Skip to comments.Ann Coulter and the Myth of Liberal Tolerance
Posted on 06/13/2006 5:41:32 AM PDT by Quilla
In the very first chapter of her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, Ann Coulter exposed the duplicitous character of those who demand[ed] campus speech codes, an end to intolerance, and hate speech laws while continually bearing-down on a single target when attacking conservative women their appearance. Now that Ms. Coulters latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and her defense thereof on numerous television appearances, has put the author, herself, in the cross-hairs of the left, can her personal evisceration be anything less than assured?
In her own prescient words, Coulter described the treatment liberals extend to their female adversaries:
More than any of their other hate speech, the lefts attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks.
She then points out that the women constantly being called ugly are not Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno or Madeline Albright. No, the party of inclusion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tolerance and Bella Abzug instead target the likes of Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and Katherine Harris. From Slander:
Journalists have called Linda Tripp Barracudaville, smelling of gunpowder and garlic,ugly and evil, and Howard Stern in a Fright Wig,a snitch and an ugly one at that.
Exemplifying the innumerable attacks upon her appearance, Newsweeks Evan Thomas had referred to Jones as some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks Superbly researched, in-depth commentary, indeed.
Additionally, as Coulter points out, referring to Ms. Harris:
Even polished, wealthy, Harvard educated, attractive women will be attacked for their looks if they get in the Democrats way.
In her December 1, 2000 article, Liberals Art of Trashing of Women, Marianne M. Jennings writes:
Katherine Harris, Floridas secretary of state, who dared halt county election boards Carnac routines to divine votes, has brought out the liberals caustic best. She has not only seized late-night comics insults, she has earned mainstream press bashing. The Boston Herald described her as looking just ghastly. The Washington Post wrote Mrs. Harris, seems to have applied her makeup with a trowel.
How marvelous is it, then, that when Coulter decides to comment on a particular group of New Jersey 9/11 widows and the previously sacrosanct subject of the women using their grief to make a political point, such devices would, ultimately, be turned against her?
Margaret Nagel, writing for the Huffington Post:
But because she could be considered in some circles attractive ( if you like the dyed blond, anorexic type which some men in America clearly do) she is continually given a platform on show after show to vent her twisted views on our world and not be challenged or seen as the heartless narcissist that she is.
On the June 9, 2006 edition of MSNBCs Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the self-indulgent host discussed the Jersey Girls situation with Democratic political analyst, Lawrence ODonnell. ODonnell was bloviating on how the Democrats would love for Coulter to step forward and become the Michael Moore of the right, but that she hasnt quite made it up to the Michael Moore level. The snooty Olbermann responded with:
Its kind of an uneven fight there. Shes not as talented as Michael Moore and shes not as attractive.
Cutting-edge analysis, Keith! Do you suppose Olbermann had ever paused to comment on how Hillarys choice of pants-suits often make her thighs appear chubby when asked to assess a Rodham Clinton political address?
Another disturbing ploy of the tolerant liberals is to question Anns sexuality. Steven Leser at OpEdNews.com typifies this particularly vile tactic:
Then again, there is that persistent rumor in the liberal blogosphere about Ann being a man in drag on account of her prominent Adams apple and masculine writing style. Maybe the prison entry physical will produce a shocking discovery. Can you imagine a tranny that looks like Ann being sent to mens prison?
Putting aside the blatant absurdity and sordid implications of these remarks, Mr. Leser would appear to be as confused about his identity, political, as his words would suggest Ms. Coulter is about hers, sexual. After all, is it not the politically-correct brigade of the left whose globe-improving missions include convincing the world that homosexuality, transsexuality, and any other deviant conduct ending in those same nine letters is, in fact, perfectly normal?
Why then, do we find viscous personal attacks annexed to virtually all condemnations of Ann Coulters thoughts and words? Perhaps she, herself, explains it best:
Liberals need not bother with logical persuasion as long as they can prey on peoples sense of weakness.
Most pathetically of all, while researching his Sean Penn fluff piece, cynically yet appropriately titled Citizen Penn, author John Lahr noticed a plastic Barbie-like doll propped against the fireplace. Penn explained it to be An Ann Coulter Doll and that We violate her. There are cigarette burns in some funny areas.
Sorrowfully, such a disquieting and cowardly practice epitomizes the elite lefts intellectual response to a woman who dares put their actions, language, ideologies and, yes, tolerance to the test whenever she speaks or writes.
I'm making this suggestion on every Coulter thread that I'm lucky to get into early on.
1. Go to your local Craig's List "Rants and Raves" section and post something positive about Annie.
2. Get cussed at and insulted.
3. Nuke the librat Annie hater in combat debate.
4. Watch the librat act like a three-year-old.
This is how I spend my free time. They're so humorous when they lose.
(BTW, that "Rants and Raves" isn't safe for work. LOTS of profanity, especially after I post there.)
What is Craig's List "Rants and Raves"?
I have bought her book now just to spite the drive by media and to thwart their religious goals.
You can probably get there through the links from where I post. Click here and find your city:
Why do you think I always put the word "liberal" in quotes.
"Liberals" are anything but.
They're all smug, arrogant, condescending and self-righteous fascist totalitarians.
Ann, a doughnut every once and a while is good for the soul!
You are right,that is fun :) but only for a short time, oh my blood pressure! My personal favorites are those that cannot spell the curse words they heap upon me. LOL
They are here. And they indeed are all ugly but what relevance does it have? Especially Chelsea Clinton, she's not even a political person that I am aware of and she didn't choose her parents.
I occasionally pile on too with the "ugly" comments but then I just click my screen name and look at my picture and tell myself, "Hey, you're not going to win any beauty contests either".
Now, now. We aren't allowed to say anything bad about the totalitarian swine.
At least that's the opinion of the infililtrators and nitwits around.
Oh, I've been addicted to it for a week now.
You should see 'em when I post my bumperstickers. Especially today.
How pathetic! And how pathetic does that make Penn and Company?
As for Olbermann, he gives Moore a run for the money in the avoirdupois department.
That jab alone... should propel your fannies to Barne & Noble.
Ummm .. I don't think the pantsuits are to blame
Yes and would be called on that fact by the libs but they can't see the irony when they do the same.
"Ann, a doughnut every once and a while is good for the soul!"
I second that! I think Ann is very pretty, and has a razor sharp insight. But I like a woman to have some curves not sharp angles.
I also think she slipped on the NJ women thing. I think she went over the top. She's right, as usual, but a touch on the insensitive side.
I've been complaining about this tendency for years...unfortunately it's some of my fellow Freepers who are guilty. I daresay if you tune into just about any Hillary thread, you won't get far before the "She so ugly" comments show up. Ditto any liberal woman.
I'm going to use the above Anne Coulter quote from now on to bolster my argument against this childish practice.
Of course, being sensitive actually wasn't fixing the problem, was it? I think this may just break down the barriers protecting liberal victim mongers from criticism.
What adam's apple???
The suggestion or attempt by New Jersey to ban Ann's book may very well be a precursor of what to expect if the Democrats take over the Congress. Democrats are leftist socialist revolutionaries so that would be no surprise.
The four Jersey women became millionaires as a result of their husband's deaths. They have chosen to become activists as though they were representing all widows and widowers as a result of 9/11. They are fair game in the political area. Going around stinking up the country with their unsubstantiated claims and charges against the current administration just serves to demonstrate their ignorance of the political process and their disdain for other victims of 9/11 who disagree with their assessments, IMHO.
"I think this may just break down the barriers protecting liberal victim mongers from criticism."
That is possible. If so, she once again proves she's smarter than I am.
Hmmmm..... I'm thinking......
Every criticism of Ann's comments about the Jersey girls has come from a critic who has not read her words and does not know what she wrote.
The libs need to be attacked in a direct fashion. And Ann is the point of the spear. An even more direct strategy is to confront the libs regarding their hate driven prejudicial stereotyping. There is nothing intellectually honest about the libs protestations.
Their hate -affair with GWB is telling and illustrative. Even an incurably incompetent GWB would have stumbled by chance onto some correct actions. But the perverse hate spewing left can never acknowledge even the most modest of intelligent human traits to someone they have worked so hard at demonizing and de-humanizing.
It is truly a terrifying display of raw hatred that we are witnessing. It is not rational. It is at it's root...pathological. It is precisely the kind of hatred that spawns murder and genocide. It is a hatred brewed up inside of a person intended to alleviate a deep inner ache. A dark inner wound. And once this hatred finds it's target it will not yield to logic or reason. It will relentlessly pursue it's target and revel in it's merciless and brutal destruction. Perhaps that's the deep root of kinship the libs and Islamonazis share. Lets face it, there is some kind of chemistry there. It may not have been love at first sight but I can see those two groups enjoying one big night of unified bawdy celebration at the news of GWB's demise.
GWB is the personification of everything hated in our post-modern world. He is a traditionalist. He is a man. He is a Christian. He is a Texan. He is a capitalist. And he is unapologetic.
Ultimately that is all that matters. He is guilty by design as are all of us who share any of those characteristics. GWB presents the perfect storm of personal qualities that makes him unworthy of not only the presidency, but life it's self. He pushes the nuclear destruct buttons of the liberal mind simply by speaking, by breathing, by being. He and his kind cannot and will not be tolerated by the tolerance set.
It is only through his destruction that they can affirm their humanity.
So to argue or debate these people on this or that issue is to honor their motivations and respect their intentions far more than they deserve. They have no intention of entering into a partnership of equals resulting in shared values and compromise. We are the enemy and their very lives depend on our defeat. Not the defeat of Islamonazis. Not the defeat of poverty, crime, racism, intolerance and ignorance.
In the simplistic hate filled mind of the modern lib all the ills of the world will suddenly dissolve when men and women like GWB cease to exists or at the very least are exiled to the back of life's bus. Placed as far from the controls as is necessary to insure we have no influence. And if we don't learn and accept our place, force will be quick and severe.
So Ann is the spear. She is placing a dagger directly in the heart of the demon by speaking the truth. And the demon is gnashing and thrashing about while the pretty frail blonde girl unflinchingly stares into the bowels of Hell. Reminds me of that scene from the exorcist. All the demons hysterically screaming and threatening and wailing...cause they know they've been found out and they've met their match.
More than any of their other hate speech, the lefts attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything. There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks. Ann Coulter
We weren't talking about attitude.
As a generalization, they are smug, hateful, spiteful, smarmy jerks who believe anyone who disagrees with them is a fascist idiot that doesn't deserve a voice in their precious Church Of The Tolerance State.
I've met my share of right-wing lunatics whom I consider dangerous - especially here at FR, but the percentage of main-stream liberals who are a threat to everyday freedom is truly scary.
OK, I read it and I think some of the commentary was unnecessary, in particular the comment about "we don't know if their husbands were going to divorce them".
However, her point about them holding up their loss as a shield against criticism and using it to lambaste this administration and any other conservative was certainly dead on target.
Yes, but everything we say about Helen Thomas is true. And even if she became a Republican conservative tomorrow...everything we say about Helen Thomas' looks will still be true.
The truth hurts, even when it's funny. Ann tells the unvarnished truth and the Libs can't take it. Kooks!
Liberals are only "liberal" until they get power.
They accuse her of being a man, being too skinny (as if that's a sin), or wearing pointy shoes :). That's the best they can come up with. Losers...:)
May I suggest you precede the term with so-called, like they do with partial birth abortion?
OK, I read it and I think some of the commentary was unnecessary, in particular the comment about "we don't know if their husbands were going to divorce them".
You ever been married to a harpie?
More like Sinking To Their Level.
I am sorry, folks. I agree with Coulter's substance 85% of the time, but I can't agree that there is a net gain in the way she deliberately taunts to draw leftist fire to demonstrate how easy it is to make them violate their own principles.
Take her Jersey Girls statement in the book. I was in a bookstore yesterday and read it in context, and Matt Lauer did a serviceable job blowing it out of proportion. Coulter's remark about the JG's 'enjoying' their husbands deaths was part of a much larger point. She spent several pages discussing the kid glove treatment of the likes of 9/11 widow Kristin Breitweiser -- who blamed Bush Administration figures for the deaths of that day repeatedly to the exclusion of the terrorists -- as opposed to Debra Burlingame, who also organized surviving family members for media fights, but was marginalized and insulted by the New York Times editorial page when she fiercely fought against the placing of a pan-cultural Blame America First museum on the Ground Zero grave of her husband.
There is no doubt that Coulter has a valid point: There is a liberal tendency to send authentically tragic but self-serving, intellectually dishonest spokespersons like Breitweiser, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Berg out before cameras and microphones, hoping they will inspire in fence-sitting observers their same distrust of everyone and everything right of center. But Dorothy Rabinowitz, an excellent Wall Street Journal writer who years previously broke the major print media embargo on Juanita Broaddrick's allegation of rape against Bill Clinton, wrote a lengthy treatise on the Jersey Girls that made the same point, but didn't come close to suggesting that they were somehow delighted they had traded their spouses for celebrity.
Rabinowitz, however, wasn't invited on Today or put on the cover of Time. Why not? IMHO, because the left-leaners who run those outlets didn't see any benefit in promoting someone whose opposing view did nothing but make sense. No, they needed someone who would be seen not as a counterbalance, but as an wild-eyed, scattershot display of the reasons why nobody but they in the MSM should be taken seriously. Enter Ann.
Haven't some of you Coulter Cheerleaders wondered why she gets more ink and face time than conservative females like Mona Charen, a pre-Reagan revolution columnist whose book Useful Idiots was everything Treason should have been, or Laura Ingraham, a former CBS News reporter and nationally syndicated talk show host? I believe it is because Coulter can be counted on to deliver a foot in the mouth spew that makes the less attentive say, "If you have to be that cruel/silly/tactless to be a conservative, I don't want to be one."
I speak from experience regarding that idea. Before the age of Rush, the only guys I read, heard or saw representing conservatism on a regular basis were the caustic columnist Jeffrey White, John Lofton, and Wally George/Morton Downey Jr. (same act, different coasts). Eventually, the more I learned, the more rightward I drifted -- no thanks to those guys.
You are correct. Freepers are frequently guilty of the same thing. Just look at the comments on Helen Thomas. There is plenty of substance on which to comment, with the attacks on her appearance.
Remind me never to flood your inbox with pictures of Hillary and Bill in North Korea.
That should have read "without the attacks on her appearance
You're right and I actually do use "so called" when I refer to "so called-liberals" many times. If I must.
yes - in male form. It's equally bad. Life got much better when he decided to split.
I understand your point but what we don't know is, were their political views the same as their husbands, ie might their husbands have approved of their use of this opportunity ? I sure don't know and I'm pretty sure Ann doesn't either.
That said, nothing Ann wrote detracted from the truth of her observation about unasssailable spokesmen from the left.
Sensitivity is just another word for political correctness, the breastwork the Jersey Girls hide behind. Strip them of that protection and they are exposed as the shrill, anti-American harpies that they are. We're at war and these people are as much the enemy as bin Laden. Nice does not win wars or insure security. Ask the Canadians.
I imagine there were a lot of military people during WWII who said many of the same types of things you are when the idea of the now infamous Dirty Dozen came up.
Fortunately, the Dirty Dozen did their thing in spite of the detractors. We were lucky to have them and have much to thank them for.
In much the same way Coulter has taken on a job that many have attempted, though few have made much progress.
She's out there in the muck, where the others were afraid to go. With great gusto she's taking bullets and it looks like shes getting the job done.
Like the Dirty Dozen, we're lucky to have her and have much to thank her for.
Bump for later reading.
I hurt my back a long time ago...I like em light.
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.