Posted on 06/12/2006 6:52:54 PM PDT by NotchJohnson
I was reading Ann Coulter's "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," when all the hell broke loose last week. At that point I had not reached the chapter which contained her comments on the 9/11 widows ... so I didn't see the firestorm coming. Now we have Coulter being portrayed as an alien monster and elected officials demanding that her book be banned.
Did Ann Coulter go over the edge a bit with her comments about The Jersey Girls? Possibly. Rather than write that they were enjoying their husband's deaths in the Twin Towers, perhaps Coulter could have said that they were enjoying the attention they've been getting since the terrorist attacks. That comment would have been certainly correct, and far less inflammatory.
The fact is that in her general comments about these 9/11 widows, Coulter got it essentially right. The left most definitely has refined the technique of taking someone deserving of a great deal of public sympathy, and then turning that person into a propaganda machine for the left. The obvious goal here is to create a spokesman that cannot be attacked ... one who's essentially bulletproof. Cindy Sheehan certainly fits that bill. The left would have us believe that to attack anything said by these people is off limits due to the suffering they have experienced. We saw this very concept at work in the defense of Sheehan.
When you think about it, Hillary Clinton has even approached this bulletproof status in some ways. She's a woman, and she's a woman who has endured public humiliation at the hands of her philandering husband. As such, some would say that she is beyond criticism. We've seen examples-a-plenty where Hillary's critics have been criticized for saying such things about a woman, and a long-suffering loyal wife at that!
Back to Coulter's book. I think it is brilliant. Sure, I might not agree with her characterizations of the 9/11 widows, but the larger point she was making there was wholly valid. Throughout the entire book Coulter does an excellent job of showing liberals for what they are. It is one of the most effective and hard-hitting writings of the absurdities, inconsistencies, and outright lies of today's dominant liberal elite in this country.
That is why Ann Coulter must be destroyed!
What you saw last week .. and will see continue into this week ... is a driven attempt by the left in this country, and especially the leftist media, to so completely demonize Ann Coulter as to destroy here effectiveness as a writer and conservative pundit. The focus will continue to be on this one portion of the book relating to the professional widows, without any commentary on the thousands of other very valid points she brought up. Ann Coulter sells a hell of a lot of books. There is no liberal writer out there who comes close, a point not lost on the left.
So, how far is the left willing to go in their efforts to destroy one of our best conservative writers? Well, we now have two New Jersey Democrats (state legislators) who have announced that they want Coulter's books banned in New Jersey. That's right. Banned. They weren't happy just to urge people not to buy the book, they actually want to use the police power of the New Jersey State Government to prevent the books from being sold in the first place! This is America? They're names, by the way, are Joan Quigley and Linda Stender. We'll note that unless we have some rather odd family names at work here, they're both women. These two ladies issued a press release last Friday that was carefully crafted to contain two dominant leftist trigger words. In that release they said;
"Ann Coulter's criticism of 9-11 widows, whose only desire since the attacks have been to repair their shattered lives and protect other families from the horrors they have experienced, is motivated purely by petty greed and hate. .... Coulter's vicious characterizations and remarks are motivated by greed and her desire to sell books . . . She is a leech trying to turn a profit off perverting the suffering of others."
You got the two trigger words, didn't you? "Greed" and "hate." Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon by liberals is "greedy" and any person who expresses an idea contrary to basic liberal dogma is preaching "hate." How shallow these people are.
At any rate ... please don't let the left scare you off. They've taken one paragraph from an excellent book and are using that section in an attempt to have Ann Coulter banished to some writer's leper colony on the dark side of the Moon. Hopefully they're boosting sales, rather than hurting them.
Good point and exactly why I am going to buy a few of these books and give them to friends. Probably wouldn't have bothered if there wasn't this crusade by the Democrats. She must be right on to get this much flak.
Or perhaps Ann should have suggested that the Jersey Girls were Nazis.
Further, what if Ann had said it was ALL THEIR FAULT that their husbands died, because they could have kept those men from going to work that day.
Not only that, apparently these women did not rush into Manhattan as soon as the first plane hit. It follows that apparently they did nothing to try to help their husbands. Ergo, 9/11 and what happened to their husbands is all their fault.
It's not just the libs. Many people posting to the thread linked below were hard to distinguish from the frothing libs.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1645249/posts
Anne can never be destroyed by the left,only by weak hearted conservatives.
Just like Real Conservatism.
It's pretty obvious. Just like the ones who make the young men fired up on testosterone remarks are likely aging men listening to their old Bob Seger albums and on their way out of "the game".
Quite a number of Ann's admirers are women, actually. Like the oft-repeated myth that most pro-lifers are men, the idea that most of Ann's fans are young men is ludicrous.
-- ---
She could have said "enjoying the results of their husband's deaths..."
But her version makes the libs go hyperbolic looney, so I still like her version.
I often feel sorry and embarrassed for Hannity. The poor guy is as dumb as a bag of rocks and wouldn't know a rational analysis of a contemporary issue if it bit him on the ankle. Like the Demagogue-in-Chief, Limbaugh, Hannity's entire world consists of generalization and universal assumptions based on either nothing but his most fervent wish or some wild, bizarre anecdote. He worships slimeball politicians and wannabes who offer exploitive compliments like ''you're a great American'' ---and he buys that crap. He's joy to tune in just for the smiles, snickers and laughs at his density.
But, has anyone else noticed that National Review has been completely silent on the subject of "Godless"?
Lowry made a mildly snarky remark on some show pertaining to Coulter's commercial draw.
The fact that NRO has not seen fit to comment, defend, or promote is telling...but then, they need donations and Ann doesn't.
I hope Ann writes them a nice check. Really, I do.
Name the individuals Rush has demagoged.
Also post the lies he has told about them.
I'm quite the Ann fan, but to tell the truth, I like her better in print than on these pundit shows. She sure flips that mane around, which may not be a good idea while striding toward fifty. I enjoyed tonight on Hannity, though, when she got a little outrageous, calling the liberal NJ assemblyman a "no-name polititian" and acting a little offended that she had to share the stage with a nonentity. It was funny as heck.
I agree, that is mean. Bob Seger's too good a man for that kind of treatment. The rate the detractors are headed around here, I am beginning to think that an old 45 of Napoleon XIV might be more suitable.
Hey, she does at least lurk on here. In fact, a FReeper a while back scored a link and quote on her website a while back.
"When you think about it, Hillary Clinton has even approached this bulletproof status in some ways. She's a woman, and she's a woman who has endured public humiliation at the hands of her philandering husband. As such, some would say that she is beyond criticism. We've seen examples-a-plenty where Hillary's critics have been criticized for saying such things about a woman, and a long-suffering loyal wife at that!"
It began with Hillary, it's been perfected with all the other grieving protesters since then. Thank goodness for Ann Coulter exposing it finally.
I bought it over the weekend. I'm amazed that the left jumped over chapters 1-4 to yell about one paragraph in chapter 5. There's lots of stuff in the previous chapters to chew on.
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.