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. Coulter’s 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 left’s 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, Newsweek’s 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, Florida’s 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 MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the self-indulgent host discussed the “Jersey Girls” situation with Democratic political analyst, Lawrence O’Donnell. O’Donnell was bloviating on how the Democrats would love for Coulter to step forward and become the Michael Moore of the right, but that she hasn’t quite made it “up to the Michael Moore level.” The snooty Olbermann responded with:
“It’s kind of an uneven fight there. She’s not as talented as Michael Moore and she’s not as attractive.”
Cutting-edge analysis, Keith! Do you suppose Olbermann had ever paused to comment on how Hillary’s 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 Ann’s 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 Adam’s 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 men’s 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 Coulter’s thoughts and words? Perhaps she, herself, explains it best:
“Liberals need not bother with logical persuasion as long as they can prey on people’s 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 left’s intellectual response to a woman who dares put their actions, language, ideologies and, yes, tolerance to the test whenever she speaks or writes.
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.
LOL
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 left’s 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?
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.