June 9, 2006

Battered Conservative Syndrome: Defending Ann

Hatched by Dafydd

All right, folks; put on your manly gowns, gird up your loins, and go tell the Spartans: I'm about to defend Ann Coulter. And not by sweeping her words under the rug and blubbering "but she's a good girl in spite of the horrid things she says!"

No no, not Big Lizards style. I defend the very words she used and bat the ball right back across thet net at the liberals and their conservative "enablers."

But first, let's jump in the wayback machine and speed back through the ages to 1991. Connie Chung had just had her special on breast cancer the year earlier, in which she first floated the meme -- with never a shred of scientific evidence -- that silicone breast implants cause breast cancer.

Huh?

Oh just read on, for heaven's sake.

We are the evidence!

In 1991, Oprah Winfrey had a show on the topic, and she invited a spokesman from Dow Corning, against which the anti-breast-implant mob had already begun to file the thousands of lawsuits that were to drive the company into bankruptcy just a few years later. What Oprah did not tell the spokesman was that the entire audience had been packed with women who had gotten breast implants, gotten breast cancer, and believed with the fervor of the mad that the one caused the other.

This was the first time I encountered what, fifteen years later, Ann Coulter would call "the Left's doctrine of infallibility," "using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding." (The link is to a transcript of Coulter's appearance on the Today Show with Matt Lauer; tuck it away in your grey matter, we'll come back to it at the end of this post.)

The premise of these Oprah women was that, since they suffered from a terrible disease, therefore any pronouncement they made about its cause was not open to argument.

It made no difference what the Dow spokesman said; they could not care less about the scientific evidence he cited. He noted, as his basic point, that if silicone breast implants were in any way implicated in breast cancer, then the rate of such cancer among women who had silicone breast implants would necessarily have to be higher than among women who did not have them.

Any rational human being should be able to understand that much. You don't need a PhD in oncological research. If smoking is implicated in lung cancer, then smokers should have a higher rate of lung cancer than non-smokers... and by golly, they do; much higher. That is why no serious medical researcher in the last forty years has disputed the point: the statistical argument is unanswerable.

Curiously, however, women with silicone breast implants have an identical rate of breast cancer as women who have saline implants or women with no implants at all. There is no difference; a hundred studies have shown this, and not a single one has shown the opposite. This is almost irrefutable evidence that there is no connection.

When the Dow guy brought this out, the women responded by booing. One leapt to her feet and shouted, "nobody ever studied me! Why don't you study me?" And the mass cheered in response, just as they might have cheered a coherent argument.

Then, in a surreal display that brought to mind Franz Kafka (or George Orwell), they actually rose in near unison and began chanting "we are the evidence, we are the evidence!" Whenever the Dow spokesman tried to speak, he was shouted down. He was accused of not caring about them. Women stood and burst into tears, accused him of "harassment" because he dared to defend Dow Corning's product.

Thus the infallibility of grief in action: these women suffered a tragic loss -- and that immunizes their every pronouncement from response.

A decorated war veteran who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War

Flash forward a few years, to the 2002 senatorial re-election campaign of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) against Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA).

During the election, Chambliss raised the issue that Cleland was too liberal for the state of Georgia; to make that point, Chambliss aired some hard-hitting ads saying that Cleland's policies -- in particular, his opposition to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security -- benefitted terrorists and dictators, like Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. As the names were mentioned, the Chambliss ad showed brief images of their faces:

The ad says that Cleland does not have the "courage to lead" at a time when "America faces terrorists and extremist dictators." The evidence? Cleland voted against the president's version of the still-pending Homeland Security agency 11 times.

Now, the point is arguable; many Republicans didn't like the idea of the new department as well, calling it "just another layer of bureaucracy" and "shuffling boxes around the org chart." But Cleland did not try to argue it... instead, he and his surrogates in the antique media swiftly trotted out the point that he was a decorated Vietnam veteran who has lost three limbs:

Cleland, a decorated war veteran who lost three limbs in the Vietnam War, blasted the ad, accusing his GOP rival, Rep. C. Saxby Chambliss, of trying to wrest political advantage from the war on terrorism and the impending conflict with Iraq. "Accusing me of being soft on Homeland Security and Osama bin Laden is the most vicious exploitation of a national tragedy and attempt at character assassination I have ever witnessed," the senator said in a statement.

The infallibility of grief, take 2.

Of course, Cleland did not actually lose his legs and part of one arm "in the Vietnam War;" he lost them during the war, in a stupid accident: he was hopping out of a helicopter that was taking him and other soldiers on a "beer run," and a grenade slipped either from his own vest or someone else's. He bent over to pick it up, and it exploded. His grievous injuries were not attained in combat; and indeed, none of his decorations were for that incident (he, personally, never claimed they were; but he, personally, also never corrected the record when others claimed Cleland lost his limbs in combat).

The meme was launched, not just by the Washington Post but virtually every other newspaper, magazine, and television network: Saxby Chambliss, how dare you question the patriotism of a guy who lost three limbs?

The club of grief

The phenomenon Coulter describes is far more despicable than anything she has said in attacking it. "The infallibility of grief" is used to silence opposition by exploiting basic human decency.

Among con artists, there are two kinds: those who exploit human greed by tricking their marks into thinking they can con someone else (like the "dead millionaire Nigerian dicatator" spam) -- and those who exploit human pity by pretending to some tragedy that causes the decent to want to help them out (the classic "my rented baby is hungry, can you give me $5 for some baby food?" scam).

The latter are much more repulsive; if a greedy guy thinks he's scamming someone else and gets fleeced himself, who cares? He got what was coming to him. But to rip someone off by attacking his empathy and goodness not only punishes the victim for his goodness, it also makes him cynical -- and makes it that much harder for people who really are in trouble to get help. Once bitten, twice shy.

But those who practice the infallibility of grief scam are even worse

  • They affect the much larger arena of public policy via irrational appeals to emotion;
  • They twist tragedy for their own ends;
  • They pervert the deaths of their own loved ones (recall the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone);
  • And they create backlashes against those who really have suffered great tragedy, but have chosen not to use grief as a weapon... a backlash that is itself exploited by the "griefarazzi" as a weapon against the Right.

Coulter argues -- and I completely agree -- that by using their grief as a club to batter their opponents into silence, they have willfully and irrevocably forfeited the right ever again to use it as a shield.

"Mother" Sheehan (as she likes to be called, aping the religious without actually stooping to practice religion) has been relentless in retailing the death of her son Casey for political purposes wholly at odds with what he, himself believed. By using the doctrine of the infallibility of grief as an offensive weapon, she has forefeited any right to fall back on her grief when her politics are attacked.

So has Michael Berg, who has taken to the airwaves to argue that President Bush, not Musab Zarqawi, is responsible for the beheading of his son, Nick Berg. Look what Bush made Zarqawi do!

His only call for making such judgments is his certificate of authenticity as a man who suffered a terrible tragedy. Berg uses victimhood as a badge of authority to batter down any response under a sledge hammer of faux guilt: how dare you defend Bush against my attacks? I lost my son!

And now at last this brings us by a commodious vicus of recirculation back to Ann Coulter vs. the Jersey Girls.

Enjoying their husbands' deaths

Here is what Coulter wrote in her newest book, Godless, that has provoked such a fury of denunciation... not just from the left, but from the right as well:

These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing Bush was part of the closure process....

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.

Very hard words; but I stick up for Coulter even here. Read above: the Jersey Girls have used their grief as an offensive weapon against Republicans and in support of the candidacy of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA, 100%)... and that means that by their own actions, they forfeit the right to use their personal tragedy as a shield against attack.

But who are the "Jersey Girls?"

The Jersey Girls or Jersey Widows (Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Lorie Van Auken, and Mindy Kleinberg) are four women from New Jersey whose husbands were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks....

The Jersey Widows testified for hearing led by congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on July 22, 2005 [2]. In Lorie Auken's statement she said this of the 9/11 Commission Report:

And finally, without compromising our national security, it would have reported all of its findings, with its redactions blacked out and submitted to the American people. In essence, the Commission could have produced a final product where the resulting conclusions and recommendations could be trusted. Instead, at the end of the day, what we got were some statements that truly insulted the intelligence of the American people, violated our loved ones’ memories, and might end up hurting us, one day soon.

One such statement is that 9/11 was a ‘failure of imagination’. A failure of whose imagination? What exactly does that mean? When you have a CIA director with his hair on fire, a system blinking red, 52 FAA warnings, an August 6th, 2001, PDB entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States’, leads on several 9/11 hijackers including Alhazmi, Almihdhar and Marwan Al-Shehi, warnings from many foreign governments, a Phoenix memo warning of Islamic extremists taking flying lessons, the arrest of would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussauoui, facts imparted to one agent, Agent Frasca at the RFU at the FBI, 9/11 was truly a failure alright.

What else did they do? Was that it? Not by a long shot. From the Today Show exchange, here is Coulter on the Jersey Girls' politicking... facts which none of Coulter's critics have troubled to dispute. (This is a hallmark of the infallibility of grief, by the way: Cleland didn't try to argue that his votes against the DHS were right... he simply denied Chambliss the right to criticize him at all because of the tragedy Cleland suffered in Vietnam.)

They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.

In a Hannity and Colmes segment yesterday (no transcript, I just watched it), she elaborated, noting the television shows and magazines that had featured them, the Democratic fundraisers they attended. I myself recall them sitting on some panel on terrorism, as if they were experts by virtue of grief. The Jersey Girls were not "grieving widows," for they were not grieving... not unless, as Coulter put it, "denouncing Bush was part of the closure process."

They are not grieving widows; they are crusading widows. The difference is colossal.

Matt Lauer's snide questions are almost tailor-made to prove Coulter's point, for not once does he ever bother responding to anything she says; instead, he spent the entire interview subtlely undermining her moral credibility and her decency for daring to challenge the crusading widows in the first place:

His first words, before even reading what she wrote:

  • Do you believe everything in the book, or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?

After reading the excerpt where she concludes "I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much”:

  • Because they dare to speak out? [At least, thank God, he didn't say "dare to speak truth to power." -- the Mgt.]

Here are the rest of his "responses" to Coulter:

  • So grieve but grieve quietly?
  • By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration. [Lauer gives no examples.]
  • So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?
  • Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them. [Said while he attacked her for responding to them.]
  • What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.
  • No. I think it’s a dramatic statement. “These broads are millionaires stalked by stalked by grief-parazzies”? “I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much”?
  • The book is called “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Ann Coulter, always fun to have you here.

There you go: content-free invective. Lauer never responds, refutes, debunks; he just denounces. This is practically a classroom demonstration of the infallibility of grief at work.

In the same article in Editor & Publisher, the Jersey Girls themselves (plus Monica Gabrielle) respond (they get the last word, of course; Coulter is not allowed to respond to their response). Amazingly, their response also reinforces Coulter's original point:

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens. Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

They then append a list of eight Democratic-Party talking points, the exact attacks that Minority Leaders Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 95%) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 100%) make against President Bush and the Republican Congress.

Ask yourself this question: what reason is offered for us to accept the analysis of the Jersey Girls about what's wrong with our response to 9/11? Why listen to them, instead of (for a wild example) Big Lizards?

The only reason put forward is that 9/11 "tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives."

That's it. If they conducted "constant research," they certainly didn't demonstrate any in their response, nor on any of the media lollapalloozas they basked in for months: the television appearances, the spread in Vanity Fair, the Kerry campaign rallies and fundraisers they attended, or the commissions where they spoke.

Their sole authority to declaim upon Bush's failures is that they lost their husbands on September 11th; their sole response to critics of their political activities is "we did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001."

But they certainly chose the path forward from that point. They buttered their bread; now they refuse to sleep in it.

Battered Conservative Syndrome

Yet rather than stand up to the bullying use of victimhood as a weapon, many pundits and bloggers on the right have instead joined the liberal dogpile on Ann Coulter. The response of conservatives matches that of Matt Lauer: who cares whether Coulter's critique is right or wrong? Those poor women have suffered! How dare she add to their grief?

They join the liberals in attacking Coutler for malfeasance of rhetoric; in this, conservatives are showing classic symptoms of Battered Spouse Syndrome. Huddled in a defensive crouch, they labor to prove that they are too decent, they are so sympathetic -- they attack Coulter to prove their own chivalric honor. They become "enablers" of liberal griefarazzi.

Many conservatives have let themselves be ensnared by the "infallibility of grief" gambit. Like suckers who give money to the woman with the baby she rents by the hour, conservatives who attack Ann Coulter, without regard to the point she makes, prove the utter truth of that point: the reflexive, Lorelei power of the whimper of whipped dogs. And like Odysseus, if they don't stop their ears or lash themselves to the mast, they will wreck upon the rocks.

The Left wallows in that whimper, in the infallibility of grief; they use it to bypass argument, substitute for evidence, and take the place of moral courage. To argue with the grief-mongers makes ordinary, decent people feel like they just yelled at Grandma and made her cry. And the Left shamelessly exploits that basic human guilt.

I grew up in a Jewish family, and I had that trick played on me too many times. My family and culture burned out that autoresponse circuit in me; sorry, but like Jo Dee Messina, my give-a-damn's busted:

You can say you've got issues, you can say you're a victim
It's all your parents fault, after all you didn't pick 'em
Maybe somebody else has got time to listen:
My give-a-damn's busted

If you're a human being, you feel sorry for people who have suffered great tragedy. But if you're a reasoning human being, you don't allow empathy to leap up your throat and strangle your brain: you control it; you take a step back and ask whether We are the evidence ever means anything more than "Shut up," she explained.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 9, 2006, at the time of 5:42 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/828

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Battered Conservative Syndrome: Defending Ann:

» Coulter and Her Critics from Agricola
The blogosphere has lately been buzzing about the Lauer-Coulter interview. Many pundits have had their say, with a fairly broad consensus that Coulter's remarks about the grieving widows was way out of line. Daffyd, of Biglizards has his opinion, and [Read More]

Tracked on June 10, 2006 6:41 AM

» Defending the Indefensible from AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude
It's been said that if Bush made himself Supreme-Leader-for-Life, the right would rise as one to pronounce it a good thing. In similar lockstep fashion, the paste-eaters now conclude that any reaction by the reality-based community to Coulter's attack on [Read More]

Tracked on June 10, 2006 11:29 AM

» Simply Excellent from Right Wing Nation
... [Read More]

Tracked on June 12, 2006 11:45 AM

» Battered Conservative Syndrome from The Quick and the dead
Dafydd at Big Lizards knocks one out of the park in defense of Ann Coulter. No mean language, just lining... [Read More]

Tracked on June 13, 2006 5:59 PM

» I guess the irony is lost on them… from RepublicanWitch
NJ assemblywomen call for boycott of new Coulter book 6/8/2006, 1:54 p.m. ET The Associated Press    TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — Commentator Ann Coulter's incendiary words about outspoken 9/11 widows have led two state lawmakers to ca... [Read More]

Tracked on June 14, 2006 5:51 AM

» Jersey Girl 9/11 statement, Coulter from ThisCanadian
Kristen Breitweiser, widow who lost her husband on 9/11 played a significant role in pressuring Washington to provide a public accounting of what went wrong on the morning of September 11. She also wanted explanations about events prior to 911 as well... [Read More]

Tracked on August 15, 2006 10:24 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Kevin

I find Ann to be one of the sharpest and "on the mark" minds of the writers whose works I frequent. You also, sir.
Given what I have read of the four Jersy cows' behavior, I strongly agree with Ann. Kid gloves should have been discarded long ago.
Thanks. Kevin

The above hissed in response by: Kevin [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 7:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Since America is at War, i would be more interested in hearing what Ann said/says about what happened in Haditha, before i stop some muslim/arab/islamist/liberal/Democrat from placing her into a Burka...so to speak.

KårmiÇømmünîs†

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 8:30 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excellent post, Dafydd. I linked from Jersey Girls 2 -- "My give-a-damn's busted". I'd previously written on the same subject, with extensive help from a friend, here.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 8:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

Man oh man, Dafydd, you and I are in big agreement again on this one.

My take is that conservatives are often too concerned with trying to appear "fair minded" in order to seperate themselves from what they see as the way liberals often pack together on topics.

This is a perfect example of that. Ann point was valid and made even more so by the way the media responded. Liberals must love it when conservatives fall all over themselves to tear down other conservatives! Especially ones like Ann Coulter who aren't afraid to get out there and speak their minds in a way that may *gasp* OFFEND LIBERALS!!

Now they can wag their little fingers at Ann and say "she's so hateful that even the conservatives agree!"

Bottom line is that Ann was able to cut through the liberal media's Iron Curtain and get her message out. Because her comments were so widely reported, many fair minded people are going to be smart enough to analyze her point and say "you know, she's RIGHT" These are people that may never get to hear these things because they don't read blogs and they get their messages primarily through the leftwing MSM.

Conservatives should be thrilled that Ann does the dirty work that must be done. Al Franken, Bill Maher and a host of celebrity leftwingers get a pass by the media every day.

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 8:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

If I was Ann's editor, I would've changed the word "enjoying," to "milking." That's all. Everything else Ann wrote was very clear, and very accurate.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 8:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

None of ths justifies the line about enjoying their husbands' deaths.

That's a cheap shot, pure and simple.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 8:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Depends what you (and Ann) mean by "enjoy." I doubt the JGs are dancing about in giddy glee; but there absolutely are people who enjoy nothing more than wallowing in their misery, as if sadness and sacrifice sanctified.

If you haven't met such people, you're lucky. I had several in my extended family.

Is Cindy Sheehan happy that Casey died? Probably not. But is she enjoying her 15 months of celebrity? Is she basking in the glow of no longer being merely Cindy but "Mother Sheehan?"

There must be an awful lot of satisfaction in her new role -- for she pretty much abandoned her family, including her other son, to continue playing it.

Just as it's very hard for normal folks to understand that some people really do like to commit murder, I think it's very tough for decent, family-oriented men and women like you and Patterica to understand pathological people like Sheehan, like Michael Berg, and like the Jersey Girls.

Ann Coulter is a bomb thrower, no question; but not every target of a bomb is undeserving.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 10:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: Smitty

Ann Coulter hit the nail right on the head here.
I'm gonna defend her all the way baby, on this at least!

I'm not her biggest fan by any means.

My problem with her is she's an admirer of Joe McCarthy, though I see him as nothing more than an opportunist.

Anyway, but on this current issue I'm firmly in her corner.

-cs™

The above hissed in response by: Smitty [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2006 11:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I can not stand Ann Coulter. And I think a great many of her admirers would disappear if she were a size 16.

I never much cared for her, but her remarks about the superiority of Ivy Leaguers to the peasant population during the Harriet Miers silliness and much of what I have heard from her lately lead me to believe she has no more sense of right and wrong than a tree frog. She just wants to sell books and make money.

People like her hurt conservatives and make people like the Jersey girls far more sympathetic than they should be. I may not agree with their politics, but they have right to their deluded opinions and Ann was just plain wrong to say they enjoyed being widows.

And then there was the raghead comment. As far as I am concerned the only difference between Kos and Coulter is the side on the political aisle they happen to sit on. But they think alike.

What was it Kos said when the American contractors were butchered in Fallujah? Screw em. Sound like anyone we know?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 4:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

You have described one of the most corrosive things in our society today, the suppression of discussion by people using grief and fear.
Ann is being attacked by the left for daring to challenge the grief pimping done by the Jersey girls. She is being criticized by conservatives for bad manners.
Her analysis is so spot on, it nearly overcomes her bad manners.
I think the other side of the supporession, fear, is incredibly well discussed in Michael Crichton's book, by the way.
Once again you have done what few other blogs do by digging in deeply and factually into a tough topic in a unique way.
Inspite of Ann Coulter's huge success, her manners keeps her from a larger success. I hope she realizes the opportunity cost of this and makes changes. She is powerful enough to have one of hte most significant impacts in our society:
She is brilliant, correct and verbally faster than just about anyone. Her message is compelling.
One of the posters said change one word: 'enjoying' for 'milking'. That is actually a more accurate word, and puts the Jersey witches on the defense. Not ot presume to second guess Ann Coulter, but I beleive that would have been a good thing. Becuase I think it would tkae the ball farther down the field towards the goal she is seeking.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 6:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: superhawk

I have absolutely no problem with Coulter pointing out the very facts that you did regarding the left's attempt to immunize themselves from criticism as a result of "grief."

But you made exactly the point that I and others have made regarding Coulter's remarks; you managed the feat of criticizing without resorting to saying that the Jersey girls are "enjoying" their widowhood.

Why is it so difficult for some to wrap their minds around the fact that what Coulter said was utterly and completely out of bounds? It's not a question of "PC" - it is a question of simple, common, decency.

The above hissed in response by: superhawk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 6:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Superhawk:

But you made exactly the point that I and others have made regarding Coulter's remarks; you managed the feat of criticizing without resorting to saying that the Jersey girls are "enjoying" their widowhood.

Except -- if she'd said it just the way I did, nobody would even bother reading it.

Well, maybe those folks who read Big Lizards would have; but we get about 2,000 visitors a day; Coulter is read by millions.

Sometimes, you must admit that nothing succeeds like success. She has such a wide audience for her points and arguments in large part because of her "bad manners." Because she's a bad girl and doesn't fastidiously observe all the niceties, she gets a thousand times as much attention as, say, Peggy Noonan.

I think Raymond Chandler once said that sometimes a punch to the jaw is the most eloquent statement of all. Coulter delivers that punch to the jaw; she speaks to the Left in the only language it knows.

She refuses to cooperate with her own destruction by obeying laws of decorum that liberals routinely spit upon. Sorry, but I have to admire her for that very reason.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 7:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: DaveR

Some of you seem to have forgotten the rules:

1. When a liberal calls the President "worse than Hitler", and says that he ordered a secret operation that killed 3,000 Americans, or states flatly that the Marines killed civilians "in cold blood", that's just vivid argumentation that makes the extensive media coverage of their position all the more compelling.

2. When a conservative in the heat of argument uses a phrase that in retrospect should have been tempered, well, that invalidates their whole argument, and de-legitimizes the entire conservative movement.

Let's try to keep that straight, okay? How are we going to win fairly if we don't play by the rules the other side sets for us?!!

The above hissed in response by: DaveR [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 8:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: JGUNS

Yes, the point was made that if Ann Coulter played by the niceties that most conservatives played by she would be ignored. Someone mentioned that her success is being hampered by her attitude. Wow, well millions of books sold and regular appearences on leftwing news broadcasts sure looks successful to me! If Coulter didn't serve things up the way she did, she would be just another drowned out conservative voice. I think conservatives are afraid to like her because they see the Al Franken's and Michael Moore's of the world and think they are the exact same as Ann. This is absolutely not true. The big difference is that Ann Coulter doesn't outright lie. Her facts are well documented and her arguments are sound. Conversely, Franken and Moore outright lie, employ others to do their shoddy research that research ultimately doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Ann's research has to because if it didn't there are thousands of liberals out there ready to discredit her. She doesn't get a pass like liberals do.

I really think that Ann's words are easily understood when taken into context. By enjoy she meant "benefit" Look up the word:

en·joy Audio pronunciation of "enjoy" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-joi)
v. en·joyed, en·joy·ing, en·joys
v. tr.

1. To receive pleasure or satisfaction from.
2. To have the use or BENEFIT of: enjoys good health.

Liberals use far harsher words about conservatives and their causes. There is little room for interpretation of "Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein"

The above hissed in response by: JGUNS [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 9:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah

I am now immune, thanks to the Paul Wellstone Funeral Follies, to the incessant banter of grief experts. Anyone who grieves so vocally, with such enjoyment in one's wallowing, deserves the Coulter Treatment. Mother Sheehan and her unquestioning sycophants are worthy of utter derision. The one who has my shoulder would be the former husband to that hirsute wreck of a woman. Grief should be shuttered away from prying eyes, and revealed only to God and the pillow we cry into. That grief has now become a marketable form of entertainment is a sad commentary of the decline of our civilization.

The above hissed in response by: Jauhara Al-Kafirah [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 9:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

I agree with the commenter who said it would have been on target had she used the word "milking" instead of enjoying.

As it stands, her point loses its persuasive force with countless people because of her utterly insensitive and clueless use of the word "enjoyed."

I don't care if there is a valid point under there somewhere; I do not align myself with her because she embarrasses my side when she makes our arguments.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 11:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: msdl5

Her method and choice of words may have been way over the top but.... I suspect that was the plan.

It forced ALL media to hear her out and the real point she was making --- she got herself some spotlight time....

The next time the MSM and the left parade out a weeping widow, the spouse of a CIA agent, an angry mother of a dead soldier, Max Cleland or anyone else their end game will have been exposed from the start.... They get a victim to spew their opnion and no one can fight back. Not anymore.

Going forward... we just have to say 'Coulter was spot on' every time Matthews or Ruusert parades out a 'victim'. We just say 'This is what Ann was talking about'. Let's get it on Ms. Brightweiser. Game over Cleland...let's talk facts.. Cindy Who? ...

We no longer have to bow and say "I respect your service but' or ' I can not feel the pain you must feel but' and then give a candy arse response. Once they speak of politics, we can all check our 'politeness' at the door. Game Over Couric.

Coulter's tactic is very effective as it got a lot of America to hear her real point, and they did. She may have disarmed one of the primary tactics the MSM has been using against Republicans for years.


The above hissed in response by: msdl5 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 1:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: DubiousD

Dafydd's comments are mostly on the mark, but he appears to be missing an even more salient point: the tactics employed by professional victims like the Jersey Girls and Mother Sheehan do the greatest harm to other victims. This is the old "authenticity" argument redux: if Kerry supporters like the Jersey Girls are "authentic", what then are we to make of other 9-11 widows who support Bush? Are they cheapening the memory of their fallen husbands by supporting the very adminstration that failed to safeguard their husbands' lives in the first place?

"If you truly loved and cherished your late husbands, you wouldn't be supporting a Bush second term."

Isn't that what the Jersey Girls are really saying... and shouldn't that be taken as offensive?

By the by... have the Jersey Girls ever spoken out on Able Danger? That's why they're in the limelight, isn't it, to get to the bottom of the intelligence failures that led to 9-11? Have they ever used their considerable influence to rally to Tony Shaffer's defense?

Has the question even been posed to them?

The above hissed in response by: DubiousD [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 1:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: superhawk

D:

You can't be saying that being rude, boorish, impolite, and hurtful is alright just as long as you get your point across, are you?

That's nuts.

In fact, just because she is so widely read means that she doesn't have to resort to that kind of stupidity.

I don't get it and I never will. A lot of people have a blind spot here - either that, or I'm the nutcake and everyone else is sane.

Rick Moran

The above hissed in response by: superhawk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 1:27 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Superhawk:

You can't be saying that being rude, boorish, impolite, and hurtful is alright just as long as you get your point across, are you?

Betimes yes. Sometimes that is the only way to cut through the noise. The question you have to ask is whether the point you are making is worth the rudeness; that depends upon the importance of the point and the degree of rudeness, so cannot be answered in the general.

In this case, I believe the point could only have been made with the rudeness (it would have been lost in the ether else); the point was very, very important; and the rudeness level was low, because it was directed at people who had, by their own willful effort, forfeited any claim to politeness, sensitivity, or concern.

The same calculation (albeit with different "values" for the variables) occurred when we decided to broadcast the photo of Zarqawi in death... which was certainly an act of rudeness that would have violated the Geneva Convention, had Zarqawi been an enemy soldier.

In that case, the point was much greater than Coulter's -- we had to prove to the terrorists and the Moslem world that Zarqawi was really dead -- and the "victim" of the rudeness had forfeited his right to privacy infinitely more than the Jersey Girls (who have certainly never murdered anyone)... so the calculation was much easier.

Still, in structure, it's the same kind of calculation.

An example where I think a conservative does go over the top in an unacceptable way is when Michael Savage berates anyone who disagrees with him, often in terms so vicious (I heard "atheist," "Communist," "moral leper," and "coward" before I ceased to listen) that I wish he were off the air.

But Savage is so much more vicious than Coulter (and has so trivial a point compared to hers) that again, the calculation is easy -- in the other direction.

Between these two extremes lies Coulter. I think sometimes she is ruder than necessary; other times the rudeness and boorishness are essential and the point important enough to warrant them... as in this case.

It's not an easy call, but it's a defensible one.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 2:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

No doubt Stalin had similar defenders saying, "he's not as bad as you think."

Why yes, Monkeyboy: your ideological forbears, the entire American liberal establishment.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 2:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive

The huge numbers of widows and widowers who got that way exactly as the Jersey Girls did, but do not employ their specious 'absolute moral authority', don't get a speck of the relentless publicity and deference to opinions that the MSM accords the Jerseys. They are media puppets for the reasons that Ann Coulter has described: decent folks's arguments are trumped (in normal society) by their oh-so-special suffering. Their grief, as Dafydd shows, is almost infallible.

This position is logically full of holes. The Jerseys are simply spouting partisan rants, confident that they're shielded from being busted. However, it has taken Ann Coulter to provide arguments strong and concise enough to pierce that shield, and she has succeeded where no mere logician could.

Sorry that some of the decent folks are letting their 'manners' trump the logical correctness of her arguments to the extent that they quibble at her choice of words. But throwing out the baby of busting the slanted Jerseys with the bathwater of quibbles about the 'enjoy' word does society no good - or at least, not as much good as Ann's shining her light on that false shield.

Kudos to her for finding a sufficient weapon to breach their wall of fake infallibility. It would not have been so effective were it couched in such diplo-speak as supporters of fake infallibility would welcome.

(Diplo- is Greek for double, as in doubletalk. Good on her for abandoning it).

The above hissed in response by: Insufficiently Sensitive [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 3:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Monkeyboy:

Congrats on 500,000 hits, btw.

Thanks! I'm not exactly sure what it means, because I've too cheap-ass to pay for the upgrade to SiteMeter... which I think is the only way I can find out how many unique visitors we've had. So the 500,000 visits could have been the same 1,000 people coming back again and again... or it could be a larger number of unique humans who visit less often per day.

I think I'm going to sign up for it. It would be $14.95 per month for the number of page views we get, and it's probably worth it for the enjoyment of playing with the statistics alone (I love numbers). I'm sure I can have endless fun seeing how many visitors we've gotten from Moldova or how many people log in more than five times a day.

All right, you've convinced me: I'm going to pay the Big Bucks for the subscription version of SiteMeter.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 5:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: DaveR

"...I do not align myself with her because she embarrasses my side when she makes our arguments."

At least our side CAN be embarrassed. My earlier point was exactly that I have detected no such vulnerability in our opponents.

The above hissed in response by: DaveR [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 6:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

monkyboy,
The billionaires are all democrats.
you lefties are too busy defending Patrick Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, William Jefferson, etc.
The only places on the planet destroyed by environmental catastrophes are in leftist or fermerlly leftis countries. Look for lake Chad or the Aral Sea sometime.
Calling Ann Coulter fascist only seals the deal: you must be on a vetilator. You are clearly too stupid to breathe on your own.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 7:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

I like Ann Coulter's pithy repartee.

Her statement that the "Jersey Girls" are enjoying their husband's deaths is exactly the correct word. They are not just milking their grief, they are basking in it and enjoying themselves in a most despicable manner. A manner that separates them from decent society. I'm with Dafydd. To the "Jersey Girls", on the world's smallest record player, I'm playing "My Heart Bleeds for You." Get out of my face, shut up, and grieve.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 9:39 PM

The following hissed in response by: Carolus

Dafydd, that was an absolutely outstanding defense of Coulterm and more importantly, a Horowitzian expose of leftist methodology. It was a real tour de force.

The only thing I would (sort of) agree with the Jersey Girls about is that the 9-11 Commission was an utter fraud and whitewash of government incompetence. Even so, to push the blame entirely on Bush (who I do not absolve) is dishonest. A mere 8 months had passed since Bush's inauguration. His predecessor, Lord Hee-Haw the Great Stainmaker, spent eight years doing nothing. Ditto for his accomplices in the Dhimmicrat party. That's another topic altogether, though. Your basic premise and argument is dead on - and brilliantly written. Congratulations.

Hunter, you forgot to menton the big fish like Soros, Lewis, Gates, etc. Not to menton every foundation from Maine to California. It's always a hoot to see some leftist fool act as if the big moneybags are rightwingers. We are are quite aware of the Gramscian Bobos who are fund the comrades, Monkeyboy.

The above hissed in response by: Carolus [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2006 9:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Eg

Now if Ann can grab the ‘ring’ and transform herself from that nasty aggressor and into the role as 'the victim', she stands a very good chance of leading the Euro’s experts in the employment and utilization of victimization, the Guardian, into the arena of logic and clubbing them senseless: Lethally blonde

I’m almost wondering if ‘victimization’ doesn’t deserve to be distinctly identified as a technique of propaganda, in and of itself. If not, it is certainly deserving of being classified as a hybrid form of propaganda.

The above hissed in response by: Eg [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 6:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Dafydd,

Are you familiar with Ted Rall's "Terror Widows" cartoon?

Are you offended by it? Maddened by it? Was it inappropriate? Was the NYT wrong to pull his cartoon because of it?

What's the difference?

P

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 10:18 AM

The following hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz

Op-Ed Columnist | Times$elect | Mourning in America | By John Tierney | Published: June 10, 2006 [$$$]:

Michael Berg, a Green Party candidate for Congress in Delaware, announced on national television that he regretted the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He didn't blame Zarqawi for beheading an American contractor. The man responsible was President Bush — "the real terrorist."

Any other politician would have been vilified for saying that. But Berg, as the father of the American who was beheaded, belongs to a new politically invulnerable class. Arguing with someone in mourning just isn't done — unless, of course, you are Ann Coulter and you have a new book to sell.

* * *

America is supposed to be a government of laws, not men, but the surest way to pass a law is to name it after someone, ideally a girl or woman. Dozens of states have passed Megan's Law.

* * *

Some of these laws undoubtedly make sense, but the names appended to them cut short the sort of debate required. It's emotional blackmail as well as a ghoulish form of the celebrity endorsement — without the celebrity's permission.

Grieving relatives certainly have a right to be heard, and their stories need to be considered by legislators and judges. But having tragedy strike your family does not make you an expert on public policy. Instead, it warps your perspective. You become the most narrow special-interest group, obsessed with redressing a personal loss no matter what the cost to society.

* * *

The widows and widowers of the victims of Sept. 11 are not urban planners who should get veto power over the rebuilding at Ground Zero. The parents of Americans killed in Iraq do not have special expertise in foreign policy.

Whether they support the war or not, they are expressing their personal views, and not necessarily even their slain children's. Cindy Sheehan camped outside President Bush's ranch in Texas to protest the war, but her son voluntarily re-enlisted before his death.

* * *


The above hissed in response by: Robert Schwartz [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 10:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I don't care if people agree with Ann Coulter or not, the woman is offensive and she is not above eating her own.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 12:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I am not a fan of the Jersey girls myslef, but I am ashamed of people like Coulter.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 12:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Are you offended by it? Maddened by it? Was it inappropriate? Was the NYT wrong to pull his cartoon because of it?

What's the difference?

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

I don't recall any 9/11 widows using their grief as sanction to become partisan Republican campaigners.

If they did not, then the Rall cartoon is an abomination, and he should be expelled from civilized society.

But if they did -- if Rall were reacting to some specific group of widows who parlayed their husbands' deaths into careers as megaphones for the Republican Party (or any other controversial cause), bashing liberals and then falling back upon their victim status to prevent the liberals and Democrats from responding... then Rall would have every right to attack them: they would have made themselves legitimate targets.

Had they done so, Patterico? Or were they attacked simply because they received compensation? Or maybe for being interviewed about non-partisan topics, such as a show about what happened on that day? Do we even know whether the women he attacked were Democrats or Republicans? He sure doesn't mention any such reason in his cartoon.

Do we even know which particular widows he was attacking? Or was this a scattergun assault on all the women who lost loved ones on 9/11?

That is the difference, Patterico.

What Coulter attacked was when someone who suffered a tragedy leaps onto one side of a raging controversy -- and then says that the other side can't respond because it would just add to her grief.

Some 9/11 widows may have spoken at the Republican National Convention; if they spoke on non-partisan themes (such as "we must never forget that day,") then they should not be attacked.

But if they sounded partisan or controversial themes, no matter which side they're on, then they have made themselves into combatants; and as such, they are completely legitimate targets. If you cannot see the difference, then I suggest your dislike of Ann Coulter is clouding your reason here: the distinction seems crystal clear to me.

If some 9/11 widow (or other grieving person) goes on a crusade for some non-partisan, non-controversial cause, I would never attack her or condone attacking her, no matter what her private politics.

If Cindy Sheehan had decided to devote her energies to campaigning for, say, a chain of government-funded hospices for wounded, discharged vets after they're released from a VA hospital, then Coulter would never have mocked her -- and neither would any of us in the blogosphere. Even though I wouldn't necessarily agree with that plan, it's not a partisan attack on anyone.

It is the specific aggressive act of turning your grief into an offensive weapon against people, but then holding it up as a shield to prevent them from responding, that disgusts and appalls. That is what infuriates Coulter; that is what she attacked; and that is what makes all the difference in the world.

Since I'm pretty sure the widows Rall attacked had done no such thing... that is what justifies Coulter but makes Ted Rall a despicable vermin.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 12:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

No, that was only part of it. The first three panels mock their alleged eerie calm and lighthearted attitude, their appearances on talk shows like Larry King (see Lisa Beamer), and calling a press conference (see Marianne Pearl). Panel three is a clear reference to Marianne Pearl, whose husband Danny was, at the time the cartoon was published, the most famous (if not the only) victim of a publicized throat-slashing by terrorists -- and certainly the only one I recall whose wife called a press conference afterwards, and was criticized for it.

I don't recall any 9/11 widows using their grief as sanction to become partisan Republican campaigners.

Depends on how you look at it. President Bush used Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" line in a State of the Union address to inspire the nation to support a war on terror that many people disagreed with. Lisa Beamer was there in the audience to support him, and he referred to her during the speech. Did that make her a partisan on his behalf? Did that make her a fair target for a soulless cretin like Ted Rall to attack?

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 1:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Did Lisa Beamer come out and say "let's attack Iraq?" Or was she simply sitting in the audience?

In any event, you misremember, I believe: Bush used the line "let's roll" to refer to the GWOT in general, which is not a partisan issue (both Democrats and Republicans claim they want to fight back against terrorists); I don't recall him using the line specifically to refer to the Iraq war.

But even if he did, she didn't; and mere presence is not enough to turn a person from a grieving widow into a political combatant.

I think I have made it very clear: it is only those who have made themselves into combatants who get no immunity from attack.

I don't even object to them taking sides in elections or on controversial issues; nobody is trying to suppress their right to speak out. What I refuse to accept is the idea that they can attack people on the other side -- and then claim that any response from the attacked party is out of bounds because of the tragedy suffered by the attacker.

Let me make it utterly specific. A person who:

  1. Suffers some tragedy; then
  2. Uses that tragedy as a badge of authority to pronounce upon controversial or partisan issues; and
  3. Attacks those on the other side of said issues; then
  4. Says to those who were just attacked any variant on "how dare you respond to me, don't you know what a terrible tragedy I suffered?"... then
  5. That person has made him- or herself into a combatant and forfeits any right to use his or her grief as a shield against response.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 5:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: doctorfixit

>I'm glad someone finally has the guts to take off the gloves and go after liberals tooth and claw. Whatever it takes - we're in it for keeps - the stakes are huge - survival of civilization depends on destroying liberalism by whatever means - nothing is off limits - You Go Girl - I wish I had half her ability to enrage liberals - if they have a coronary it's not our fault - they are responsible for their own emotional reaction - Cult of Coulter - she's a goddess

The above hissed in response by: doctorfixit [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 6:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: throwabrick

monkeyboy:
Your comment: "The entire Republican platform is based on hiding behind other peoples grief while they loot the country..."

Can you please humor me with just one example of the above exaggeration?

The above hissed in response by: throwabrick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 7:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: throwabrick

Sean Hannity has extended an invitation to Ann Coulter that he has also extended to the Jersey Girls.
An invitation that Ann has already accepted. Jersey Girls have yet to accept.

Now this would be interesting!
Maybe these ladies could dismantle Ann's argument better than Laura Schwartz, who managed to only confirm Ann's argument.

The show has a crappy format and usually turns into a shouting match but is worth watching Alan Colmes go through his befuddled Democrat talking points while being rude and talking over any Conservative guest that makes an appearance.

Hannity usually shows a lot more unwarranted
civility to liberal guests.

The above hissed in response by: throwabrick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 7:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: scrapiron

Never argue with anyone that enters the battle of wits unarmed. All lefties are unarmed and witless. So, support Ann 100%, buy the book, buy several copies of the book as gifts. I will before the night is over and i had never planned to buy the book.

The above hissed in response by: scrapiron [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 9:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Dafydd's comments are mostly on the mark, but he appears to be missing an even more salient point: the tactics employed by professional victims like the Jersey Girls and Mother Sheehan do the greatest harm to other victims. This is the old "authenticity" argument redux: if Kerry supporters like the Jersey Girls are "authentic", what then are we to make of other 9-11 widows who support Bush?
**************************************************
Quite simple they are ignored by the Media Cindy Sheehan was one parent, they were quite a few other parents who came forward, one even asked what right did Sheehan have to demand a SECOND meeting with Bush when so many others had not even had a first. Didn't get much play in the Media did they?
**************************************************
Every past "evil" political movement started out "good," but then got hijacked along the way to power.

No doubt Stalin had similar defenders saying, "he's not as bad as you think."

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy at June 10, 2006 01:36 PM
**************************************************
Had? He still does on the Far Left.
**************************************************
I don't care if there is a valid point under there somewhere; I do not align myself with her because she embarrasses my side when she makes our arguments.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico at June 10, 2006 11:42 AM
************************************************
don't care if there is a valid point?
Isn't that "Form" over "Substance" One could say as Dafydd does, it could have been worded better, or one can say "I don't care if there is a valid point"

One is an intellectual responce and one is emotional
**************************************************

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 9:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Almost $100 billion spent, most of it funneled to Republican front companies like...Halliburton.

Accountability?

What's that?

The above hissed in response by: monkyboy at June 11, 2006 08:14 PM
*************************************************
want to source that because the only real GASP I recall was indignation about some construction company who had "ties" to Bush and the Republican Party but SOMEHOW in the expose it was LEFT OUT that the President of that company was the HEAD of the LOUISIANA DEMOCRATIC PARTY?

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 9:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: TheRightSider

monkyboy I see that you have moved from Captains site(CQB) to this one since he's feeling under the weather... I'm sure that Dafydd is thrilled. :\

The above hissed in response by: TheRightSider [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 10:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: TheRightSider

monkyboy I see that you have moved from Captains site(CQB) to this one since he's feeling under the weather... I'm sure that Dafydd is thrilled. :\

The above hissed in response by: TheRightSider [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2006 10:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: throwabrick

When we are tempted to criticize one of our major spokesmen,
a true champion of our cause, like ANN COULTER,
we are only helping our ENEMIES!
We should remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment
"Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

Can anyone here remember if the Drive By Media has ever said one good thing about President Bush?
Can anyone here remember if the MSM has ever said anything positive about the Bush Administration’s pursuit of the War On Terror??
Can anyone here remember if the MSM has ever said anything positive about any member of the Bush Administration (and I am not referring to those ssnakes Clarke or O’neil)????
Don Rumsfeld honored by the MSM??
Condi Rice?
Colin Powell?
V.P.Dick Cheney?
President Bush?
Can anyone remember any major POSITIVE story by the MSM about our American Soldiers in Afghanistan or Iraq? The Soldiers in our Coalition?
How about President Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court?
Chief Justice Roberts?
Justice Sam Alito?
Can anyone here think of one criticism by the Main Stream Media leveled at any Democrat Senator or Congressmen or Liberal Pundit???
Why Hell No!

So why should we Aid and Abet these Liars?
If the MSM or any of their talking heads
wants to criticize one of ours
LET THEM DO IT WITHOUT OUR HELP!

The above hissed in response by: throwabrick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2006 3:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: throwabrick

"[throwabrick,

How about the "reconstruction" after Katrina?

Almost $100 billion spent, most of it funneled to Republican front companies like...Halliburton.

Accountability?

What's that?]"

Of course you have proof of all this?
And your answer has what to do with my question?
"[monkeyboy:
Your comment: "The entire Republican platform is based on hiding behind other peoples grief while they loot the country..."

Can you please humor me with just one example of the above exaggeration?]"

This has what? to do with the entire Republican Platform?
I don't recall ever seeing it there
How is this hiding behind other peoples grief?
Delivering Help is now Looting?
Curiouser and curiouser!


The above hissed in response by: throwabrick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2006 3:39 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I bought the book last night I read the paragraphs and the pages from which the Soundbite was taken.

There is no comparison IMO with what I read in totality and Ted Rall's cartoon.

It is also pointless to discuss this with anyone who has or desires only access to Media Soundbites.

OK there IS a comparison, Black and White.

One was a general rabid rant one was very specific and detailed and made sense.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2006 9:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: throwabrick

But It’s o.k. for Howard Kurtz of CNN’s “RELIABLE SOURCES” to call Ann Coulter a BOMB THROWER.
Who also happens to write best-selling books
and because she is OUTSPOKEN,
a lot of television programs love having the CONSERVATIVE AUTHOR as a guest, knowing full well that she will
improve their CRAPPY RATINGS,
when she launches an INDUCED incendiary attack on someone by some
well thought out questions that are asked that will PRODUCE JUST SUCH A RESULT! (Thank you MSNBC’S Matt Lauer) .
So of course "The Today Show" knew that it was going to get a
Big Bang for its buck and SELF-INTERESTEDLY invited Coulter to plug a tiny portion of her book
"Godless,the Church of Liberalism"
knowing full well that they would never get into the SUBSTANCE of her book.

I guess the DumbAsses at CNN, MSNBC, or the Today Show
didn’t realize that the Brilliant Miss Coulter
did not write a Love Ode to the Left!
So I guess the MSM will have to be satisfied with the slight pop in their ratings due to a Conservative !
Next week when their ratings slip back to CRAP they will have to think up something else to get viewers.
May I suggest a byatch – slapping contest!
Monday: Ko vs. Matthews vs. Scarborough (last byatch standing...my pick Scarbie)

I hope she charged them a large appearance fee!

Imagine how MSNBC's rating would skyrocket if she were on one of their round-tables for a week.

Hannity should drop Colmes and go with Coulter. Colmes is just an anchor dragging down Hannity.

Even Better Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and Sean Hannity with a guest-patsy liberal every day.
Can you say RATINGS POWERHOUSE!

The above hissed in response by: throwabrick [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2006 12:19 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Dafydd,

I take it by your silence that you concede your characterization of the Rall cartoon ("Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation") was inaccurate.

You also say:

In any event, you misremember, I believe: Bush used the line "let's roll" to refer to the GWOT in general, which is not a partisan issue (both Democrats and Republicans claim they want to fight back against terrorists); I don't recall him using the line specifically to refer to the Iraq war.

Your implication that I claimed he used it "specifically to refer to the Iraq war" is not borne out by my actual language:

President Bush used Todd Beamer's "Let's roll" line in a State of the Union address to inspire the nation to support a war on terror that many people disagreed with.

I say "war on terror," you say "GWOT." Damn that G!

In any event, I disagree with you that the issue of support for the "GWOT" (with that special G) is not a partisan issue.

Ask a Democrat if he agrees with the GWOT. I'll wait. Report back what you find.

Also ask him if he considers it controversial, and if he considers the Iraq war to be part of it.

For that matter, ask Bush himself that last question -- he'll answer in the affirmative.

Still think the GWOT is not a partisan issue?

These are some lame arguments on your part, my friend.

I do not claim that *any* response from political opponents of the Jersey Widows is inappropriate. Just Coulter's special brand of ugly rhetoric: saying that they "enjoyed" their husbands' deaths -- not the notoriety resulting from them, mind you, but the deaths themselves.

And don't tell me (as Xrlq did) that I am being "hyper-literal." This was a careful formulation on her part, designed to infuriate. She has been called on it and has refused to back down. I'll not apologize her for judging her based on what she actually said, rather than on what her defenders wish she had said.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 12, 2006 7:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

I take it by your silence that you concede your characterization of the Rall cartoon ("Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation") was inaccurate.

You take it wrong.

You made a number of points; even though I disagree with this one here, I thought your other points were more important, so I focused on them.

Silence does not signal consent!

I say "war on terror," you say "GWOT." Damn that G!

In any event, I disagree with you that the issue of support for the "GWOT" (with that special G) is not a partisan issue.

Fighting the GWOT is not a partisan issue, because both sides say they want to fight it. It's irrelevant if you think (as I do) that the Democratic leadership doesn't really want to fight the GWOT; they still say it.

In fact, their argument against the Iraq war is precisely that it is (they claim) a distraction from the "real" war: we should be sending our entire armed forces to walk Afghanistan from one end of the Tora Boras to the other, hand in hand, trying to find Osama, Ayman, and Omar.

It's a stupid argument, but its very use indicates that they agree we should fight the GWOT, however much they disagree on specific tactics. (Or to be hyper-literal myself, they believe that their constituents agree we should fight the GWOT.)

It's also irrelevant that the Kossaks and Juan Cole nakedly argue that we should fight it at all; the mass of Democrats in the country think they überleft is nutty on that point -- if they're even aware of that position. In fact, that may even be why the Democrats can't win important elections, despite the president's poll numbers: because the fringe Left scares the mass of Democrats.

The GWOT is not controversial; but fighting Iraq is a partisan issue, because a very large portion of the country, possibly a majority (but disproportionately Democrats), believe it's a detour from the war on terror. They aren't pacifists; but they totally oppose the Iraq war.

Thus, saying "we should fight against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11" is not a partisan statement... but "we should remove Saddam Hussein by force" certainly is.

I'll not apologize [to Coulter] for judging her based on what she actually said, rather than on what her defenders wish she had said.

Hm... I don't think I've asked you to apologize for anything. Coulter is a combatant; as such, she is a fair target -- not only for liberals but also for anti-liberals who oppose her tactics.

She can take care of herself. I do, however, disagree with you.

I don't consider what Coulter said to be any more over the line than what the run-of-the-mill liberal says about us. Now, that's a pretty low standard, I'll grant you; but that is the correct standard to use.

We can right this domestic war two ways:

  • By tennis rules, in which case the Left will stomp all over us in hobnailed boots and break our spine in six places... after which, if we're able to wobble to our feet, we can leap over the net and congratulate them on their victory;
  • Or by Rugby rules, including elbows to the mouth and knees to the groin... in which case we've got a much better than even chance, because most liberals are girly men. (Even liberal women are girly men.)

Dennis Prager plays tennis; Ann Coulter plays ruggers. I honestly believe Coulter is ten times as effective as Prager.

I'm playing to win the domestic war, because it's the only way we'll ever win the real war. I'll defend Coulter and her tactics -- not what I "wish she had said," but "what she actually said" -- so long as she's still fighting effectively for my side.

If you can show me, really show me and not just assert, that she's a liability for our side... then I'll cease defending her. Coulter speaks all around the country; if we start seeing significant movement towards the Democrats in actual votes after Coulter has been in that district or been on TV, then I'll reconsider.

But until then, I stick up for my guys as long as they're not deliberately attacking non-combatants. That's what I said at the beginning of this very post, and I stick with it.

Dafydd

P.S. Can you please point me to the panel in the Rall cartoon where he attacks one of the widows for becoming a partisan Republican combatant? I just read it over about three times now (gee, thanks for that opportunity <g>), and I only see them being attacked for being greedy, uncaring, and basking in their celebrity.

They were never combatants... but Rall went after them anyway. That is despicable; not what Coulter does.

DaH

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 13, 2006 12:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Marvin Williams

I like Anne and would like to praise what she is doing...

The above hissed in response by: Marvin Williams [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 13, 2006 3:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

"Can you please point me to the panel in the Rall cartoon where he attacks one of the widows for becoming a partisan Republican combatant?"

Let me remind you of your earlier statement, since you have evidently forgotten it:

Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

That is inaccurate. He also attacked them for going on talk shows and holding press conferences, and for displaying an alleged eerie calmness.

It would be nice if you would admit you mischaracterized the cartoon.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 13, 2006 8:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

I've tried posting this twice. Here goes again:

"P.S. Can you please point me to the panel in the Rall cartoon where he attacks one of the widows for becoming a partisan Republican combatant?"

Actually, the inaccurate statement of yours that I corrected was this:

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

Not so. He criticized them for things they did: calling press conferences, appearing on talk shows, and showing an eerie calm. This is plain to anyone who looks at the cartoon. I challenge you to deny it.

You mischaracterized the cartoon. You should acknowledge this.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 13, 2006 8:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Actually, the inaccurate statement of yours that I corrected was this:

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

Not so. He criticized them for things they did: calling press conferences, appearing on talk shows, and showing an eerie calm. This is plain to anyone who looks at the cartoon. I challenge you to deny it.

You mischaracterized the cartoon. You should acknowledge this.

All right, Patterico; I agreed with you against XRLQ when you complained about him calling you "hyperliteral."

But this complaint is "hyperliteral." Honestly!

The point was whether it was hypocritical to dump on Ted Rall for his cartoon while defending Ann Coulter for her comment (that she had "never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much")... or whether there were some clear and logical distinction between the two that allowed us legitimately to discriminate.

My point -- made in this very post -- was that there was such a distinction; and it was that Coulter attacked women who had made themselves political combatants, hence legitimate targets, while Rall attacked women who had not made themselves combatants.

I looked at the cartoon and noticed that not even Rall claimed they were combatants: not a single panel depicts the women campaigning for Republicans or attacking Democrats or agitating for the Iraq war or anything controversial.

But I confess, I confess, that instead of writing all that out -- I used shorthand.

I wrote:

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money in compensation.

I don't recall any 9/11 widows using their grief as sanction to become partisan Republican campaigners.

If they did not, then the Rall cartoon is an abomination, and he should be expelled from civilized society.

What I should have written, to be absolutely precise, was:

As I recall, and as the cartoon itself (which I just reviewed from your link) bears out, Rall was attacking the widows not for anything they did, but for having received a bunch of money and adulation in compensation.

I don't recall any 9/11 widows using their grief as sanction to become partisan Republican campaigners.

If they did not, then the Rall cartoon is an abomination, and he should be expelled from civilized society.

I'm not exactly sure why that makes any difference. The point is identical: not even Ted Rall pretends that the 9/11 widows he mocked were fighting against his side; had they been, I feel quite safe in assuming that Rall would have said something about it.

But Patterico, why haven't you responded to the actual point of the discussion, then? You gave an analogy, and I gave you a clear and logical reason why the analogy was inaccurate: because we are allowed to discriminate between political combatants and non-combatants.

  • Coulter targeted combatants -- volunteers, not even draftees.
  • Rall, like most liberals, targeted innocent civilians.

Do you actually not see any difference there?

By the way, I myself am definitely a combatant. If someone were to attack me the way Coulter attacked the Jersey Girls, I would respond -- but I wouldn't accuse them of "debate crime," if such a thing exists.

As I certainly would if they launched the same attack against my mother: Mom isn't a combatant.

And neither is Bush's mother, by the way, for all that she occasionally defends her sons... she is not in the fray on a day-to-day basis, duking it out and launching attacks on her "opponents," the way Hillary Clinton or Newt Gingrich or Tom DeLay do.

Combatant; non-combatant. Legitimate target; illegitimate target. Coulter; Rall.

Comprends-tu?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 14, 2006 12:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Yup. Now let's look at a recent Ted Rall post about Coulter and his cartoon:

[Coulter is] a lot meaner to the widows as people than my cartoon was, which explored the way specific media figures--Mariane Pearl, Theodore Olsen and Lisa Beamer--exploited their spouses' deaths to make money or political hay. The vast majority of widows and widowers of 9/11, I have repeatedly said and written, deserve our sympathy and whatever help they need to rebuild their lives. My commentary was about the media phenomenon, such as the parade of 9/11 widows who went on stage during the 2004 GOP Necropublican Convention in New York to endorse Bush, then the specific individuals.

Wow. That sounds a lot like the defenses of Coulter I have been reading lately, both here and on my site.

Now let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that Teddy-boy is correct as a factual matter about these women -- especially the "making political hay" part, since that's your pet problem. Would that justify, in your mind, Teddy's panel about Mariane Pearl, whose husband was beheaded by terrorists?

Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion that Mariane Pearl used the fame she received from her husband's beheading to support a political candidate. Say, for example, she had appeared with Bush on stage and said: "I endorse Bush because he is fighting the terrorists who killed my husband." Does that make it okay, in your mind, for Teddy to depict her facing a row of microphones and saying: “Of course it’s a bummer that they slashed my husband’s throat, but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!”

See, because I happen to think that panel shows Rall to be a soulless cretin -- regardless of whether Pearl ever supported a political candidate.

But perhaps, assuming she had the gall to publicly support a candidate, perhaps you would support that panel. Your argument certainly suggests that you would.

Would you?

I breathlessly await your reply.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 14, 2006 6:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: JebTexas

Sir Dafydd, great post! Just found your site, and I'll surely be back. Where did you find the data on Okra's audience compostion during the Dow-Corning episode? I've seen clips from that show, and it seems the audience was as biased as you wrote. I've looked on her site, and searched a bit on the 'net, but no joy. Can we document anything about her audience selection questions? Those data would be really good ammo for an ongoing donnybrook I'm caught up in. As I do with all slippery leftards, I extensively document each and every fact I fight with. EG: I found 3 sites with 3 different studies for the cancer rates of silicone implants vs. no implants - and surprise! No evidence of increased cancer risk. Great ammo!

Argueing with those like monkeyboy is as fruitless as talking to a brick wall, as they have their own version of reality, totally independent of facts. Monkey, the estate (mostly family farm land) I got from my folks was upper 6-figures, quite a bit more than I will ever make. Having to pay tax on money that was already taxed TWICE was total BS. Stick your estate tax where the sun don't shine.

JebTexasLHB@netscape.net

The above hissed in response by: JebTexas [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 14, 2006 9:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

JebTexasL

Where did you find the data on Okra's audience compostion during the Dow-Corning episode?

Sorry, it wasn't from the permanent record. Sachi was an inveterate (thought not invertibrate) Oprah watcher at the time, and she saw the show. It was quite clear from the questions they asked, the belligerant attitude towards the guy from D-C, and the way they chanted that the game was rigged.

There would never be a record of such a thing, at least not one you could obtain without a subpoena served on Harpo Productions... and even then, they would just claim (perhaps honestly) that they didn't save any such records.

That is Sachi's recollection, and she was at least an eyewitness (well, "eye" as in unblinking eye).

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 14, 2006 10:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion that Mariane Pearl used the fame she received from her husband's beheading to support a political candidate. Say, for example, she had appeared with Bush on stage and said: "I endorse Bush because he is fighting the terrorists who killed my husband." Does that make it okay, in your mind, for Teddy to depict her facing a row of microphones and saying: “Of course it’s a bummer that they slashed my husband’s throat, but the worst was having to watch the Olympics alone!”

Is she a legitimate target in that case? Yup. But is the attack itself a legitimate attack? We haven't gotten that far yet; one step at a time.

I wouldn't agree with his attack; but if she had indeed used the notoriety she inherited from what happened to her husband to endorse a political candidate -- and especially if she then turned around and attacked that candidate's opponent ("I support George Bush, because Kerry is too spineless to go after the monsters who killed my husband") -- then she would indeed have made herself a combatant... and she is fair game for very hard-hitting attacks, including those that touch on her only reason for celebrity.

That still doesn't mean that every attack is fair (for Rall or for Coulter). Bush is certainly a political combatant, yet it wouldn't be fair to accuse him of accepting bribes, for example; that is a specific charge, and there is no shred of evidence that he's ever done so. But is he a legitimate target for political attack? You betcha.

And so would Mrs. Pearl be, if in fact your hypothetical were correct (I have no idea if it is or isn't).

However, we must make one large distinction. Let's change the hypothetical from what you postulated to one where she merely appears on the stage at the 2004 RNCon, accepts some sort of award on behalf of her husband, and speaks movingly of the need to support the widows and orphans of whatever.

That, to me, does not make her a combatant... because in that alternative hypothetical, she is not entering the political fray: at worst, she's being exploited by the Bush campaign; at best, she's being given an opportunity to address the nation about a non-controversial but important problem. In neither case is she making herself a combatant in the political war -- which is the ultimate test.

The Jersey Girls did, in fact, make themselves combatants (as Ann Coulter has as well, of course). Did Mariane Pearl? I don't recall her doing so, but I certainly wouldn't swear on a stack of Hayeks that she didn't.

If she did, then she is a legitimate target for Ted Rall's cartoon... though the cartoon is still not necessarily a legitimate attack on that legitimate target. If she didn't -- and I note that Rall does not actually claim she did in his cartoon -- then she isn't, and we can stop right there.

Oooh, I just thought of a legal analogy: suppose Abercrombie shoots Fitch. The first question a court would have to answer is whether there were any valid reason for Abercrombie to use force at all against Fitch. If Fitch were just standing on the corner picking his teeth, then no matter what kind of force Abercrombie used, he's in trouble.

But if the court determined that Fitch was threatening Abercrombie, then the next question is whether the force used was reasonable under the circumstances. If Fitch just said "you'd better not beat up my sister again or I'm gonna mess you over," I don't think it would justify Abercrombie slapping leather and putting a bullet between Fitch's eyes.

But if Fitch saw Abercrombie, drew his razor, and charged at him, that's a different story, eh?

Right now we're at the phase of discussing whether the Jersey Girls and Mariane Pearl were legitimate targets of attack; later, we must discuss whether the attack itself was reasonable.

This applies to Ann Coulter, too: just because the Jersey Girls are legitimate targets -- combatants -- that isn't proof positive that her attack on them was itself legitimate; we still must argue that point. (Preview: I argue it was.) At this juncture, I'm only arguing that they were legitimate targets... not yet whether Coutler's attack was a legit attack.

I breathlessly await your reply.

Breathe. You'll feel better.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 1:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

Oh. I thought that anyone who became a political combatant "forfeited any claim to politeness, sensitivity, or concern." And I thought you purported to "defend the very words she [Coulter] used." And I thought that all that meant that you were already saying Coulter's attack was legit.

Maybe you can explain how you "defend the very words [Coulter] used" -- yet remain agnostic as to whether her attack was legit.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 2:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

Oh. I thought that anyone who became a political combatant "forfeited any claim to politeness, sensitivity, or concern."

That is correct. But not justice; nobody can ever forfeit justice, because justice is an inalienable right (meaning that it cannot be taken, given, or bargained away).

I would not be concerned about Josef Stalin's feelings, nor sensitive to his needs, nor, for God's sake, would I be polite to the man. But I would not deny even Stalin justice.

And I thought you purported to "defend the very words she [Coulter] used." And I thought that all that meant that you were already saying Coulter's attack was legit.

Maybe you can explain how you "defend the very words [Coulter] used" -- yet remain agnostic as to whether her attack was legit.

I am not agnostic, and I do defend her words. But if we're going to discuss such weighty matters, we must do so in a coherent order.

We cannot proceed higgledy-piggledy; we cannot move on to point B unless and until we come to agreement upon point A. You can't start proving up damages until you first show liability.

  1. Do you agree that we can make a logical distinction between those who are combatants and those who are not?
  2. Do you agree that one way (among others) one can become a combatant is to voluntarily join the combat on one side or another?
  3. Finally, do you agree that if the Jersey Girls did indeed lash out at Republicans, in the context of supporting Democrats in the election, that this constitutes joining combat on the Democratic side?

If so, then we're a long way along the road. All we need do at this point is clear up whether the Jersey Girls did or did not do as Coulter suggests they did, and we will at least have resolved one question: whether they were legitimate targets.

(For example, suppose you believe it would have been proper for Coulter to attack the Jersey Girls by saying something less spicy; then you are at least agreeing that they were valid targets. That is Point A.)

Only then would we be ready to embark upon the second phase, Point B: was Coulter's attack upon the JGs unjust, even if they were valid targets?

After all, if they were never legit targets in the first place, we needn't even proceed to whether the charge was accurate; the attack would be unjust regardless of its truth or falsity.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 3:06 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

I have already said in numerous comments and posts that Coulter could have made several fair points about the Jersey Girls. They have thrust themselves into the spotlight, like Mother Sheehan, and fair criticism of them is of course fair game.

You're talking to someone, recall, who wrote a newspaper column that raised several uncomfortable facts about the (at the time) sainted Mother Sheehan -- albeit those points were raised in the context of media criticism (for failure on the media's part to raise those points themselves).

So yes, of course, fair comment on the Jersies is proper.

I just don't believe Coulter's very premeditated comment was fair game, as written.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 6:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

In other words, you have expended a lot of words to get us past Step A -- but most of us concede Step A, and we started off arguing about Step B, because Step A is a no-brainer for rational people.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 6:50 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

I have already said in numerous comments and posts that Coulter could have made several fair points about the Jersey Girls. They have thrust themselves into the spotlight, like Mother Sheehan, and fair criticism of them is of course fair game.

Good; then we can move on to Point B.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 4:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

What's stopping you?

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 6:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Patterico:

What's stopping you?

From what? I made my initial case in the post.

If you're arguing with it -- now that we've established that the Jersey Girls were legitimate targets -- you should make your argument why Coulter's words were unjust.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 15, 2006 10:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Patterico

I already have, at length, on my blog, so not right now. I may have even done it on this thread, too -- I'm too tired to check.

The above hissed in response by: Patterico [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 16, 2006 12:14 AM

The following hissed in response by: MikeR

Dafydd, at pragerfans.com I showed someone your post, which I had liked. He challenged me on a fact that everyone here is taking for granted: That the Jersey widows or someone on their side are claiming the infallibility of grief, and that you can't attack them or disagree with them. Do you have evidence for that? (Little bit late now for me to be asking! But it's hard for me to research it, and maybe you have or had lots of examples already available.) I didn't, for instance, see that Lauer's interview was sufficient evidence; that was focused on Coulter's words, and one could easily claim that the outrage was on the harsh way she said it. Thanks.

The above hissed in response by: MikeR [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 19, 2007 7:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

MikeR:

I'm pretty sure it's described in detail in one of Coulter's books; alas, they're higgledy-piggledy all over my house, and I can't look it up now.

But if you go to a bookstore and flip through the indices of her books (look for "Jersey girls"), I think it very likely you'll find what Coulter was reacting to in the first place.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at December 19, 2007 7:49 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved