Battered Conservative Syndrome: Defending Ann Coulter [Big Lizard: BEST defense of GODLESS yet!]

BigLizards.net ^ | June 9, 2006 | Hatched by Dafydd

[RonDog]

Battered Conservative Syndrome: Defending Ann Coulter
[Big Lizard: BEST defense of GODLESS yet!]

Er, better make that:

BEST defense of GODLESS yet -- from someone who is NOT Ann Coulter herself!

NO ONE defends Ann better than -- Ann!

[Recovering Ex-hippie]

I agree completely with you.
Ann Coulter is right...she has the guts to talk about what is real...she throws cold water in your face with reality!

Ann talks outloud about the elephant in the room.

She must have hit a nerve cause the Jersey Ladies and the Libs are sooo defensive about this!

[RonDog]

Thanks!

And here is the SECOND BEST defense of Godless yet -- IMHO, from:

Book Review: Coulter Attacks the Cult of Liberalism
Human Events ^ | June 5, 2006 | Lisa De Pasquale
Posted on 06/05/2006 6:46:45 AM PDT by boryeulb

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," HUMAN EVENTS legal affairs correspondent Ann Coulter lays out one of the most original and perceptive philosophies on the cult of liberalism.

Get Yours FREE!

She states, "Under the guise of not favoring religion, liberals favor one cosmology over another and demand total indoctrination into theirs. The state religion of liberalism demands obeisance (to the National Organization for Women), tithing (to teachers' unions), reverence (for abortion), and formulaic imprecations ('Bush lied, kids died!'' 'Keep your laws off my body!' 'Arms for hostages!'). Everyone is taxed to support indoctrination into the state religion through public schools where innocent children are taught a specific belief system, rather than, say, math."

For years liberals have relied on a strategy of faking out the American public in order to win elections. Instead of accurately articulating their beliefs and engaging in an honest debate, they scour the nation for the perfect patsy. A hysterical mother who is willing to go on national television and call the President a "furor" and "evil maniac" is akin to seeing the stigmata. Liberals' ecstasy over Cindy Sheehan, Max Cleland, and the widows who made a spectacle of themselves in the midst of the 9/11 Commission epitomizes their secret weapon for winning back America -- a doctrine of infallibility in which victory goes to the most hysterical.

As Coulter writes:

Finally, the Democrats hit on an ingenious strategy: They would choose only messengers whom we're not allowed to reply to. That’s why all Democratic spokesmen these days are sobbing, hysterical women. You can't respond to them because that would be questioning the authenticity of their suffering. Liberals haven't changed the message, just the messenger. All the most prominent liberal spokesmen are people with "absolute moral authority" -- Democrats with a dead husband, a dead child, a wife who works at the CIA, a war record, terminal illness, or as a last resort, being on a first-name basis with Nelson Mandela.

Like Oprah during Sweeps Week, liberals have come to rely exclusively on people with sad stories...

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[D-fendr]

busted-give-a-damn-bump

[RonDog]

I also like THIS one:

Doubting Coulter -- At First
(Press release politics not best venue for discussing personal loss)
The American Prowler ^ | 6/9/2006 | Mark Gauvreau Judge
Posted on 06/08/2006 10:59:21 PM PDT by nickcarraway

I was ready to give up on Ann Coulter. Even as a fan and a strong conservative, I found her questioning of the 9/11 widows in Godless hysterical and heartless. I thought it sad that such a brilliant mind had become unhinged. Saying that the Jersey Girls, the four women who lost husbands at 9/11, were "enjoying" their husbands' deaths? Ann -- time for rehab.

But then I saw the response from Kristen Breitweiser and the other 9/11 widows. Despite myself, against myself, a small fissure found its way into my disappointment. Don't bring it up, I told myself. To question grieving people is an attack not on their politics but their personhood. It is beneath you. Let it go.

But the more I saw the Jersey Girls' press release, the more that fissure widened. They defended their criticism of the lack of preparation for 9/11 -- a lack they claim continues to this day -- and called for civil right oversight, stronger border security, and better defense at ports and airports. Before the list came this: "Contrary to Ms. Coulter's statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day."

I read that, and a thought came to mind. I tried to push it away, ignore it. But I simply could not get that line out of my mind: "there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive."

But I couldn't get around it.

What person describes the death of a loved one in such detail?

Think about it. Think about people you've loved who have died, and how they died. When I was in high school in the early 1980s a friend was killed in a devastating driving accident There was an open casket at the funeral, and afterwards me and a group of buddies went to the roof of one of their houses and sat there talking all night. We talked about football, girls, sadness, the weather, depression, our parents -- everything except what we saw in that coffin. To this day it's referred to as "the night Dale (not his real name) died." Ten years ago, my father died of cancer. I can hardly bring myself to say the word, much less describe what he looked like and went through in the last months. When I meet someone who had a loved one suffer a similar fate, the conversation always trails off when we mention our common story. One of us will mutter, "it's a terrible thing," then change the conversation.

Curse me, I know I'm going to hell for this:

Why did the Jersey Girls describe the deaths of their husbands with such startling precision?

"Men that we loved burned alive..."

CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread

[randog]

Sums it up pretty well.

[Lurker]

Coulter has it nailed this time.

I'll back her up 110% any time, any place.

It's disgusting that there are members of this forum who have more than once insinuated she's a racist.

L

[Stepan12]

[Tribune7]

bump

[MHGinTN]

"But if you're a reasoning human being, you don't allow empathy to leap up your throat and strangle your brain ..." Geez, sounds like Ann! Thanx for posting this long but very insightful article. I just found another blog to read regularly!

[Stepan12]

Ann talks outloud about the elephant in the room. She must have hit a nerve cause the Jersey Ladies and the Libs are sooo defensive about this!

Maybe we can set the Libbie screams about Ann to some nice music. Or even use rap for the screams and make a lot of money that way.

*~<]:o)@@ = the clown

"Better to be wanted by the police than not wanted at all."

Anonymous

[fish hawk]

after reading a few of your posts this afternoon and this evening, I believe that this article should be mandatory for you to read. Almost as if it was written for you.

[Soul Seeker]

If you're a human being, you feel sorry for people who have suffered great tragedy. But if you're a reasoning human being, you don't allow empathy to leap up your throat and strangle your brain: you control it; you take a step back and ask whether We are the evidence ever means anything more than "Shut up," she explained.

Precisely right.

And, sorry folks, this wimpishness among some of the people on the right is of no value whatsoever. It's the same thing that got Delay booted from the Senate for fabricated charges.

Look, I have been critical of Ann. Mainly since her Roberts column. It was beneath her. Not because it was harsh, but because it was a sloppy mess. Souter is not Roberts, and Roberts is not Souter. Yet the majority of her columns fixated on Souter and the past, her fears, not the wealth of material that DID exist about Roberts approach to law.

That isn't the case here.

She's right.

100%.

And anyone that automatically damns her for stating they seem to have enjoyed their husband's death, applies a sense of morality to these women that they have not exhibited.

They used their dead husbands to get on the news and pursue a political agenda. Just as Wilson used his wife, with her approval, to get attention. Just as Berg uses the best part of him (His heroric son) to get attention. Just as Cindy uses her heroric son to get attention. There are names for people like this, and Ann uses some of them.

Yes, there are 9-11 families that sprung up to defend the war and even the administration. But how many of them do you see drifting off into discussing the issue of abortion? They speak because morally deficient women like the Jersey Women have claimed the voice of the families of 9-11, and they haven't the right to do so. That's why the others came forward. But to my knowledge they haven't become spokesmen/women for the RNC reading off their daily talking points.

They enjoy their fame, the power they feel it gives them to claim superiority over anyone that didn't lose a loved one. And I do NOT believe if given the choice, they'd choose to have their husbands back without hesitation for the loss of power/attention they've received since.

[Hoosier-Daddy]

They're using their grief to score political points. That opens them up to scrutiny and criticism. Case closed. They crossed the line of decorum, NOT Ann Coulter. Once again, the Dims are using people for their own political agenda and ends. I for one am glad she's calling them on it.

[Crazieman]

Dafydd ab Hugh rocks.

[Steely Tom]

And don't forget the caterwauling that came from the left at the tinyiest sign that President Bush might utilize any image, no matter how oblique, relating to the 9/11 attacks, in his 2004 campaign, or at any other time. This while the Jersey Girls were actively assisting Kerry in his campaign, even to the extent of appearing with him at rallies and in commercials.

And the left has no difficulty getting away with this, thanks to covering fire from its friends in the MSM.

[Lurker]

Why? He'll just imply that she's a racist again.

L

[Lancey Howard]

Wow! This is excellent. Great find!

[jwalburg]

Who is this guy? He's good. A sample: About conservatives embarrassed over Ann's book-- Huddled in a defensive crouch, they labor to prove that they are too decent, they are so sympathetic -- they attack Coulter to prove their own chivalric honor.