exaggerate Ann Coulter's error with the claim:

There are implicit factual assertions there that are just wrong in every way, starting with the notion that these women have enjoyed losing their husbands.

Relying on you for the juicy quotes from the Coulter book I haven't read, I don't see any factual assertions that are outright wrong. As I said in another comment, I think Coulter's statements were in bad taste, but her bad taste does not constitute evidence of being factually "wrong in every way".

The remark you cited is the closest example for your claim, but at worst it is an exaggeration of a valid point when Coulter says:

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much"

A more accurate wording would be:

"I've never seen people enjoying their status as survivors of their husbands' deaths so much"

I think only the looniest extremists would see anything inaccurate about the slightly modified version above, where the only difference is the underlined words I inserted. Of course my longer qualified version lacks the punch that a polemical humorist wants, and Coulter glady traded precision for punch.  It lacks credibility to claim that the exaggeration from omitting those underlined words changes the accurate statement to "wrong in every way".

but did this really deserve a diary?  A front page one, no less?

Two points: 1) Do you have any proof that she's wrong in her assertions?  2) She's no worse than "pundits" like Michael Moore or Kos.  Tell you what, when the left denounces those guys, maybe I'll do the same to Coulter.

I'm a big fan of Ann's, and not afraid to admit it.  I'm definitely going to pick up her book today.

is that the MSM also wasn't exactly subtle about acting like these four were speaking for all the families of all the victims. If these four were offset with others who gave other viewpoints, I don't see Ann Coulter making a big deal about it.

I checked your "Vicious Lies" link, with the cartoon falsely implying that American soldiers committed the murders in the incident portrayed. However I'm not aware of any way that Ann Coulter supported that innuendo associating American soldiers with the murders.

Go ahead and argue your objections to Ann Coulter citing her own words that you object to. But trying to associate her with that loathsome cartoon, by some clown she has nothing to do with, is more vicious and dishonest than any exaggerations in the Coulter comments I saw cited here.

She's just like those lefty cartoonists.  She and they both routinely lie about people in order to be 'funny' to some of her political allies.

They make racist portrayals of Condi Rice, she calls her enemies 'ragheads' who need to be killed or 'converted to Christianity.'

They lie about what our soldiers did, she lies about the victims of terrorism and their families.

They call Bush an idiot, she calls them all idiots.

Ann Coulter is simply not worthy of anything but derision in serious political circles, and on Red State in particular.

on their husbands deaths, plain and simple. So some may enjoy reveling in their moderation but the real vulgarity, the ugliness and cynicism are with these shills for the Democrats and the Democrats themselves.

       Coulter's point is larger then four women from New Jersey, it includes Cindy Sheehan{ poor woman, she lost her son you know}, Joe Wilson ( they exposed Secret Agent Plame in revenge} Max Cleland, etc .

    The Dems hide behind tragedy and demand exemption from any criticism based on the status of victimhood or death.

    I don't buy it.  As Coulter rightly, very rightly, points out, you jump into the political arena & you take your lumps, no exemptions.  Said point having been learned a long time ago by Bob Dole, rarely if ever described as a war hero.

      If these women can hold George Bush responsible for the deaths of their husbands, not the muslim murderers, if they parrot the left line pinning blame more on the American President then the terrorists, then they come to the table with exceedingly dirty hands.  

   A reminder, thosands lost husbands or wives on 9/11.  Not too many put their show on the road. They had no show, just grief.

...but in the opinion of both the author (who has the authority to make that call) and at least four other editors (including me), yes, it did deserve a front page entry.

Ann Coulter likes to step over lines, and we here at RS like to point out when people step over lines.  This is what it is.

I see your point, but don't think you can lump Ann with the Kos Left.

The statement she has made is true.  The Jersey Girls ARE enjoying their husbands' deaths (not the death its self, but the results).  They are getting rich off of sympathy, and use their fame and money to support terrorism propaganda by inflaming anti-Bush and pro-appeasment politics with the most hateful of language.  Their conspiracy theories are bs too.

Ann is saying what most Americans are afraid to say, to wit; Being related to a victim of 9/11 doesn't give you an excuse to join the enemy.  If you do, the sympathy goes out of the window.  If you think Sheehan isn't aware of how distant her values are from her son and her now estranged family, you give her too much credit too.  She knows exactly what she is doing.

These women lost their sympathy chips a long time ago in the eyes of many Americans.  I'm sypathetic to the victim families that don't get any time on the leftist msm, and grieve without turning their backs on their country.

the national stage, actively participate in a campaign, and at best just spoke one side of the truth while attacking George Bush.  Those that facilitated these actions knew that they would be shielded from any response or criticism because they had the shield of "moral authority".

I am glad that Coulter has the chutzpah to return fire at a group that entered a political firefight with guns ablazing assuming a diplomatic immunity would shield them from retaliation.  

I know Hillary and the Left are screaming foul, but have the 9/11 wives themselves responded?

I hope, if anything, this causes many people to look again at the reprehensible sideshow these women conducted as a precursor to Cindy Sheehan. Who knows, people might start to ask some very legitimate questions about how much money went to whom and from where in the wake of the attacks. The NYC media can't or won't ask some difficult questions here, and instead focuses on Ann Coulter's excessive rhetoric rather than the very legitimate points she has raised about grief exploitation and the industry it has spawned.

In a measured way, the exception was the Wall Street Journal, which already has taken apart the Jersey Girls. Yet the WSJ, because it is a serious media outlet, couldn't "ring the bell" and point out how this group represented a horrible trend among leftists and their MSM allies. Coulter did. While we need to point out her factual inaccuracies and excesses, we also need to be thankful she has raised an issue that needed to be raised--badly.

As I have weighed this one, Coulter was much, much, much more right than she was wrong. Given how much the outcry died down in NYC as people considered the story, that may not be a rare opinion at all. Abu-Zarqauwi has been blown apart in Iraq, and it it likely that if the Jersey Girls still had their 15 minutes they would tell the world how much it doesn't matter to them that this major terrorist is dead.

I can't believe I've read so many comments defending Coulter here. This is the party carrying the banner of christian values? Unreal.

Like Cindy Sheehan? I think so, which leaves this pot unable to call the kettle black.

If Erick had said that Cindy enjoyed that Casey died, that'd be the correct comparison.

yesterday at Book Revue in Huntington, LI.  Sean hannity hosted and had the good sense to let Ann do the talking.  The usual collection of left wing scum were present bellowing their animal sounds from the depths, a few had the opportunity to make fools of themselves at the microphone and availed themselves with a distinction peculiar to their genitcally misbegotten breed.

      It should go without saying that these lost souls were eviscerated by Coulter and upon reflection I realize that I wasn't tempted by even a momentary pity.  

      Noteworthy is the fact that when Ann enters the arena of debate certain phenomena are apparent.  She asks no quarter, she evidences no whining, she doesn't back down, there is no stumbling, she takes it and dishes out more.  She usually makes fools out of whoever she's debating.  I say usually because the only defense against her is constant interruption.  To borrow from anatomy, she has more b--ls than a lot of men, conservative men at that.  She goes to the very heart, the pit, of what contemporary liberalism is.

     Noteworthy, because she is purportedly a clown, moreover a clown who says things that are indefensible.  Yet paradoxically she manages to defend them.  Is there a contradiction there?  And if so who's contradiction is it?

... when there are threads like this?

I think she is fairly funny too.

...Which, again, I agree with.  There were many comments here--including mine--which registered strong disgust and disapproval of photos which showed the party atmosphere at Camp Crawford, noting that the grief and anger over her son's death had given way to opportunism, socializing and politics.  Perhaps Ann should have been more precise and said, "using their husbands' deaths" instead.  Either way, we all know what she meant.  It's just that the joyless left hates to be accused of enjoying anything, and I cannot feign outrage while jumping on their bandwagon.

she ain't talking about you.

But I wouldn't want to be like him.

Watching her verbally castrate wimpy Matt on the Today Show was priceless. If you're going to live by the sword, make sure it is sharp and swing it hard. Thank God we have some people on the Right who mince the liberal scum and not their words. I usually agree with Crank. This diary provides the usually.

Lets see you have the Clinton News Network, the Treason Times, not to mention countless other members of the liberal media trashing the war effort and trashing America, and conservatives can't celebrate a woman who calls them traitors. At the core of Ann Coulter's rhetoric is a cold truth about liberals disdain for their country and that they want us to lose the War on Terror to prove their trademark point of BushLied. Yes you are seeing a lot of people on this board agree and defend Ann Coulter because she has the cajones to say what a lot of conservatives are afraid to see but secretly believe in the anme of appealing to bipartisanship and unity. Did I miss something or did we not win the last election on social conservatism through Christ(which liberals hate because it gets in the way of their worship of abortion) and national security (which liberals despise because it gets in the way of BushLied, people died!) Fine call my sig adolescent, which is cute, but Ann Coulter speaks the truth. And her point about these 4 9/11 widows which she said on FoxNews that she was specifically referring to these 4 women (perhaps doing research outside the liberal media would help)who have cut commercials for Kerry and been given a platform to bash America and the presidency. If you going to bascially campaign, you can't cry about being a victim when people start to tell you that you're wrong. 9/11 is not a blank check to bash the presidency. Sorry.

He ain't talking about you either.

What's your point, for those of us in the same state as Rio Linda?

Of ascribing every slipup and misdeed in the Bush White House to the omniscient Karl Rove.  Coulter is not stupid, but not everything she has ever done or said represents a flash of brilliance.  She is alienating a whole host of readers who would ordinarily grimace through her more distasteful lines on the way the to her best stuff.  It used to be a badge of honor to pick up her book and endure the glares.  But after this, I'm not going to make the effort and I know a number of other people who feel the same way.  She trades in shock value, but in the days of blogs and instant outrage she has felt compelled to push the envelope that much further to remain cutting edge.  In this case she took a flying leap over the boundary of decorum that she has long toed.  

That speculating their husbands might have been about to leave them anyway is legitimite political discourse?

That suggesting they should line up their playboy spreads is legitimite political discourse?

That saying the enjoyed the loss of their husbands and the fathers of their children is legitimite political discourse?

Tell me, do conservatives still believe, secretly or otherwise, in the notion of common decency?

articulated what most of us feel but not in a way that most of us would have. I see what she is pointing at and though she used to much of a literary flair to get her point accross, we must not fail to see the message.

for being called an idiot. Most other endure it for free.

she has the right to say what she said and you will always have the right to agree  or disagree and to criticize.

You think they should be able to lie with impunity? I get that vibe.

Legitimate political discourse especially when the Left accuses the Bush administtration of being responsible for 9/11,

The Left accuses conservatives of being right wing Christian racists (you know, as an African American I always find it funny that I belong to a white Christian party with a Klansman Robert Byrd on the other side of the aisle)

The Left accuses conservatives of BushLied, Kids Died and No War for Big Oil (liberals can always conveniently forget 9/11 when they can't use it to bash Bush)

To be quite honest, I don't think conservatives are the ones to be questioning about common decency. I can only assume your from the Left and get your news from the MSM, Coulter was talking about these 4 women-4 not all women who have used their husbands death as a political platform. Why don't you ask the MSM for common decency in not potraying our brave soldiers as rabid killers slaying civilians in Haditha, and tortures in Abu Ghraib. Then you can come to our side of the aisle and talk about common decency.

...of anybody writing that last sentence in response to a post that's criticizing Ann Coulter, I'm afraid that funtime's over.  You've gotten your digs in; now, behave.

Thanks in advance.

Moe

that we should be the only ones subject to a notion of decency, especially since we are unlikely to agree with the Left on a common definition.

It has been clear since the '60s that the Left can say and do any vile thing and wrap itself in "freedom of speech."  OTOH, whenever anyone on the Right dares to challenge the Left's position, we suddenly become subject to the Left's standard of "common decency," which I take to mean that ours must be speech of which the Left approves.

Coulter never reaches the mark that the Left has set for insult or combatativeness, but just the fact that she dares confront the Left's smug nastiness in something like their own terms brings the cry for "common decency."

I'm on the Coulter "in your face" side of this, personally prefering to confront them face to face and in terms that they're ashamed to admit were used towards them.  It gets results and keeps down the newspaper coverage.

I got those quotes from the diary at the top of the page. It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine which branch of the media that counts as.

I'm Right on some things, Left on others, and a strong supporter of basic politeness and decency in all things.

To: BlackRepub and Achance and others who agree.

Why is she (Ann Coulter) so successful? How or why does she sell so many of her books? Why is she on TV programs, talk shows? Is it because of her good looks? While she is attractive I have seen better looking women on Fox News. So what is the attraction to her? It quite simple, she speaks her mind without "couching" her words in "acceptable" and flowery words as to please the "educated" and in the name of civil debate. Many here on this blog take this civil debate with civilized language approach.

Ann Coulter speaks to the common folk with language they understand and in the tone they want to here.

I find it ironic that the left can have "bomb throwers" and the MSM and others find excuses and phrase for them, but let one Right wing "bomb thrower" appear on the scene and they are cruel, bigots. I find Ann Coulter refreshing, but I'm sure that should she come on this blog and write what she has to say, she would be warned by Mr. Crank to not advocate bigotry or cruelness or she would be band from the site.

... but if you are going to challenge someone's facts, I think you should challenge the facts. Not suggest the person's husband might have been planning to leave anyway before his death.

that we should be the only ones subject to a notion of decency, especially since we are unlikely to agree with the Left on a common definition.

Have we really reached the point in political discussion in this country where the two sides can't  agree that Coulter's comments fail the test of common decency?

That's a sad, sad comment on the state of the country if it's true.

That's fine, you can revel in the bomb throwers, but others of us don't like what any of them do to our political culture.

If Markos Moulitsas and Ann Coulter played bridge instead of talking politics, the world would be a better place.

Did we get to decide who gets a say in politics and who has to play bridge and shut up? What makes Ann Coulter less qualified to give her opinion on politics. Last time I checked, we were the party of regualr folks-why can't the regualr folks that our party is composed of give their take on politics. Sorry if "bomb throwers are offensive"-I happen to like bomb throwers; besides didn't a couple of bombs just give us a cause for celebration? ;)

I didn't tell them to do that.  I just expressed a wish that they would, heh.

and things not factual (as far as we know). Nonetheless, Coulter's central point was correct: the Left uses the dead and infirm to do outrageous things and say the indefensible. In that sense, the Jersey Girls are much more degenerate and despicable than Ann Coulter is or ever could be. If anyone should be on their knees and begging for forgiveness, it is those four ghouls.

... we'll just have to agree to disagree here as I find this idea totally incomprehensible.

"... writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks."

That's not even remotely true. If you're going to start quoting liberal bull and propaganda as if it is accurate truth-telling, why not go all the way? Start saying things like Chimpy McBushitler and just get it over with already.

I only have one question. Have you actually read the pertinent section of Ann's new book?

If not, then what are we doing here?

If you can track down something the Jersey Four said that was as uncivil, mean-spirited and generally cruel as what Coulter says about them I will cheerfully join you in being outraged at them. ;)

That is really the point, isn't it? You can't do that.

Who remembers when Bill O'Reilly was on Letterman? He has legitimate gripes with the insanity that daily spews from the mouth of mother Sheehan. He legitimately attacks her absurd, treasonous behavior. And what, I ask, is Letterman's argument?

"I just don't see how you can feel anything but sympathy for that poor woman"

That's his position on the matter. And don't you know the audience applauds, no doubt with glimmering little tears in the corner of their soft little eyes.

Give me a break. That's exactly what the lefties are going for, and it's exactly what they get. It's time to take off the gloves and expose the obsessed, maniacal left-wing nutbag scum for what they are. Sheehan and those lunatics with losses lefties shove in our faces don't deserve the kid glove treatment.

Having lost someone doesn't make you immune to being a dirtball. Just ask Ted Kennedy.

All it takes is observation to prove that the Left can say and do anything and as long as what they do comports with the Left's dogma of the day, the speaker or actor will be applauded and if it is vile enough somebody will remark positively on the creativity exhibited.  Since in the Left's post-modernist worldview, there is no right or wrong as most conservatives understand those notions, anything they do that is "creative" as Nietzsche might use the term is good, no matter how reprehensible others might find it.

If you are anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-business, anti-military and pro-abortion and pro-environment(as they see that word), you are a good person no matter what you do or say and because you are a good person, nothing you do can be a bad thing.

As to my personal standard of decency, I would not have said some of the things she said, at least not publicly, out of a general standard of courtesy.  But, that said, I will not be held to the Left's standard of "common decency" because they don't believe in it and calling for it is cynical and hypocritical.

How much you pack into such a small statement is wondrous.

That Republicans who aren't Christian are hypocrites. That Christians who get angry are hypocrites. That Redstaters that don't think she's over the line are hypocrites. That insulting someone who had a loved one die is unredeemingly evil. That no one who has had someone die can be insulted without said insult controverting christian values. That Republicans don't deserve to carry the banner of Christian values in the first place.

Moonbattery. Plain and simple.

"Well Tommy did it, so why can't I?" /whine

Just because the left chooses to not police their extremists does not mean we can not, or should not, police our own.

While the substance of what she says may have some truth to it, she certainly could have made the point more forcefully if should would have put it into words that didn't make you cringe when you read them.

why does it make you cringe?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/

I especially like, among the more recent entries, "Flush Bush, not the Koran" and the claim that Mayor Rudolf Guiliana should not have been allowed to give a victim impact statement at a terrorist's trial as he didn't have all that much at stake on Septemeber 11th.

As I read through that vile thread, it made me realize one thing and one thing in particular: I have been much too kind to the Jersey Girls. They deserved everything Coulter did and does in the future. Knock yourself out, too, Ann.

... but didn't see anything that rose to the level of Coulter's comments. What did I miss?

I don't see a remaining question anywhere in the post, it looks to me like you just created one out of thin air.  However, I'd be happy to hear about how you can read that and not cringe.

And justify your self-worth at the same time when you feel no guilt whatsoever being associated with someone who can make a statement like that.

The point was about those women's character.  The way they have used the deaths of their husbands to grab the limelight and push a political agenda is what led Coulter to make those incredibly disparaging remarks.  Were they purely interested in securing the country, and killing the people responsible for 9/11 there would be no controversy.  The fact that that is only their cover story, and only obliquely what they are interested in, is what is important.  It is nothing more than an excuse for their partisan political attacks, and that was Coulter's point.  They believe, and the far left believes, that they are unassailable because of who they are, not because of their insight, expertise, or the sum of what they say and do.  They are reflections of Cindy Sheehan who they feel can't be legitimately rebutted because she lost her estranged son.  They are using their personal tragedies for purposes that are not consistent with what they claim to be doing it for, and saying they all of them are charlatans in not too strong.  

Coulter attacks them in this direct and untactful way not to hurt their feelings or cause them mental anguish, which this most certainly has not caused (they said it's not even worth responding to her), but rather to demonstrate what happens should one attach one of these protected leftists who cannot be questioned or argued with.  The way she did it was extreme to prove her point, but I don't see how you could prove it any other way.  Tepid attacks are met with just as much scorn for disagreeing with a genuine 9/11 widow who is only doing something good and right.  The fact is that what they do has very little to do with defense and security and fighting terrorism, and everything to do with campaigning for leftist candidates.    

Obviously it is in poor taste and unfair to go after their very feelings, and speculate about what led them to take the actions that they did, but to say that they have used their husband's deaths to further their political beliefs is entirely accurate.

Were their husbands killed by cancer, and it caused them to create a campaign aimed at forcing mothers to abort their babies so that the fetuses could be harvested for stem cells to fight the disease, it would be a similar situation.  Instead of being real advocates for the things they claim to stand for they have set themselves up as unassailable instruments of the Democrats and political left, and that obviously upsets Ms. Coulter.    

Tragedy and strife often prompts people to take political action.  Witness John Walsh and America's Most Wanted; he translated personal tragedy into political action and more.  The difference is that he kept his focus, and that is the proof positive of how much he wants to catch dangerous criminals and prevent what happened to him from happening to anyone else.  Capturing America's most wanted is not controversial.  That Democrats have a plan, or even care about going after our enemies is.  Walsh is the genuine article.  These women are not, and that is at least the logical root Coulter takes to attack them personally.  

They and their handlers use their own tragedy to deflect criticism from the moonbat things they say, and partisan political campaigning that they do.  They are so valuable to the left, because the left is so weak on fighting our enemies and taking action beyond offering more money to first responders.  These women give lambs the credibility to pretend to roar like lions, because they have these perfect victims advocating for them.  To Coulter their roars still sound like Baaahhhhh.  

The way she made her point was distasteful, but the truth of it remains.  

I've already addressed it numerous times in this wandering thread. The question remains as it is implicit in the entire debate. The thin air thing was a cute attempt at a gotcha though.

I'm thrilled to death to know what would make you happy, but I note you didn't answer the question. So I guess we're playing that game then.

You're treading a thin line with your comment about self-worth. I'd dare you to go further, but I don't want to goad anyone into being banned for their behavior.

...than how we feel and what we say about Cindy Sheehan?  Her son died and we dis her all the time...deservedly.  Those women keep putting themselves in front of the cameras and they get what they get.

   I agree that THESE 9/11 widows received an enormous amount of media attention. And I'm sure they've monatarily profitted from this, as did most of the families of the victims, whether right or wrong.

    Let's not forget, the intention (and you may consider it political) ORIGINALLY was to force the government to form the 9/11 commission, whcih only happened after shaming our entire government into looking at failing of both Clinton/Bush administrations.

 I also find it more than slightly intellectually dishonest to claim that the left is the only side that cashes in on grieving widows/children/husbands/soldiers. Seriously, can anyone here HONESTLY say that MANY politicians of all stripes haven't used the horrible images and memories of 9/11 for various political ends?

I assume you have no problem with calling these four professional banshees onto the carpet about their grotesque excesses? I actually have done a 180 on this one and now think Ann Coulter did us a favor by bringing up the great unspoken nastiness of the Jersey Girls. Yes, their initial cause was arguably a good one but they morphed into slime by the time it ended.

There will be no quarter any longer for the Cindy Sheehans, Jersey Girls, and other faux griefmongers. Michael Berg may have settled that argument today.

but my point is made.  That comment was made using the Coulter method, but you seem to have issue with it?

I find it funny that when I state my opinion-as-fact on your self-worth you lambast me, but you defend Ann Coulter for doing the same thing to others.

To answer your implicit question, I cringed when I read it because it was a statement of opinion as fact from someone who is closely identified with the conservative train of thought and Republicans in general.  I'd prefer our theorists to not lower their standards to rhetoric that belongs on a thread in DailyKos.  Crank's original post said it best.  There are certainly things we can call these women out on, but opinion-as-fact based attacks such as this one take away the focus on arguments that actually make headway.  

There is no difference between what those woman do and what Coulter did in her book.  They use their status as victims to try and make a politcal point.  Coulter uses their actions to make a political point.  Why is the former any worse than the latter?

Rewording what she says is the whole kerfuffle (one of my favorite new words, thxRedState).

Is her point, stripped of rhetoric, valid? Surely.  Are the words she chose to use ugly? Again, surely.

That one's mouth is often fully engaged before her brain... she tends to coast the car into odd places that make people say, "Why would she say that?"  Again, how she said it is the only issue here, to my mind.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much" is what she said.  Rewording it to make the idea palatable is what she could have done, but then she would probably sell fewer books . . . this week.  Hopefully, those sales figures will drop off...

.. we are addressing comedy, how about the use of "lambasting" with regard to my rather tame warning?

Nevertheless, your mistake is equating your questioning my worthiness to live with Ann's blistering of the 9-11 bridezillas.

Ann isn't attacking them for being widows, nor is she going around finding widows to attack. No, like Berg's father, like Mother Sheehan, these women have invited their scorn. Whats more, they welcome it.

You all make the assumption that Ann has done something bad because she said something mean about someone who's husband is dead. Frankly I find the position extremely reactionary and absurd. Saddam lost his sons, should we spare his feelings too?

There is an enormous difference between the filth those women deal in and the reality dealty by Coulter. I don't buy into your new age relativism. While they indulge in lies and conspiracy theories, while they blame America for the crimes of the terrorists, Ann is fighting for what shreds of conservativism still remain in this country.

And for her efforts, she has so-called fellow conservatives leaving her exposed on the mountainside with a good riddance.

Two people both using insulting speech are not automatically equal. If you are cursing God, and I am cursing Satan, then you are wrong and I am correct.

Offended by her insulting tone, you find it perfectly acceptable to use the same tone about her.

The only conclusion is that you buy the infallibility of the widows but have no use for coulter.

So Ann can't call them harpies, but you can call Ann a harpy? Goose? Gander?

Once again, it just goes to show that you have wholly bought the lie that they are immune but Ann is not.

They said something along the lines of "No, we actually didn't enjoy our husbands burning alive."

Somebody dig up a link for the lady.

Since those women are questioning something you believe in, it's bad.  But since Coulter is on our side, it's ok to do the same thing.

First grade logic, but I guess I can see it.

And it's important to point out that if I was cursing God and you were cursing Satan, you would only be right if we subscribed to the same belief system.  These women aren't conservatives, they don't believe in the same things we do. Why you attempt to hold them to the same conduct we expect from ourselves is ludicrous.  And why you celebrate someone who makes a vicious personal attack on an issue that can be better addressed by not lowering our standards to the rhetoric style of the Left is baffling.

Your parody of my comments fails to address my point. A valid point, I may humbly add. You seem to revel in your moral relativism, not a good sign for a conservative.

I did not say people "questioning" what I believe in, Comrade Hawk. I said those dealing in lies and conspiracy theories etc etc. Would you have us believe there is essentially no moral difference between Zarqawi and Martin Luther King Jr.? Both merely questioners I take it?

I think it's time to drop the "our" from your commentary. I'm not sure who you mean by your inclusive pronouns, but I happily exclude myself. I don't think Tony Snow and Joseph Goebbels are equivalent.

But please, go ahead and consider the fact that I don't swallow your liberal underpinnings as first grade logic. I'm sure you'll find it comforting in the long nights when you ponder how anything can have meaning if nothing does.

  whose face has been mistaken for a roadmap of Chicago and whose brain is being drilled at this moment for natural gas, I heard of late that she gave her son up years ago when still a child.  Casey that is , not Cindy, who was born middle aged, dumb, and in search of a girdle that would fit.

     I would hate to disparage the woman,[ she lost her son in the war you know], but I wonder about a second source or confirmation.