Patterico’s Pontifications » Why I Don’t Like Ann Coulter, Volume 14

6/7/2006

Why I Don’t Like Ann Coulter, Volume 14

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 10:47 pm

She is the Ted Rall of the right.

That’s not a good thing to be.

70 Comments

Ann Coulter’s the closest the right comes to Ted Rall, yet even she’s a piker when stacked up against him.

Comment by clark smith — 6/8/2006 @ 12:05 am
“it is impossible to argue that the 9/11 widows (and widowers, and children, and parents) have less standing to opine on foreign policy than Ann Coulter or Ted Rall.”

Ann Coulter wasn’t arguing that they have LESS standing to “opine on foreign policy.” The point was that they wrap themselves in the mantle of mourning and deny anyone the right to disagree with THEIR take on 9/11. Anytime someone disagrees with them about how to deal with terrorists, what is the first thing these widows bring up? That they lost loved ones on 9/11, suggesting that if one didn’t lose a husband, etc., then that person is less fit to discuss the subject. Frankly, Ann was right on target.

[That they have been *enjoying* their husbands' deaths? -- P]

Comment by sharon — 6/8/2006 @ 4:31 am
Sharon to say that they are “enjoying their husbands deaths ” is disgusting. You call that “right on target!!!!!”

Who the hell ever said these widows are denying others the right to disagree????? Nice strawman!!

This is the same woman who lied about Max Cleland saying he was drinking when he lost both limbs and one arm and not engaged in battle as the MILITARY said..and the he was “lucky” to have received these injuries so he could better criticize Bush..

Frankly the fact that you agree with this hateful speech, which should outrage any decent person, is disgusing to me!

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 5:16 am
one final word..as a Vet myself.. I am deeply upset at Coulter and those who support this hateful lying woman. She is beyond disgust as are those that agree with her.. tell me any decent person could agree with this..

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/06.html#a8602

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 5:23 am
Sharon, the mistake Coulter made is to accuse these widows of enjoying their husband’s deaths. That vile, heartless accusation was way over the line.

I wonder if Michelle Malkin regrets not thinking of this tactic first. I wouldn’t be surprised. I read her post about it just now. So far, she doesn’t seem to think there was anything wrong with Coulter’s despicable scheme. To me, Malkin deserves the same discredit then.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/8/2006 @ 5:33 am
I have figured out the reason for her chronically malnourished looks. She makes herself throw up with the disgusting things she says.

Comment by nk — 6/8/2006 @ 6:13 am
This is the same woman who lied about Max Cleland saying he was drinking when he lost both limbs and one arm and not engaged in battle as the MILITARY said..and the he was “lucky” to have received these injuries so he could better criticize Bush..

Charlie, as usual you’re full of crap, at least about Max Cleland. The fact that Cleland negligently blew himself up during a routine training exercise, and not in combat, is a fact that is not in dispute. There’s a reason why Cleland never got a Purple Heart; that’s it. The military has never claimed otherwise, nor has Cleland himself - though he hasn’t exactly gone out of his way to correct the popular perception that that he “bled for his country” rather than for his own carelessness.

As to the current brouhaha, it’s unfortunate that Coulter made the sick, unsupportable allegation that these shrews enjoyed their husband’s deaths, rather than making the much more supportable allegation that they’ve demonstrated an unseemly habit of basking in their victimhood since.

Comment by Xrlq — 6/8/2006 @ 6:21 am
This is the same woman who lied about Max Cleland saying he was drinking when he lost both limbs and one arm and not engaged in battle as the MILITARY said

The military did not say he was engaged in battle. He did not receive a purple heart. So the military says he was NOT engaged in battle. He himself said in an interview he was having a beer at the base and picked up a live grenade.

Comment by Gerald A — 6/8/2006 @ 6:33 am
XRLQ Gerald A
Re Cleland..check this out..and stop relying on Coulter for your incorrect information..not that lying ever stood in your way,,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland
AND THIS

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.03512/
and this

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland#Military_Service
AND MOST OF ALL THIS..

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html
and post your spologies not only to me but to the men and woman who gave so much only to be slimed by the likes of you..

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 8:08 am
Sorry, Charlie, I’m not relying on Coulter for anything. You’re just full of crap, that’s all. If you think that calls for an apology, fine. I am deeply and truly sorry that you are so hopelessly full of crap. I do not, however, claim any responsibility for the crap of which you are full.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Cleland

Far from rebutting anything I said, that entry was silent as to whether Cleland blew himself up in a combat or non-combat mission. It isn’t anymore.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/vhp-stories/loc.natlib.afc2001001.03512/

Same problem - “when a grenade exploded during his service in Vietnam” doesn’t tell you whether the incident was combat, a training exercise, or anything else. Unfortunately, this one’s not a wiki so I couldn’t add that helpful detail. So far, you’re 0 for 2.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland#Military_Service

This “source” all but admits I’m right. While they gleefully insult Ann Coulter for pointoing out that Cleland’s injuries stem from a non-combat mission, they don’t exactly deny that fact. Instead they quickly change the subject: “[r]egardless of the exact circumstances of the explosion, or its non-relation to the prior battles for which the stars were given, it is worth noting that Cleland was awarded a Silver Star ‘for gallantry in action’ at the battle of Khe Sanh” (which, in turn, bore a significant non-relation to his missing limbs). That’s like saying how dare they libel Ted Kennedy for driving badly one night - his driving on a different night was excellent.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

Oh, OK, I get it. Just like the right-wingers who move the goal posts and claim Saddam Hussein was a WMD, this loser argues that all of Vietnam was a “combat zone,” and therefore, any training exercise that may have taken place there must be “combat,” by definition.

We held this debate two years ago, when the issue was current and made sense to debate in context. Unfortunately, the links to the original articles aren’t good anymore.

Comment by Xrlq — 6/8/2006 @ 9:04 am
Ann Coulter, Marketing Genius

Update: Commenter and blogger Gayle Miller writes: “For those among us with short memories, I will offer a reminder of the behavior of the Jersey Girls [the professional widows Ann “insulted”] during the 9/11 hearings. They were perm…

Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 6/8/2006 @ 9:23 am
I support Coulter. Period, end of quote.

I’m tired of not being able to counter personal attacks by people who for no other reason then a tragedy in their lives, spew vitriol, disegenous
“facts” and hide begind their tragedy. How about the other thousands of spouses who do what they do with quiet respect.

15 minutes of fame is an aphrodisiac to some.

Comment by Sue — 6/8/2006 @ 10:22 am
“Frankly the fact that you agree with this hateful speech, which should outrage any decent person, is disgusing to me!”

What I find disgusting is that you commandeer a diff thread to spew your “Bush lied, people died” crap, then want to act holier than thou because I actually said that the women involved use their status as widows as a bully pulpit from which to lecture the rest of us and demand that the government respond to THEM because *gasp* they are WIDOWS!

We can argue semantics. Perhaps she should have put it as I did instead of saying they were “enjoying their husbands’ deaths.” Whatever. The point is that these victims think their tragedy has given them special dispensation to determine foreign policy and it isn’t so. This is just like people who say one cannot comment on war or foreign policy if one didn’t serve in the military. Both are ridiculous strawman arguments.

Comment by sharon — 6/8/2006 @ 10:37 am
Ok XLQR guess just you are just pretending to be dumb..Guess I have to cut and paste for you.. But of course there are none so blind as those that will not see…READ THIS…if you need help understanding English ask someone else..

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don’t leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of “ownership” went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle’
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 11:06 am
Sharon just the fact that you say “”"…that the government respond to THEM because *gasp* they are WIDOWS!” This statement shows me you are totally insensitive to their suffering and in fact ridicule it. Nice.

Here’s Coulters statement..let the readers judge

” These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

NICE talk Ann!!That is what the Bushies deal out to those that dare disagree with the Great Leader..

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 11:28 am
Sue you obviously have no respect for the families of those who died in 9/11 because if you did you would not tell them to keep quiet..which is just what you are saying only in different words. I am sure you would not feel this way if they were supporting Bush.

These people died because Bush was to busy going on vacation to check out the PDB which said Osama Bin Ladin determined to strike in US” that he ignored it.

What a laugh!!! Sue loves Ann Coultier and accuses the 9/11 widows of speawing hate because they demand answers that Bush cannot give!!!??? Ya! I am sure you do like Ann, and I can understand why.

The only question I have is why do I waste my time with Bush worshipers??

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 11:35 am
The Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Murtha, Clelland, et al., are pimping their tragedies for personal gain, usually with the unseen hand of left-wingers up their shirt.

They pimp their tragedies and thus make their motives suspect. Wanting it both ways, they use their loss to support their cause while hiding behind the dignity they expect of others but cheapen through their own theatrics.

Coulter is right on! These people are pimps and they are turning the tragic deaths of their loved ones into whores for political/personal gain.

Where is the dignity of death in that?

Comment by vet66 — 6/8/2006 @ 11:38 am
The Jersey Girls, Cindy Sheehan, Murtha, Clelland, et al., are merchandising their tragedies for personal gain, usually with the unseen hand of left-wingers up their shirt.

They sell their tragedies and thus make their motives suspect. Wanting it both ways, they use their loss to support their cause while hiding behind the dignity they expect of others but cheapen through their own theatrics.

Coulter is right on! These people are shameless and they are turning the tragic deaths of their loved ones into victims for political/personal gain.

Where is the dignity of death in that?

Comment by vet66 — 6/8/2006 @ 11:41 am
“Sharon just the fact that you say “””…that the government respond to THEM because *gasp* they are WIDOWS!” This statement shows me you are totally insensitive to their suffering and in fact ridicule it. Nice.”

It’s no less sensitive than most of the remarks you’ve made here, Charlie. EVERYONE in the U.S. grieved over 9/11. Yes, it’s tragic that they lost their husbands in that terrorist attack. But it doesn’t make them experts on foreign policy or exempt from criticism when they demand attention from the POTUS. Your entire screed provides the proof to Ann Coulter’s statement. You believe that their political opinions should somehow carry greater weight than experts because they are *gasp* WIDOWS.

“These people died because Bush was to busy going on vacation to check out the PDB which said Osama Bin Ladin determined to strike in US” that he ignored it.”

Why not blame Bill Clinton for his failure to prevent terrorism, eh, Charlie? It’s not like Osama bin Laden waited until GWB was in office to start planning his attack. If you want to blame the POTUS, you better start blaming your own precious party’s policy, as well.

Comment by sharon — 6/8/2006 @ 11:49 am
Vet 66 the only thing they are doing is questioning, and questioning is one this the warmaking President doesnt want…and there is nothing cheap or theatrical about that.

I tell you what is cheap and theatrical..landing on an aircraft to declare Mission Accomplished for a war you started..and then hiding like a coward from hostile questioners.

Bush turned the entire 9/11 tragedy into a personal war for revenge..and thousands have been killed..guess that kind of political twisting is ok, right?

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 11:55 am
Sharon you are again putting words in others mouths…Bush is a liar and you want to defend him in anyway you can and when his actions are indefensible you attack Clinton as a diversion. Thats the game, isn’t it?

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 11:59 am
“Sharon you are again putting words in others mouths…Bush is a liar and you want to defend him in anyway you can and when his actions are indefensible you attack Clinton as a diversion. Thats the game, isn’t it?”

Pot still calling the kettle black, eh? You are putting words in other people’s mouths but accuse others of doing so. I do not find Bush’s actions indefensible. He acted like a rational person, which explains why you don’t understand it. I merely pointed out that if you were actually concerned about the causes of 9/11, you might have the intellectual honesty to go back to the previous administration and its variety of security lapses. But judging from your other posts, that’s not the point, just like sticking to the thread isn’t the point.

Comment by sharon — 6/8/2006 @ 12:28 pm
Ann Coulter is clever and she effectively employs the literary devices of sarcasm and ridicule, but when you rely on techniques like that it undermines your ability to persuade people. Plus it’s not kind. In the long run, you win people with sincere kindness rather than wit.

Comment by DRJ4 — 6/8/2006 @ 12:48 pm
Ann Coulter is clever and she effectively employs the literary devices of sarcasm and ridicule, but when you rely on these techniques it undermines your ability to persuade people. Plus it’s not kind. In the long run, you win people with sincere kindness rather than wit.

Comment by DRJ4 — 6/8/2006 @ 12:49 pm
Sorry. Cancel my comment #24, please. I reposted after an error message, not realizing the first comment went through.

Comment by DRJ — 6/8/2006 @ 12:51 pm
This is the same woman who lied about Max Cleland saying he was drinking when he lost both limbs and one arm and not engaged in battle as the MILITARY said

Ok XLQR guess just you are just pretending to be dumb..Guess I have to cut and paste for you.. But of course there are none so blind as those that will not see…READ THIS…if you need help understanding English ask someone else..

What exactly is that quote supposed to prove? Where does it say the MILITARY says he was engaged in battle? If he was in a battle he would have a purple heart. Which he doesn’t.

Comment by Gerald A — 6/8/2006 @ 1:07 pm
How can you hate a dame with a build like that?

Comment by Jim sweeney — 6/8/2006 @ 2:48 pm
Yeah. Wrong choice of words. Shock and awe has become Anne’s specialty in getting her message to fly across cable and news blogs.

It’s a shame because she used to be whip-smart and a real asset to the conservative message. I’m afraid these days she’s employing the media tools a little too frequently. In a sense, it’s her own way of manipulating the tragedy. She gives fringe West-wing nuts way too much ammunition.

That said, I do agree with the underlying things Sharon has written. The Jersey Wives are using their grief for elevated status… they deserve much sympathy, support and consideration. But really, the attacks were against a country and not against their families. By no means should Coulter exploit their grief.

Comment by Vermont Neighbor — 6/8/2006 @ 3:39 pm
Ann does not lie. What she said is 100% correct. These 4 women
are the liars and she hits the nail right on the head. There radical and deserve to be brought out to face the light.

Comment by M. Standifer — 6/8/2006 @ 5:47 pm
Jim Sweeney, #27,

I don’t think anybody here actually hates her but … I seriously question the attractiveness of her build. Oh well, beauty is a subjective thing. (Also, see my previous comment #6).;) As much as I hate to beat up on a lady, she makes me wish that she would elope with Michael Moore to some remote Pacific island so that we could be rid of both their vitriol.

Comment by nk — 6/8/2006 @ 5:48 pm
GERALD..You get a purple heart for wounds caused by enemy action. Cleland picked up a grenade that a fellow soldier dropped.

Sharon you say Bush acted like a rational person. Get this straight.. Bush lied and lied and lied repeatedly and people died because of his lies. The evidence is there but you are like those who think OJ Simpson is innocent because you dont want to see it. Let me say it one last time. Bush is a liar who has lied repeatedly but people like you want to believe so you disregard the obvious facts. He lied before the war and lied after the invasion and is still lying today. But you are an enabler and so you think that is ok.

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 7:09 pm
M Standifier.. how hateful of you to think that just because these women demand answers they are liars. You sicken me..

Comment by Charlie — 6/8/2006 @ 7:10 pm
Charlie,

Like most lefties, you don’t seem to understand the word “lie” (as in “Bush lied to get us into war through the misuse of intelligence” which is, I assume, part of your mantra. God knows, you haven’t missed any of the other pathetic tricks of the anti-GWB crowd). Go look on dictionary.com and you might be enlightened.

But back to Ann Coulter. I understand perfectly those who dislike her ballsy, in-your-face style. I enjoy it largely because it drives wingnuts like Charlie crazy. Of course, I also enjoy Ted Rall, but that’s mostly because his rhetoric is so completely devoid of logic that it is amusing. Maybe Ann shocks the faint of heart when she actually calls a spade a spade, but there’s nothing like the lies and lying liars that tell them like Charlie and Ted.

Comment by sharon — 6/8/2006 @ 7:51 pm
Charlie, you’re almost as good as Ann herself at staying on message, but have you noticed that you insult people even more often than she does?

But you are an enabler and so you think that is ok.

No, Charlie, nobody believes it’s okay for a president to lie to the public. Some of us believe that Bush doesn’t, hasn’t, and didn’t. There’s a difference.

how hateful of you to think that just because these women demand answers they are liars. You sicken me..

The answer is that some men who hated America killed these women’s husbands–and a lot of other people–as a symbol of their hatred. That is what is sickening. The women who used their grief as a focus for their preconceived hatred of George W. Bush and were upheld by the media as unassailable on account of that grief were fairly Sheehanesque, as well.

Ann Coulter makes it her business to cross the line. This week, as she always does, she started with a premise and took it to a logical conclusion. Knock out all the steps in between, as Holmes says, and the result is startling. But who wouldn’t enjoy receiving fame and media attention for their political opinions? It’s just sad that the attention, in this case, came not necessarily because of the merits of the opinions but because of the death and loss.

So turn your high horse out to pasture, Charlie. His legs are tired and he’s making the room smelly.

Comment by Anwyn — 6/8/2006 @ 8:43 pm
Usually, it’s the guys who go easy on the ladies and the ladies who are unkindest to other ladies. In Ann Coulter’s case, she has very strong allies on the distaff side in these comments. Oh shucks, I just realized that they’re only joining-in in Ann Coulter’s cattishness against the 9/11 widows. I have no point. With our host’s permission, I’ll let the comment stand though.

Comment by nk — 6/8/2006 @ 8:58 pm
nk, did you ever consider that what you call “cattishness” happens because women are better at seeing through other women’s schtick than men? Show me a woman who has never used a fragile emotional state to gain an advantage, and I’ll show you–well, you won’t find one, so it doesn’t matter. But just because this is something women do doesn’t mean they should never be called on it–even if, as in your fantasy world, men usually don’t do it.

Comment by Anwyn — 6/8/2006 @ 9:19 pm
Anwyn, Comment #36, I admitted that I did not have a point. I am also guilty of beating up on Ann Coulter and concede that contradiction of my own premise. We’re all just sitting around the village fountain and talking here.

Comment by nk — 6/8/2006 @ 9:28 pm
We’re all just sitting around the village fountain and talking here.

Absolutely. That’s why I’m here. I’ve been trying to get away from using smilies in every blessed thing I type, otherwise there would have been one in #36.

Comment by Anwyn — 6/8/2006 @ 9:32 pm
Coulter says they enjoyed they’re husbands’ deaths.

Xrlq says its “unseemly” that these folks are “basking in their victimhood.”

Let’s see; they had husbands killed, and now they want to be politically active. The gall of them not to sit quietly at home and let people who should talk - Hollywood stars and university professors - speak.

We’ve got a guy locally whose son died in the war who is quite active in supporting the Iraq mission. He wouldn’t be heard so much if his son hadn’t been killed. This makes him what sort of bad person? A tool of the right? No, just a guy who lost his son who believes in the cause.

I talked to some other victims two days ago and expressed my deep personal gratitude for their willingness to stand up for a political cause. They lost a daughter; they are bad for doing this?

Another guy on the other side of the political cause was very hurt at the loss of his wife, and said so. He should have just found, what, dignity in his wife’s senseless death?

If we want to attack positions, that’s fine. But attacking victims in the way that Coulter does and the way some posters do is incredibly offensive to me. Victims of terrorists or murderers or other bad things ought not be criticized for wanting what they perceive as problems repaired. It’s unsurprising that the media listen to them, and we need to then take the message for what it is worth.

Democrats are not evil. The idea that they are is awful, polluted thinking. Victims who stand up for Democratic causes are not bad people, and we shouldn’t call them bad people.

–JRM

Comment by JRM — 6/8/2006 @ 9:53 pm
To be perfectly clear: I wish Ann had been less brutal, i.e. implying that the widows were enjoying the fame they garnered as one result of their husbands’ deaths instead of of saying they were “enjoying the deaths.” But I also think that the response has been slightly hysterical and indicative of exactly what Ann was talking about–especially extremely nasty insults to Ann like Rick Moran’s.

JRM, her words were very specifically directed to a group of women whose tactics seemed to her to be getting undue mileage and immunity from criticism out of their status as victims, *not* to anybody who speaks up about issues after having lost a loved one. And she wasn’t saying (and I’m not either) that grief precludes right to express views or be heard; she was saying that grief *shouldn’t* preclude others’ right to dispute those views. I’m betting heavily that your examples who support the war get more flak than those who don’t, but either way, do the people in your examples shut people up by saying “I lost somebody and you haven’t?” That’s what we’re really talking about here, or ought to be, *not* whether or not they have a right to speak up for any cause they wish.

You say it yourself: Victims of terrorists or murderers or other bad things ought not be criticized for wanting what they perceive as problems repaired. Of course everybody wants problems repaired. It’s the “ought not to be criticized” part that I have trouble with. If they’re advocating fixes for problems that I don’t agree with, I don’t want to be told to shut up because they lost somebody and I didn’t. There’s a huge difference.

Comment by Anwyn — 6/8/2006 @ 11:02 pm
I’m rather late to this discussion, but I gather that some people are upset because of what Ann said in response to a question?

Some people will always be upset with what a person says, whether they generally agree with that person or not. Since I didn’t see the exchange in question, I won’t comment on how severe it was or if it was inappropriate. From what I read at the blog, I understand that she is being compare to another person that at times have used somewhat inappropriate statements to make a point.

Here’s what I don’t understand, the people here that don’t like Ann because of what she says haven’t complain about Ted Rall and what he says. If both are comparable, then should both be despised equally?

Personally I like some of what Ann says, and I don’t like some as well. But she does have a right to say things, even things I disagree with. I’m not going to claim that I hate her, or Ted for that matter, as I don’t hate people just for speaking their heart, no matter how objectionable I may find the subject matter.

If we start making judgment calls on everything a person says and call for the censure of that person based on that type of judgment, then all people will eventually say something one or more of us disagree with and no one should be allowed to speak in public. It would be a very quite world in that case, wouldn’t it?

Comment by Ray — 6/8/2006 @ 11:41 pm
“Let’s see; they had husbands killed, and now they want to be politically active. The gall of them not to sit quietly at home and let people who should talk - Hollywood stars and university professors - speak.”

No one is saying the Jersey girls don’t have a right to be politically active. The problem is, as Anwyn pointed out, that there are many people, including media types and apparently JRM, who believe that simply because they have a more personal tragedy that they are above reproach and no one should dispute their solutions, credentials, or ideas on foreign policy. This is nonsense. Losing a loved one in a national tragedy is a horrible thing, but it doesn’t give one immunity from criticism.

Sure, Ann Coulter can be harsh, but, as I said, she was on target. The Jersey girls and their ilk believe that they are not only entitled to the limelight because of their personal tragedies, but that they are immune from criticism to boot. That’s not only silly, it’s maudlin. It’s no different from the guys who say they served in the military in a war and no one has a right to criticize the military if they weren’t in one. It’s overly emotional and anti-American. No one is above criticism.

Comment by sharon — 6/9/2006 @ 4:19 am
Sharon, if Coulter had attacked the widow’s political stances rather than attacking them personally, there wouldn’t have been an issue and we wouldn’t have been talking about this. If their ideas are so bad, why didn’t Coulter just lambaste their ideas rather than their victim status? That wouldn’t have caused an uproar.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 7:12 am
Psyberian,

Ann Coulter attacked the fact that they are “grief paparazzis.” They are using the fact their loved ones died to garner attention for themselves. That’s despicable.

There were 3,000 people who died on 9/11. Not all of them have used that fact to gain media attention for their pet projects. THAT’S why Ann Coulter said they were “enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.” Disagree with her wording if you want, but she’s on target about their behavior.

Comment by sharon — 6/9/2006 @ 8:18 am
Just for clarity - and then I’ll get out - my problem is exactly what Psyberian articulated. Criticizing their solutions/ideas/politics is fine and dandy, but criticizing their character is appalling.

–JRM

Comment by JRM — 6/9/2006 @ 8:22 am
Sharon, by slamming anyone who is a vocal victim and claiming that they are just opportunists, you are guilty of doing exactly what you are charging them with. In other words, your assumption is that these women can not speak out since they are only seeking attention. Therefore, they should just shut up. That’s a hypocritical view.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 9:19 am
GERALD..You get a purple heart for wounds caused by enemy action. Cleland picked up a grenade that a fellow soldier dropped.

Fine. But I still don’t see where he was engaged in battle.

Comment by Gerald A — 6/9/2006 @ 9:23 am
“Sharon, by slamming anyone who is a vocal victim and claiming that they are just opportunists, you are guilty of doing exactly what you are charging them with.”

I’m not a vocal victim, therefore I can’t be doing what I’m charging them with.

“In other words, your assumption is that these women can not speak out since they are only seeking attention.”

Nope, didn’t say that. I said they are using their victimhood and seek attention and when anyone criticizes them for it, they get the vapors.

“Therefore, they should just shut up. That’s a hypocritical view.”

I have no problem with them speaking up. I have a problem with their special, beyond-reproach status as victims so that no one can criticize their behavior or demands. Nothing hypocritical there. Your original charge was that Coulter was attacking them personally instead of their views. Here’s what she’s said about them:

“They have attacked Bush, they have attacked Condoleezza Rice, they’re cutting campaign commercials for Kerry. But we can’t respond because their husbands died . . . I think it’s one of the ugliest things the left has done to political dialogue in this country - this idea that you need some sort of personal authenticity in order to make a political point . . .”

THAT is the point. Being a victim does not give them special dispensation from criticism. Can they speak out? Sure. But don’t expect to be immune from dissent.

Comment by sharon — 6/9/2006 @ 9:50 am
Sharon, by slamming anyone who is a vocal victim and claiming that they are just opportunists, you are guilty of doing exactly what you are charging them with. In other words, your assumption is that these women can not speak out since they are only seeking attention. Therefore, they should just shut up. That’s a hypocritical view.

No, it’s not. Sharon’s arguments stand or fall on their merits. The Jersey girls claim their celebrity not based on the merits of their lame arguments, but simply on the fact that they are victims. How many of them had you heard of on 9-10-01? Victimhood is their entire claim to fame, and we’re supposed to politely listen to their nasty talking points, but not respond in kind because … they’re victims, and how could we be so heartless and cruel?

Sorry, but at some point we have to say enough is enough. Coulter went over the line in suggesting they enjoyed their husband’s deaths - as opposed to the sick celebrity that followed - but by and large, she made a point that needed to be made. [In the same book, she also made some points that didn't need to be made, such as her crackpot theory that evolution is a "crock." Why won't the usual Coulter-bashers attack her for that, so I can agree with you all for once?!]

Comment by Xrlq — 6/9/2006 @ 10:16 am
I said they are using their victimhood and seek attention and when anyone criticizes them for it, they get the vapors.

You are confusing two different thoughts here. I’m not saying that it is right for them to claim special status because they are widows – assuming that they have. That would be wrong of them to do since everyone has a right to their opinion.

But to personally attack them because they are victims is beyond all reasonability. Think of a different example – a woman who is raped can’t complain because of her victim status?

When Coulter charges that they have base motives when they speak out, she is attempting to silence or discredit them altogether, which is hypocritical. Two wrongs do not a right make – again, assuming that these widows are claiming exemption from questioning.

Xrlq, where did I say that you didn’t have a right to question the widow’s ideas? You certainly do. If Coulter had said only that, there would be no controversy.

One more shot at it – Coulter: “It’s OK for me to spew my bile – but not you.”

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 11:40 am
Psyberian,

First of all, you said that I was hypocritical for attacking the Jersey girls when there was nothing hypocritical at all in what I said. Maybe you don’t understand the meaning of that word.

Second, for Coulter to charge them with having base motives yet standing behind their victimhood as a shield is not trying to “silence” them. It is criticizing them for wrapping themselves in their personal tragedies as a way to deflect criticism.

Try reading the section of the quote that wasn’t bold:

“These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies.”

Do you get it now? It’s the fact that their behavior indicates that they have a special right to criticize the president and demand that their concerns, thoughts, feelings, be taken more seriously than others. This is not “silencing” them. It is telling them that 9/11 was a NATIONAL tragedy and that it belongs to ALL of us and isn’t their personal soapbox. Wanna argue about policies and recommendations? Sure. But don’t expect to get a free pass because something bad happened to you.

Comment by sharon — 6/9/2006 @ 12:04 pm
Sharon, you’re incorrigible. You conveniently ignore the fact that Coulter uses the ad hominem attack on them that they only want publicity for their own pleasure.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 12:33 pm
“I am deeply upset at Coulter and those who support this hateful lying woman.”

“M Standifier.. how hateful of you to think that just because these women demand answers they are liars. You sicken me..”

“Bush lied and lied and lied repeatedly and people died because of his lies. ”

“not that lying ever stood in your way”

“The only question I have is why do I waste my time with Bush worshipers??”

“That is what the Bushies deal out to those that dare disagree with the Great Leader..”

“Frankly the fact that you agree with this hateful speech, which should outrage any decent person, is disgusing to me!”

Nice talk Charlie! If you can personally attack Ann Coulter, the President, several posters in this thread, and those that support any of the above, how can you claim that Ann is wrong for personally attack people as well? That’s very hypocritical of you, isn’t it? Why aren’t you disgusted with your own speech? Sauce for the goose….

Comment by Ray — 6/9/2006 @ 12:39 pm
Psy,

You say that Ann’s ad hominem attack is inappropriate. Do you feel the same about Charlie’s ad hominem attacks on several posters here? Just curious as to why you haven’t said anything about that.

BTW, I don’t think Ann’s statement is an appropriate response myself, but I do understand that passion sometimes causes people to say things others may find inappropriate and disgusting. It man not be proper, but it does happen and I can forgive people for that. After all, we’re only human.

Comment by Ray — 6/9/2006 @ 12:49 pm
crackpot theory that evolution is a “crock.”

I hate to get off topic but since you brought it up, tell the over 500 signatories, which includes at least one Nobel Prize nominee, it’s a crackpot theory.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

Comment by Gerald A — 6/9/2006 @ 2:16 pm
Ray, there are degrees of ad hominem. It is a common tactic. If I was to call everyone on it every time, it would be ridiculous. You haven’t been around here long to see it, have you?

But Coulter’s claim is one of the worst: “So what if you lost a husband, shut up because you are happy they died” is a very low blow and not nearly as bad as anything Charlie or myself is guilty of here lately.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 2:41 pm
I still haven’t mastered this English thing yet. Make that:

But Coulter’s claim is one of the worst: “So what if you lost a husband, shut up because you are happy they died” is a very low blow and much worse than anything Charlie or I is guilty of here lately.

Comment by Psyberian — 6/9/2006 @ 3:08 pm
Psy,

Your statement that “there are degrees of ad hominem. It is a common tactic. If I was to call everyone on it every time, it would be ridiculous” is an excuse for allowing these attacks if they support your position. That makes you a hypocrite. Surly you’ve been here long enough to see that.

Comment by Ray — 6/9/2006 @ 3:24 pm
Psy, you are still missing the point. Did you not read the entire quote? AC never told them to “shut up.” She said they were relishing their husband’s deaths because of the notoriety (and money) they gained from it. If you look at the transcript of her interview with Matt Lauer, she says that the point is that liberals drag out people whom we are not supposed to question because of their victim status and that she considers that dishonest. In this point, she is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. You are dwelling on the wrong part of her statement, a purely emotional reaction that PROVES her point.

Comment by sharon — 6/10/2006 @ 4:09 am
sharon, Losing a loved one in a national tragedy is a horrible thing, but it doesn’t give one immunity from criticism … nor does it give them any particularly insight into how to fix our security problems, fight our wars, or any other current national topic.

Our national obsession with celebrity somehow suggests that those so endowed, or even those enjoying their “15 minutes of fame” become instant experts on just about anything that seems to pop into their heads. Ann is simply saying, in her characteristically indominatable way, that this is poppycock.

Comment by Harry Arthur — 6/10/2006 @ 5:40 am
Xrlq, where did I say that you didn’t have a right to question the widow’s ideas? You certainly do. If Coulter had said only that, there would be no controversy.

That’s basically what she did say. And since when is there no controversy over whether or not it’s OK for political operatives to milk their grief, using it both as a sword and a shield, and expect others not to fight back? Quick, of the top of your head: what is the name of the largest gun-control organization in America? And why is that particular name on it?

This crap has been going on for a long time, and if Coulter wasn’t going to raise it, someone needed to. It’s too bad she did so in a way that focuses the issue on her, who we really don’t need to be talking about, rather than on the underlying issue, which we do.

Comment by Xrlq — 6/10/2006 @ 5:58 am
“She is the Ted Rall of the right. That’s not a good thing to be.”

Coulter engages in hyperbole; in fact, it’s her stock-in-trade. Her facts, however, are largely indisputable. These other people, including Rall and (to a lesser extent) the Jersey girls, are untroubled by any devotion to honesty.

If you, Patterico, can’t discriminate between these two approaches, I’ve no interest in reading your bilge any longer.

Comment by Richard Donley — 6/10/2006 @ 10:06 am
Ann Coulter was right.

They are acting just like Sheehan and Mrs Brady, and many others with “Munchausen Syndrome”.

Comment by Phillep — 6/10/2006 @ 12:53 pm
the Jersey Widows…

The only remaining defense of the attack on Coulter, as I see it, is from commenter Patterico (who on his own blog called Coulter “the Ted Rall of the right” over this incident). Patterico writes…

Trackback by Doc Rampage — 6/11/2006 @ 1:08 am
Hey, I thought the woman was just crazy, Ms. Coulter .45, that is, but then I heard her tell Sean Hannity that her religion was at the core of her views.

I understand her better now; she is a jihadist. I wonder if she thinks there are 45 virgin males waiting for her when someone flings a pie with a hand grenade inside it.

Dwight

Comment by Dwight — 6/11/2006 @ 4:34 am
[...] When the next Democrat President or ex-President dies, the “Ted Rall of the Right” will not write any columns gloating about his death or speculating that he is turning a “crispy brown” in hell. Anyone care to place any bets? [...]

Pingback by damnum absque injuria » A Prediction — 6/11/2006 @ 12:27 pm
[...] The New York Times skewered her today, and noted the fact she’s such a prominent figure says as much about us as it does about her. For that matter, not all conservatives sing her praises. [...]

Pingback by Stephen Manning’s Daily Brainwash » Blog Archive » Ann Coulter: Opinioporn — 6/12/2006 @ 8:51 pm
[...] or this, a post titled “Why I Don’t Like Ann Coulter, Volume 14“: She is the Ted Rall of the right. [...]

Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Is Glenn Greenwald a Liar? Or Is He Just Someone Who Makes Confident Assertions of Fact without Having the Slightest Clue Whether They Are True? — 7/12/2006 @ 9:33 pm
[...] I didn’t meet her; didn’t try to. I think that would have been too odd. I mean, what am I going to say to her, after saying things like this, this, this, and this? [...]

Pingback by Patterico’s Pontifications » Patterico and Coulter — 8/5/2006 @ 9:50 pm
[...] But somewhere along the way, she became more of a liability than an asset for conservatives. Perhaps it was the documenting of every possibly offensive remark (all pulled out of context, of course) by Media Matters. Or maybe it was when conservatives I respect started declaring that they were done with her. In any event, I’m more angry that Ann’s stupid “joke” (which is what she claims it was) overshadowed CPAC and that she’s given cover to the moonbats who think four-letter words add emphasis for their tired rants. [...]

Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Thanks, Ann — 3/4/2007 @ 6:25 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

6/7/2006

Why I Don’t Like Ann Coulter, Volume 14

70 Comments

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out

June 2006
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« May				Jul »
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30