Rall Says Coulter Was Worse
[Editor's Note: Yes, it's another Ann Coulter post. I recently told commenter Anwyn: "If there’s one freedom that blogs give you, it’s the freedom to make like a dog, grab a bone, and never, ever let go. Even when your readers tell you they’re sick of the subject, it doesn’t matter. You are The Dog — and you can simply reply: “GRRRRR!”
Of course, I'm kidding. Of course! I care about you readers and your opinions. Deeply! That why I suggest that readers sick of the Coulter subject are more than welcome to exercise the finger that operates the scroll wheel on their mouse, and scroll down to the next post.
As for the rest of you: read on! -- P]
Xrlq is kind enough to point us to Ted Rall’s defense of his “Terror Widows” cartoon, and Rall’s plea that Ann Coulter’s Jersey Girls comment was worse:
[Coulter is] a lot meaner to the widows as people than my cartoon was, which explored the way specific media figures–Mariane Pearl, Theodore Olsen and Lisa Beamer–exploited their spouses’ deaths to make money or political hay. The vast majority of widows and widowers of 9/11, I have repeatedly said and written, deserve our sympathy and whatever help they need to rebuild their lives. My commentary was about the media phenomenon, such as the parade of 9/11 widows who went on stage during the 2004 GOP Necropublican Convention in New York to endorse Bush, then the specific individuals.
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds a lot like the argument many of you made on behalf of Ann Coulter.
So, in your mind, why was the Terror Widows cartoon worse?
Of course, there are those who are consistent, and say it wasn’t. Doc Rampage leaps to mind. He says of the Rall cartoon:
When I first saw the cartoon, I thought it was pretty awful because it looked like a pointless attack; that’s because Rall did a lousy job of expressing the point in the cartoon. But when I read his explanation, I changed my mind. You have to skip over the first few paragraphs where he whines about how criticism of him is an attack on the First Ammendment in order to get to the part about how he was criticizing the widows for exploiting their husband’s death at taxpayer expense (apparently the First Ammendment doesn’t allow us to criticize Rall, but it allows Rall to criticize the 9/11 widows).
So, no, I’m not offended by the cartoon. In fact, if I didn’t know who Ted Rall is, I would have thought he was a conservative. Those people were demanding special consideration from taxpayers, consideration that only goes to victims of big-media tragedies. And they were getting it because of the pathetic cycle of victim worship that this country has fallen into.
Apparently, Doc Rampage is good with Rall mocking Marianne Pearl for calling a press conference after terrorists beheaded her husband Danny. Apparently Doc has no problem with Rall depicting Pearl as saying, in front of a bank of microphones: “Of course it’s a bummer that they slashed my husband’s throat, but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!” After all, South Park does tasteless humor too!
But the rest of you have some explaining to do. Why is Ted Rall’s Terror Widows cartoon so bad — hey, he clarified it! — but Ann Coulter saying Terror Widows are “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” is just peachy?
P.S. Rall also sniffs:
Will [Coulter's] right-wing fans come down on her as hard as they did on me?
Je pense que non.
Speaking French when not absolutely necessary — now that really is worse than Ann Coulter!
I don’t count myself among Coulter’s “fans,” but Captain Ed is, and he came down on her. Will Rall mention that? “Je pense que non.”
I could not possibly care less about either Coulter or Rall — they’re cut from the same cloth. What’s on my mind right now is the press coverage.
We have two sets of Sept. 11 idiocy here — Rall smeared widows and widowers on the right, and Coulter smeared widows and widowers on the left.
Coulter’s remarks are getting wall-to-wall press criticism. A quick Google search revealed no obvious MSM coverage of Rall’s antics.
Just another example of our fair and balanced liberal media at work.
[Rall was dumped from the Washington Post because of the cartoon . . . -- P]
Comment by The Hound — 6/14/2006 @ 7:19 am
Indeed it does, but so what? Does the fact that Argument A sounds like Argument B tell us anything at all about the credibility of either?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 7:21 am
Coulter’s schtick is reprehensible on two counts… one – that it is so beyond the pale that it supplants any legitimate point she might have; two – coulter is smart enough to know better but she does it to get publicity
Rall is worse because he believes his own mendacities. 9/11 widows haven’t been the only one he has savaged…. remember the stuff on Pat Tillman?
Rall isn’t the loyal opposition. He is on the other side.
Comment by Darleen — 6/14/2006 @ 7:26 am
I think the point has been missed so repeatedly that the issue is distorted beyond repair.
I must have missed that. What I read was a strongly-worded objection to the use of some imagined pity-based “moral authority” based on the death of a loved one. That these persons are entitled to their grief is not in question, the notion that they are somehow entitled to unquestioned “rightness” in their political positions as a result, is.
And to profit by it is the greatest disgrace of all
Comment by heldmyw — 6/14/2006 @ 8:13 am
Me too, particularly the part about the widowers on the left Coulter supposedly smeared. Could it be that one of the “Jersey Girls” isn’t?
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 8:51 am
“Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but this sounds a lot like the argument many of you made on behalf of Ann Coulter.”
Rall isn’t making the same argument at all. The point was (yes, I’ll repeat it) that liberals love to use victims as mouthpieces for their causes because the rest of us are not supposed to criticize them or their ideas because of their victim status. That was the idea behind the Jersey broads “enjoying their husbands’ deaths” because it allowed them to take potshots at President Bush and anyone else they wanted without accountability. That’s not the same as Rall depicting 9/11 victims as taxpayer mooches.
Comment by sharon — 6/14/2006 @ 9:21 am
BTW, for those offended, I keep using the term “broads” because that’s what AC said. It’s in keeping with the flavor of the quote.
Comment by sharon — 6/14/2006 @ 9:22 am
“the corpse of polly klaas had hardly been interred when her relatives, exulting in their newfound notoriety, made use of the illegitimate moral authority we conferred upon them to promote significant and expensive changes in california law, all in the name of their expired broad/chicklet who would never have done anything to attract public notice in her life had she not so fortuitously for her family been kidnapped, raped and murdered.”
did you find that offensive? i tried to make it as offensive as i could on a quick dash. it’s the same thing ann coulter said. there’s no difference. consistency is part of integrity.
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 6/14/2006 @ 10:16 am
It is different. As a poster on another thread here (same topic) noted, the family of Polly Klaas didn’t use her death to further their own agenda, become millionaires, and gain fame. They didn’t attack the police. They criticized the person that did the crime. If the Jersey broads had done that, they might not be in for so much criticism from AC or anyone else.
Comment by sharon — 6/14/2006 @ 11:16 am
Actually, there’s no one I’d like to come down on harder than Ted Rall- but the cartoon was funny (for once)!
Why did these people get free money for their tragedies?
Don’t the proceeds from all those lawsuits ultimately come from the rest of us?
Why does being a victim in this country (a rich, free, and vibrant country at that) rate such a fuss?
I can only blame a portion of this on our whiney, bitchy, self-obsessed, superficial media. Something is wrong, too, with the rest of us.
Comment by trentk269 — 6/14/2006 @ 2:07 pm
Rall is definitely worse.
If you’re not sure, just ask yourself this question: Do you ever feel like you would enjoy stuffing Rall’s scrawny, whiny ass into a gym locker?* Well, of course you do — who doesn’t? Ok, ladies, we’ve heard from you, how how ’bout the guys? You too, huh? Who knew?
Now apply the gym locker test to Ann Coulter. See? It’s not even close.
*Reportedly, Rall knows his way around the inside of a gym locker.
Comment by TNugent — 6/14/2006 @ 3:30 pm
In my defense, I was taking Rall at his word; I believed that all of the widows he presented were on TV trying to get more money out of the taxpayers for their tragedy.
Basically my rule is: if the widows deserve criticism, it’s OK to criticize them. This proposition is related to an axiom from deontic logic:
As to whether the criticism was too harsh, I have given my view of that in my followup post: I claim that you are appealing to a non-existent standard of behavior. We might wish that everybody was sweet and kind all the time, but you have used some extremely harsh words against Coulter for behaving like everyone else. That’s hardly fair.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/14/2006 @ 3:50 pm
Oh, and as Xrlq noted, there is a big difference between mocking a widow a month after he husband died and mocking her four years later.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/14/2006 @ 3:54 pm
Patterico, just admit to the obvious and say, “Rall is worse that Coulter.”
Say it and I will be satisfied.
Comment by clark smith — 6/14/2006 @ 4:16 pm
TNugent, #12:
I just have to know and Patterico does not reveal commenters’s e-mails. Are you the same TNugent who was quoted by Ralph Denyer as advising: “Practice, practice, practice. Practice until you get a ______ welt on your chest … if it makes you feel good, don’t stop until you see blood from your fingers. Then you’ll know you’re on to something!”
Comment by nk — 6/14/2006 @ 4:33 pm
Whatever you think of her opinions, she has a certain fluency with words.
Comment by Mike K — 6/14/2006 @ 4:38 pm
I found Coulter’s point to be valid, but her choice of words reprehensible. Then again, she lost me at “raghead”, so my opinion might not count for much. Apparently I’m in the minority.
Comment by physics geek — 6/14/2006 @ 4:53 pm
Patterico, why are you making such a big deal of this comment when in my opinion at least the New York Times comment was much worse? Her widows comment is just a violation of conventional standards of politeness and civility which are widely ignored when it comes to public figures, like for example saying Kerry married for money or bringing up Cheney’s gay daughter. The New York Times comment on the often hand was a calculated attempt to intimidate like the Mohammad cartoon protests.
Comment by James B. Shearer — 6/14/2006 @ 5:31 pm
TNugent – this strikes me as being largely dependent on where one stands politically. I’ve wanted to stuff Coulter in a locker ever sine she “joked” about killing a Supreme Court Justice.
Comment by aphrael — 6/14/2006 @ 6:42 pm
aphrael,
You took the words right out of my mouth.
There’s a reason righties think only lefties are venal and hateful, and why lefties think only righties are. Because usually, folks are hateful (and feel hatred towards) only folks they disagree with.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 6:56 pm
And I truly believe that’s the only reason most of these folks are defending Coulter — she’s on their side politically. Because the logic they are using is laughably, transparently lacking.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 6:57 pm
James B. Shearer:
I think people are fighting me more on this one.
Both are reprehensible.
But I admit this one makes me viscerally angry. To suggest that someone whose spouse died on 9/11 is enjoying the spouse’s death — you shouldn’t ever say that (unless, say, you have video of the person holding up a highball and saying: “I sure am enjoying my husband’s death!”).
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 7:09 pm
Doc Rampage says:
In other words, since so many people are assholes, it’s not fair for me to call someone an asshole when they act like one.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 7:34 pm
Doc says:
Yeah. About 3 years and 11 months.
It’s roughly the difference between being an asshole now, or an asshole later.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 7:36 pm
Aphrael:
Whence the sneer quotes? There is no question that her “joke” was indeed a joke. It may not have been your idea of a good joke, but that’s a whole ‘nother matter. Bad jokes are still jokes. The trouble with Rall is that when he spews his venom, it’s equally clear that he’s not joking.
Patterico:
If by “roughly” you mean “I know I’m full of crap but I’m staying the course anyway,” then I suppose so. To the rest of us, it’s the difference between being an asshole now, or being right later. In February of 2002, maybe Rall honestly believed that Lisa Beamer and Marianne Pearl were about to embark on a pity-career on the scale that the Jersey Girls ultimately did – but guess what? They didn’t. Conversely, if, after their first press conference or two, Ann Coulter had accused the Jersey Girls of deriving sick pleasure from the notoriety they were receiving (the very point you now concede is valid), you would have attacked her then as horribly insensitive, both for attacking while wounds were still raw, and for failing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And you’d have been right to do so.
Comment by Xrlq — 6/14/2006 @ 7:47 pm
“And I truly believe that’s the only reason most of these folks are defending Coulter — she’s on their side politically. Because the logic they are using is laughably, transparently lacking.”
I don’t defend Coulter because she’s on my side. There are times I find her to be abbrasive and obnoxious. Usually, it’s apparent that she is doing it for effect. This is unlike Ted Rall, who is venal because he honestly believes (and states repeatedly and in a variety of circumstances that he believes) the things he says. You only have to read a month’s worth of his columns to realize he isn’t being sarcastic when he talks about 10,000 Hadithas or says the NSA getting lists of phone numbers is terrorism. He truly believes these things. It’s a far cry from Coulter’s work, or, at the very least, a weak attempt to copy her wit and sarcasm.
BTW, this is not to say I don’t enjoy reading Ted Rall as well as Ann Coulter. I just find Ted entertaining because his twisted rantings are so far from reality that I find it fascinating.
Comment by sharon — 6/14/2006 @ 9:04 pm
Truth is an absolute defense. Coulter is right. Inelegant, certainly, but right nonetheless.
The so-called “Jersey Girls” have been, and continue to be, the veritable toast of the town out on the Seabord. They are now being held up in almost a Sheehanesque pose – “They Who Cannot Be Criticized”. They have achieved fame, monetary fortune, and notoriety far beyond what they could have ordinarily achieved in the normal arc of their collective lifetime.
And none of that would be the case today, had they not been married to individuals that were killed by islamofascism on that grim Tuesday morning.
If Ann Coulter can prevent them from becoming a multi-headed version of Sarah Brady, then more power to her, because that is exactly the direction that the so-called “Jersey Girls” are headed.
Comment by JD — 6/14/2006 @ 10:04 pm
Truth is an absolute defense.
To libel, but not to tactlessness and rudeness.
Don’t believe me? Try being perfectly honest with everyone you see tomorrow.
“Does my butt look big?” Never bigger, honey.
“Having heard my story, did I do the right thing?” Having heard your story, I’m surprised I’m still talking to such an idiot.
“Boss, you’re looking surprisingly ugly today.”
“Random large stranger, if you’re as stupid as you look, I hope to God you don’t vote.”
Etc.
Let me know how that works out for you. If you’re still alive at the end of the day.
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 10:11 pm
I wouldn’t say that it’s not fair so much as that it’s odd –iconsistent. If your blog contained frequent attacks on David Letterman’s monologs and South Park and the Darwin Awards and the many other vicious, cruel attacks that commedians level at unfortunate targets every day, then I’d understand your position about Ann Coulter. But the isolated attacks that you do make seem to constitute an oddly specialized primness.
Comment by Doc Rampage — 6/14/2006 @ 10:31 pm
I have this thing about mocking the relatives of dead terror victims.
Call me crazy . . .
Comment by Patterico — 6/14/2006 @ 10:38 pm
Rall entered a different plane of existence for me when I saw his dead soldier’s series of cartoons. And the “dating habits” of Iraq war vets, wow that was precious. He is a real C**t. If he himself were a combat vet from Iraq – now that would take balls. But these cartoons (mentioned above)? It is like my mocking Daniel Pearl’s commitment to journalism, oh that’s right – he died trying to do his job. I think Ted Rall may very well have precancerous cells mutating in his stomach right now. Pity.
Comment by Californio — 6/14/2006 @ 11:27 pm
I am not walking up to people and forcing my well-founded and truthful analyses on people. Neither is Coulter. Neither are you. She is an author, as are you. She is a pundit, as are you. And as such, people have to make an affirmative choice to find out what she is saying, what she has written: open a book, check the web, watch the television. It is not being foisted upon them, like some aggressive panhandler or a door-to-door Jehovah’s Witness group who can’t take “I worship Satan and kill kittens” for an answer.
It just so happens that she has put out a piece that is generating a lot of buzz, a lot of emotion, and so it is being covered five-by-five on all the media, but one thing is being lost in the fray: Factually, she is correct. No one is countering her on the facts, only the tone and timbre in which she presents them – a lack of what some folks would call “tact.”
And she is being pummeled for that, wrongly IMHO. But G-d bless her, by and large she is standing up and taking the heat. She is showing more wontons than 95% of the male punditocracy could ever dream of possessing.
Go back to the editor’s note of this post:
I have long since put Ted Rall in the “Scroll Wheel” category. I am no longer interested in anything he has to say – not because he is blunt in his criticisms of the right, but because he is dead wrong on his political outlook, and an arsehole to boot. Those who feel AC is wrong or an arsehole should do likewise, and let the results at the bookstand tell the tale.
Comment by JD — 6/15/2006 @ 10:20 am
nk, nope, that’s not me. Didn’t want to use my real name, had seen “Fletch” recently, went with it — seemed better than Babar. Sorry to disappoint.
Comment by TNugent — 6/15/2006 @ 10:32 am