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.
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.
Okay?
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.
You're comparing Ann Coulter to actual soldiers? That's a stretch Plastic Man wouldn't attempt.
I'll readily admit that we are fighting for ideas, not land, and we are using words, not bullets.
That you are unaware that we are involved in a battle................I'll let that speak for itself.
I thought we supplied Canada's security...?
Me too.
I have to agree with you there. I see this a lot on FR. It's particularly bizarre when the liberal woman in question clearly ISN'T ugly. I do wonder about those whose first or most persistent argument is "She's ugly." Surely there are far better arguments than that.
I've made it my personal mission to even things out, though. Whenever a male lib is being discussed, I'll try to inject, "What an ugly, fat pig," regardless of how attractive the man might actually be. ;-)
The violent death of a loved one can make harridans of any of us.
My father was murdered many years ago. I used his death by building tributes to him in the form of service agancies and resource centers dedicated to the people he served. There is a natural progression in this that is appropriate and normal. Becoming a partisan hack, however, does nothing to elevate the memory of a loved one lost to tragedy.
Ah yes, we have. But the difference is we are not pretending to be "objective journalists" like those who trash conservative women.
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.