Via Instapundit:
ED MORRISSEY: "Ann Coulter, meet Ted Rall."
Hugh Hewitt: "Ann Coulter owes an apology to the widows of 9/11, and she should issue it immediately. This is beyond callous, beyond any notion of decency. It is disgusting."
My general strategy these days is to ignore Coulter (Ted Rall, too), and if everyone did that things would be better. But yes, this deserves to be condemned. Of course, she's managed to troll Hillary into condemning her, probably assuring a bestseller slot.
Don't feed the trolls.
Okay, we are taking the easy way out and quoting Glenn Reynolds who in turn quotes others. Why? Because I watched Ann Coulter's original interviews yesterday, the ones causing so much controversy today and, I'm sorry all you p.c. fanatics out there, even you conservative ones, I have to agree with Coulter. Would I have been quite so harshly personal in my own remarks, no, probably not, but that does not change her core point. Coulter essentially makes the point that those who were relatives of the victims of 9/11 who have chosen to "go political" and "go public" lose their right to "victim" status. She also makes the point that the reason the left wants them to retain the "poor victim" status is so you or I or she cannot adequately respond or refute the partisan remarks they make in their political speeches and activism simply because they are relatives of victims. Coulter's argument is correct and the p.c. crowd are just flat wrong.
Coulter does not trash "victims" she trashes those who trade on their pseudo-victim status, wearing it like a badge and then hiding behind that status so that their remarks take on some kind of "godlike" pronoucements. We saw it with Cindy Sheehan. No matter what she did, whether it was cavort with communists or align with the craziest of crazies, we were supposed to let her spew her venom because she was supposed to be a grieving mother. This is hogwash.
Ed Morrisy says:
Whether Rall or Coulter says it, impugning the grief felt by 9/11 widows regardless of their politics is nothing short of despicable. It denies them their humanity and disregards the very public and horrific nature of their spouses' deaths.
Sure it would be despicable if that is what Coulter did or is doing. She isn't. I'm shocked that Ed so twists the situation. No one is impugning the grief except the women themselves. They are wearing it on their sleeve and saying, "nah nah nah nah, you can't touch me, I can say any despicable thing I want, because I'm grieving." And how any of this denies them their humanity is beyond me. The terrorists denied their loved ones their humanity. As far as I can see, those on the campaign trail and out disparaging the President, our troops, and the entire enterprise put in motion because of the loss to the entire nation are the ones who are despicable and emotionally denying humanity to everyone else.
These women ARE NOT victims. They are the relatives of victims. They deserved our comfort and caring, but at some point they need to sit down and shut up or move on in their grief from the anger stage to the acceptance stage. They've made millions of dollars and Ann points it out. I don't begrudge them the money. I don't begrudge them their grief. I understand grief. I went into a total tailspin after my Mother died in 2004. But, like a friend said to me, "get over it, get on with your own life."
I expect this controversy will remain in the news until another one comes along. One thing is a given, the left wing needs its victims and it needs to convince you that you are a victim, whether of 9/11 or racism, or sexism, or gayism or whatever ism in order to control you. If you don't believe me, look at how the illegal aliens have been turned into our latest victims. The "Jersey Girls" are out stumping for the likes of John Kerry and cutting campaign commercials, this makes them politicos and makes their crying and grief a campaign strategy first and to say we cannot respond because a relative of theirs was killed on 9/11 is hogwash and makes me extremely angry. Ed, Glenn, Hugh, et al ... you are flat out wrong! You are wimping out on this one.
Related:
Unfortunately, lost in all the hype and hyperbole on both sides is the central point about the absolute moral authority the MSM confers on victims they agree with--while victims whose politics they do not share can't get the time of day. Ann told Sean Hannity today she hopes her comments will demolish the "liberal infallibility" the MSM confers on its faves. (Video here.) Ironically, IMO, the facade has already eroded considerably--thanks to new media, talk radio, Fox News, etc. Case in point here. [... more]
I remember the Rabinowitz piece well. If you haven't read it, read it now. If you have read it, like me, you will likely want to re-read it. I can't say that I agree with all of Coulter's comments. In fact, I agree with Captain Ed, especially about Coulter's comment, "I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." Ann Coulter was right, though, about the way the MSM treats people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan. The same "moral authority" declared for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls is not extended to all victims, though. Just ask Debra Burlingame. Ann Coulter raises a good point about the way those on the Left use victims to attack the President, and then claim them to be beyond reproach due to their victim status. I just wish she chosen her words more carefully.
Yep, the blogosphere’s all abuzz with chatter about Ann Coulter ripping on a bunch of left-wing 9/11 widows. The “Jersey Girls,” I guess–funny, I’d never heard of them until Ann Coulter and all the outraged pundits on the internets brought them to my attention. (All publicity is good publicity, etc….)
I know Ann Coulter drives people crazy with her rhetoric, BUT…who here hasn’t criticized that “Mother” Sheehan moonbat in the same way? What’s the difference?
Maybe Hugh Hewitt hasn’t. I’m not too sure if there are too many others on our side (or from the left, for that matter) who haven’t, though. Lord knows we at MVRWC certainly have. I just don’t care about this group, although I suppose all this publicity for them is going to force me to notice them now.
:yawn:
How is this not accurate? Well, the enjoying their deaths part is a bit over the top but she is trying to make a point, and bloggers such as Ed Morrissey, Rick Moran, & Hugh Hewitt are helping Ann make the point by denouncing Ann's comments as cruel to the widows. They can't be touched because they lost their husbands. Baloney.
Is it harsh? Sure. A small number of widows have made claim to a moral authority on the War against Terror. They cannot be questioned because their husbands died…..give me a effin break. Why must everyone tiptoe around these things? Always PC, gotta make sure no one is offended.
But she [Coulter] was indeed accurate. ... much more
The Anchoress, while essentially agreeing with Coulter's main point, takes a far more temperate view and has issue with Coulter's harsher remarks:
The fact is if someone on the left, a Ted Rall or someone, used Coulter’s words against Burlingame, or a Gold Star Mother who publically supports the war, it would be reprehensible, and we’d be all over him for it. When someone in grief has decided to exploit that grief politically it is incumbent upon the rest of us to (once their actions have moved beyond grief and into giddy activism) question whether their motives are entirely pure…but it is absolutely necessary that we do so in a temperate manner that does not bring us down into the muck, or take the focus off of the issue at hand. In the end, all Coulter did was discredit herself and make the rest of us look very mean-spirited and grotesque…her valid point is lost in her inflammatory rhetoric; she does that all the time. Ugh.
Having said all that, if there were ever two women who absolutely deserve to go at each other it’s Coulter and Hillary Clinton. Coulter oversteps and Clinton (ever-brave when she is at absolutely no risk to herself) exploits. And Coulter comes back with a right hook that should effectively shut Clinton down. Two women who consistantly leave themselves open for shots to the chin. Coulter, I think - even though I don’t much like her - is still the braver of the two, and she takes round 1.
Ding, Ding! Back to your corners, girls and don’t swallow that stuff in your mouths, it’s pure poison; just spit it out. ... more
And leave it to MacRanger to sum things up nicely:
Ooooh! I like it. Straight shot to "center mass".
Somebody book her on Countdown with Keith (spitwad) Olbermann!
I'm getting a copy and post a review later.
UPDATE: Coulter's getting taking flak for her take on the "Jersey Girls". Michelle Malkin reminds that Coulter isn't the only one with an opinion on the JG's politics and agenda.
As on cue Hugh Hewitt gets on his high horse again. Hugh, Ann may not be subtle, but someone had to say it.
Nuff said.
UPDATE:
David Letterman: Ann Coulter Is A Bitch Who Should Be Murdered By OJ Simpson
Bah-ZINNNGGG! As a lot of people noted yesterday, while some conservatives pile on Coulter's over-the-top statements, the liberals indulge in murder-fantasies with impunity. And so it goes. Dave? Look, you were big in the eighties. But you're old. And irrelevant....
You're right. I argued, respectfully, with the Anchoress, and have made similar comments elsewhere.
The only problem I have now is with defenders of Ann screaming at her detractors on the right. I say, "Chill, Jerks! We are entitled to our opinions and so are they!"
Sheesh! Calm down, everybody. The Jersey Girls aren't worth a sibloing fight, y'know?
Posted by: benning | 08 June 2006 at 10:53 AM