Posted on 08/03/2005 4:55:43 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
I have to admit I wasn't prepared for the venomous hate mail I received from dozens of rancorous men concerning my column on the nomination of John Roberts for the Supreme Court. Clearly I pressed a scaldingly hot button.
While some men politely couched their objections to my argument that putting another conservative white male on the Supreme Court was retrograde, many seem to have lost the power of reasoned speech and were reduced to raving profanities and comments about the headshot that accompanies my column.
I was called a racist, and one man, Royce Stanton of Charleston, S.C., (I am naming names) even sent me a ghoulish photo of an aborted fetus to "illustrate" how wrong-headed my pro-choice stance is. (Sorry Mr. Stanton, it didn't change my mind. It just made me think you are a right-wing wacko.)
Somewhere, out there in blogsland, there is a right-wing Web site that has posted my article and so, in addition to comments from thoughtful readers, I have drawn even more e-mail from rabid writers -- we used to call them rednecks -- across the land.
My basic argument reflected that of retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, that it was disappointing President Bush nominated a white man rather than a woman or a person of color to fill the vacancy. I stated it more robustly than O'Connor: I called it regressive. I said I was not quibbling with Roberts' legal credentials but with the appointment of another white man to the bench, which reminded me of the "Leave It to Beaver" 1950s when all TV dads were white guys and there was no such thing as legal abortion, equal rights or women running corporations. Instead there was McCarthyism, segregation and restrictions on the number of Jews going to medical schools.
I also expressed concerns about preserving Roe vs. Wade, which I consider a fundamental health-care right for women. This is a perspective most Americans hold although you'd never know it from the self-righteous zealots like Stanton who think extreme tactics will win converts to their points of view.
But the gist of my commentary was not about abortion rights, it was about the ill-advised nomination of another white man to the Supreme Court. It's a sad commentary when so many American men become so vitriolic about a female journalist expressing concern that there might be only one woman and one black man on our country's highest court. Hello?
I wonder how much mail Ann Coulter gets from ranting men of liberal persuasion? Probably not enough.
Here are excerpts from some of the printable letters I received:
"You reek of sour grapes and hatred. In your opening paragraph you deplore the 1950s as the 'land of Beaver' and 'white guys.' Sounds like to me you have a racial hatred problem, and could use some counseling. Rush Limbaugh was right on when he predicted you liberals would start mocking the John Roberts family for being too clean and wholesome."
Tim Steger, Ill.
"You make the common mistake of assuming that only those who are themselves minorities or women can adequately advocate the cause of those groups. You conveniently forget that 'white guys' have been responsible for most of the gains these groups have achieved in our society.
I was personally disturbed by the remarks of Justice O'Connor that she was disappointed that President Bush had not nominated a woman to replace her. I would have thought that her 25 years on the Supreme Court and her respect for the institution would have taught her that the legal qualifications and temperament of the candidate and not the candidate's gender should determine the choice."
Donald, River Forest, Ill.
"Without comment you quoted Ms. O'Connor, who stated [John Roberts is] 'good in every way except he's not a woman.' What would you say if a man made a similar comment about a woman nominee? You referred to Mr. Roberts as a 'staunch Catholic.' What would you say about someone who referred to Ms. Ginsburg as a 'staunch Jew'? You were worried that a Catholic would impose his right-to-life views if he was confirmed. Would you also be crossing your fingers that a black nominee would not impose his affirmative action views if he got confirmed?"
Dennis
"Summa cum laude at Harvard (magna cum laude, J.D.) coupled with 39 cases argued before the Supreme Court qualifies anyone as an exemplary jurist, regardless of ethnicity or gender. To be sure, there are other qualified jurists... but your critique that Mr. Roberts is not the right color or gender rings hollow. Just my $.02."
Michael
"Tough luck for you. Bush has made an excellent pick. How old were you in the '50s? It was a fine time to be growing up."
William
CHICAGOLAND PING
Another lib born with a silver hoof in her mouth - connected directly to her typing fingers.
It's much easier than defending an indefensible position.
??? I am looking for the rabid, red-neck hate speech and didn't see it?
Maybe she is afraid of dissent and that is why she has to couch her thin-skinned "moral outrage" that she shot herself in the proverbial foot? She thinks that her non-bigotry is a given, when in fact she herself gave rise to the charge by her statements.
I'll give her this, though. She printed some solid criticisms, without mockery.
I'd be surprised, though, if she ONLY got letters from white males. Unless the women were too busy caring for their unaborted fetuses to preach to a stone wall.
Dan
Reason went on vacation chez Jennifer
Good observation. Women have lesser rights thanks to Jennifer as their dissent must be hidden.
For a lefty, any disagreement is "venomous hate mail."
Another liberal RACIST!!
On the other hand, non liberal women believe in personal rights and responsibilities and understand that it's not our problem to fix her. :-)
It would seem so, these days.
Exactly. Just as "hate speech", is any speech lefties hate.
Correct. UF clueless.
Ann Coulter probably wishes she JUST got hate mail, but she has been physically attacked on more than one occasion. Until like Ann, this author gets a pie in the face, or shoved around, or booed off a stage, her complaints ring hollow.
She complained about hate speech coming her way but if the letters she chose to publish are supposed to illustrate that, she's clueless. All those letters, except for the first which was a little snide, were polite and civil.
Well, Little-Miss-Can't-Be-Wrong-Columnist, if the shoe fits, wear it!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.