Save the Sharks : James Dobson, Ted Kennedy and Ann Coulter

For those whose shark metaphors stalled on "Jaws," "jumping the shark" refers to the moment when something, usually a dramatic production, runs - or strays from - its course. Coined by Jon Hein (jumptheshark.com), the phrase evolved from the episode of "Happy Days" where the show's writers, apparently out of ideas, had Fonzie literally jump a shark while water skiing.

It was so over-the-top that the show was deemed dead by those who monitor such things. People are said to jump the shark when, desperate for ratings or attention, they make over-the-top statements.

Of late, we seem to have armies of shark-jumpers, from Dr. James Dobson to Sen. Ted Kennedy to Ann Coulter to my hands-down fave, Sen. James Inhofe - all of whom have taken their own mantras a trope too far. Through them, hyperbole and hysteria have formed an uncivil union, casting national debate into a miasma of self-mockery.

Let me put it this way: Dobson and Inhofe, who seem to think that the devil made gay people, make me want to marry a lesbian transsexual; Coulter, who has attacked a group of 9/11 widows to make a political point, makes me want to wash Cindy Sheehan's feet and hug a war protester; while Kennedy, who has been baying "bigot" about anyone objecting to same-sex marriage on even rational grounds, makes one yearn for the comforting sound of a car alarm.

No wonder Americans can't stand politicians, or that our nation has become a quagmire of insult and ad hominem. Here's a sampling of what has passed for debate in recent days.

Commenting on the proposed constitutional amendment to declare marriage a union only between a man and a woman, Dobson said during a recent chapel service (later broadcast on radio) that "marriage is under vicious attack ... from the forces of hell itself."

Same-sex marriage has plenty of intelligent, knowledgeable supporters and critics, from clergy to laymen to legal scholars. However this issue gets resolved, whether as a federal or state issue, the process can't be helped by implications that gays (our friends, family and neighbors) are evil for wanting to marry.

Meanwhile, if Satan's crib is what stimulates the Republican base, Democrats may enjoy an embarrassment of riches come November as rational conservatives seek saner company.

Giving you-know-who his due, perhaps Dobson was just joshin'. And perhaps Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., was just braggin' during the marriage amendment debate when, in a memorable show-'n'-tell, he displayed a poster-sized photo of his extended family and said:

"As you see here, and I think this is maybe the most important prop we'll have during the entire debate, my wife and I have been married 47 years. We have 20 kids and grandkids. I'm really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we've never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship."

Quite likely, the operative words here are "recorded history." I'm pretty sure our family Bible doesn't reflect the sexual orientation of our gay cousins, either, but just the same, Inhofe might consider dusting off the family rabbit's foot and padlocking the closets.

Kennedy, whose self-caricature is helping put political cartoonists out of business, has declared that all opponents to same-sex marriage are bigots. Right. And all opponents of state-mandated seat belts are child abusers. And anyone who disagrees with me is a moron. Next.

Finally, Coulter may have jumped the shark with her unfortunate tirade against the 9/11 widows in her new book, "Godless." Which is too bad because Coulter had a point that got lost amid the inevitable outrage.

Her point was that debate becomes strained to impossible when one of the gladiators on the other side has recently suffered a grievous loss. No one wants to challenge a wife whose husband has been killed - or a mother whose son has perished in battle - even if they have become public political players.

The opposition will always look like insensitive bullies, as does Coulter, who undermined her own message more than her critics could. Calling the widows "witches" and saying they were enjoying their husbands' deaths was chum to the other side.

Rabble-rousing, fear-mongering and race-baiting may keep local constituents happy, but none of it gets us where we need to go - toward sane remedies for a united nation. And, yes, happier days.

Your reading comprehension is pathetic. You either cannot grasp the meaning of what I've written, or you are deliberately taken what I wrote out of context, and then droning on and on and on about something I never said.

"So are the "gutless, moderate conservatives" the ones who don't agree with you on any given issue?"

No. They are those who are too quick to attack conservatives in order to appease the Left. If I write this sentence in French, will you comprehend it a bit better?

" That is good for debate and good for conservatives. But, God forid we should actually crticize any of our conservative pundits!"

No. It is fine to criticize elected representatives AFTER we have some basic information about the issue. To join with the Left and condemn or criticize before we have the basics, is to destroy any momentum we may need to see an issue that benefits America. It also gives them the confidence to shout with their shrill voices at anything and everything conservatives propose, as they have been doing for 6 years now. We didn't have these problems when Reagan was in office. Why not? Partly because we were unified and we were vocal in our defense of conservatism and of the issues conservatives support.

"But apparently, your definition of attack varies."

Here's your reading comprehension problem again. No, I was talking about the Leftist attacks on Coulter. They were wrong and the moderates who joined their attack were wrong because they responded to her statements taken out of context, before they had enough information to make a reasoned assessment. Do you see how this point ties in with the first one about, about the wrongfulness of this particular attack, and the wrongfulness of joining with the Left to attack conservatives BEFORE we really know what's going on. My argument on this thread is fairly tight and consistent. But you're reading particular lines and not understanding them and taking them out of context and going of on that.

"And please stop deflecting by pretending this is about calling people liars or opportunists. You and I know very well those are characterizations of actions and words relevant to the political issue."

It's not a deflection. The MSM and Democrats continually claim an "ad hominem" attack whenever conservatives point out these character issues. When we decided to put Slick Willie on trial for perjury, they said it was a character attack, that it was just about sex, etc. I'm sure I don't have to explain how they use the technique. ANY criticism
we level, they will spin into a personal attack.

"I have written letters to the editor blasting Moore in particular." OK. Kudos to you and to your son!

"And I'm the one engaging in "ad hominem" attacks for daring to question the morality of that?"

No, your ad hominem attack is in claiming to have "moral authority." The implication of that is that if someone disagrees with you they are being immoral.

You have accused me of being reactionary and of circling the wagons, which not what I have done. There is a difference in responding with a knee-jerk reaction to every incident and a general approach of not believing the Left -- since they have earned with their scandals and Rathergates only the honor of being mistrusted and doubted -- and immediately joining in with the attackers. The message of my many posts, and which you either haven't picked up or don't want to pick up is that our first "reaction" should be to question the opponent.

So perhaps our disagreement here is really only of two issues. One, you think there should never be attacks that appear personal. I think it's necessary once in a while. While I have studied formal logic and know that in debate these tactics may eventually be overcome, I have also studied rhetoric and know that in today's sound-bite world, a three-second personal attack, like one against W, sticks in people's mind. If we use the same tactic (with reservation and aimed accurately), two things will happen. One, the Left will be put on the defensive in order to discredit the attack. Calling someone an opportunist is a far more personal attack than what conservatives have used to date. Our representatives and defenders walk around like they're neutered...THEY handle the Left with kid gloves and are constantly defeated by them because of it. While our opponents are busy defending themselves, they will not be leveling new attacks. Look at the ground we lost with a drunken, hopped-up Kennedy ramming a police cruiser. He got away with that scot free. Had it been a Republican do you have any doubt that rep would be out of office by now? We should still be beating the drums until he is forced to resign his post.

Our second point of disagreement is over what Coulter's statements said. You think they were a gross personal attack that ruined the message she was trying to deliver. I don't see them as a personal attack. Vilify me for this if you want, but I don't. I've been writing socio-political columns under pseudonym for some time now. One thing I've learned is that as soon as someone steps into the public arena, the definition of "personal" changes. The Left bends that term like it's made of rubber to suit their particular situations. Kerry's war record? That's "personal"? The sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter? The country has a right to know. I think Coulter was caustic in attacking their political actions, their taking advantage of a political opportunity that only arose because of their loss. They exploited their tragedy. That's pretty disgusting in my book. The clearest example of such abuse is how the Democrats turned a funeral into a DNC rally. I think her words are controversial and I think it is in part done to sell books. But if she is stirring up discussion and getting conservative ideas out there, and if she does so with controversy, I have no problem with that. I think Moore is an unintelligent liar who hates America. And I also know fairly intelligent people who watched his movie and decided not to vote for W because of his movie, even after I gave them the list of 50+ lies in his movie. The point? Though they do not have truth, fact, and history on their side, they have won and they are winning because of their superiority in the art of political warfare, because of their underhanded tactics. We need to take those tactics away from them -- not by making them regular tools in our arsenal, but by occasionally using them so as to render them useless by both sides.

Believe me, I understand your sentiment about never stooping to their level, but it simply hasn't worked. Coulter is experimenting with the tools of political warfare, just as Michael Savage is (not a huge fan), and they are both reaching wider and wider audiences. I think we've both vented sufficiently on this issue.

You make a great analogy with the "Nazi" question. In another thread, someone defended personal attacks by arguing that politics is a "contact sport." That actually sets up another analogy.

Let's say Team Conservative and Team Liberal are facing off in a football game. Team Liberal decides to put a girl in as their quarterback. They assume that no one would dare play tough against a girl and she could practically waltz to the goal line. The linebacker for Team C says, "The heck with that. If they're gonna put her in the game I'm gonna go after her just like I would anyone else." Fair enough. If they put her in, she has to play the game like everyone else. So far, so good.

So the play starts. The girl from Team L throws an incomplete pass. The linebacker from Team C, eager to make his point, grabs the quarterback by the face mask and hurls her to the ground long after the ball was already on the ground. The referee throws a flag. The linebacker from Team C says, "Hey, I'm just treating her like I would treat anyone else! Why does she get special protection?"

But the quarterback isn't getting any special protection. He was roughing the passer and the call would be the same if the quarterback had been a guy.

But, Team C cries, "Team L always pulls stunts like that and the ref almost never throws a flag against them. We're just responding in kind."

That very well may be true. But it doesn't erase the fact that it was a dirty play. Our side shouldn't do dirty plays (a)because we should be above that. We should be doing what is right and (b)because it is counterproductive. Even if the other team gets away with it, we won't. Instead of a play that resulted in no progress for Team Liberal, we wind up spotting them 15 yards.

I'll take you at your word regarding "gutless, moderate conservatives" as it pertains to the knee-jerk reaction to on the UAE deal. In Coulter's case, however, that simply isn't true. All the facts were there. Coulter was given every opportunity to address them and she made no attempt to backtrack from it. As I've said repeatedly, the full context was made both on Lauer's show, from which the controversy sparked, and in subsequent interviews.

Your references to the characterization of liars and opportunists are, indeed, a deflection because that was not the issue at hand in Coulter's situation. I agree that it is fair game to call opponents on their lies, exploitations, etc. I understand that the dominant media will distort the legitimate charges and characterize them as attacks. But we don't need to help them along by actually making personal attacks, which is what Coulter did. I suppose your attitude is, we're gonna get blamed with personal attacks anyway, so we might as well make them. I can understand that. But, as you can see, there are varying degrees and the media can always make it worse when we really do use personal attacks.

As for your assertion that my claim to have moral authority is an attack on you, by implying you are immoral, you might not understand what the term "moral authority" means. "Moral authority" refers to one's credibility on a particular issue. Bill Clinton, for example, has no moral authority to question G.W.'s military service, because Clinton lied to get out of the draft. It has nothing to do with his personal morality per se -- it has to do with the issue at hand. Henry Hyde, for example, was embarassed when he blasted Clinton for violating his marriage vows because Hyde had had an affair with a married woman when he was younger. Now, I happen to think Hyde has morals but, in that case, he had no moral authority to condemn Clinton. See? Moral authority isn't a measure of morals, it is about having legitmate ground upon which to make a stand. If I'm going to excuse Coulter for making personal attacks, I have no moral authority to complain when Franken does it.

You are right that our first reaction should not be to automatically side with the left, but, as I've said repeatedly, that isn't the case here. Coulter has been given ample opportunity to make her case, and I simply don't buy her defense.

On the contrary, I think the Wellstone Funeral and Michael Moore illustrate how we are winning the battle for American hearts and minds. I don't think you give the American people enough credit for being able to see what is going on. The voters were disgusted by the left's exploitation of the funeral and that was reflected in the election. Likewise, I think the American people were repulsed by the rhetoric of Michael Moore and George Soros, which is why Bush won. Even people who may not love Bush don't take kindly to their wartime leader being likened to Hitler. I think Bush garnered a lot of good will over that, especially since he didn't try to shut down Moore's film the way Kerry tried to with the Swiftboat Ads. I think taking the high ground is what has helped us.

Beyond that, I don't think there is any point in us arguing over what you consider a personal attack, since you think personal attacks are fair game anyway. The bottom line is, we have a different pespective on what we think is the best way to advance our cause. I appreciate you hearing me out and your sincere attempt at understanding. I, too, think we've said all there is to say, but I'll leave you with the last word, if you like.

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.