I think we can all agree that Ann Coulter is the true victim here
McCullough (above): A living warning of the physical effects
of spite, pepperoni Hot Pockets, and Mario Kart.
Wouldn’t you just know it? There Ann Coulter was, minding her own business and exercising her First Amendment rights as innocently as a septuagenarian practicing tai chi in the park, when – WHAMMO! – the liberals sensed an opening to spew a bunch of stuff (invective? bile? Jarritos Tamarindo?), just like they always do. Kevin McCullough, for one, has had enough of the liberals and their unfair tactics:
Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public policy debates. Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best-seller “GODLESS” and true to form liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they do is not because it breaks some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife, or relative. Rather the reason they are so outraged by this is because it simply stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who ‘can’t be criticized’.
Well, I’ll be damned. I don’t think anyone believes that Cindy Sheehan or the Jersey Girls shouldn’t be criticized for their views, but people who possess enough decency to fill a rolling paper know it’s kind of crass to criticize the victims of tragedies for being the victims of tragedies. Big diff.
[W]hen the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of “pure political posturing.” Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the President’s opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry’s name was never even invoked. And their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
Or, in other words, “No, you’re not doing it right. Your grieving is politically incorrect, and I am offended.” (And he’s only half-right about the high-minded discourse endorsed by the GOP’s political widows; they introduced Rudy Giuliani, who gave a speech mocking John Kerry. Oh, and they also remained politically active, publicly supporting Bush and his policies as recently as a couple of months ago. Not that I care all that much, but still. And there’s also that whole Ashley’s Story thing.)
The Jersey Girls on the other hand have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9/11 Commission’s findings, to the operation of the global War On Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words – they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them – to enter the fray, to don the gloves, and to mix it up.
So that’s how it works then? Let me give it a whirl. For instance, I could say that Kevin McCullough is a sallow, weak-chinned nose-hair farmer with the physique of a veal calf and the insight of a claw hammer. Would I not be mixing it up? Donning the gloves? Entering the fray? Isn’t that how it works: You speak your mind, and someone lashes you with personal insults?
If they had any integrity, McCullough and Coulter would attack the Jersey Girls on the issues, instead of trivializing their loss to undermine their credibility. They’d argue that the Jersey Girls were wrong to call for an independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks despite the Bush administration’s repeated objections and foot-dragging. If they had any guts, they’d argue that the American people don’t deserve to know more about what happened that day. If they were on the level, they’d tell us that we can’t afford to ask the hard questions that could improve our national security, because it might reflect poorly on a president they support. They’d argue that the Jersey Girls overstepped their rights as Americans by publicly endorsing the presidential candidate of their choice, because unprincipled hacks like Coulter and McCullough believe patriotism is entirely political (i.e., you go to war with the president you have, not the president you wish you had). If they had any honesty, they’d admit they believe Cindy Sheehan forfeited her rights as a grieving mother because, well, because they don’t like her.
But they don’t do that, at least not unequivocably, because they can’t do that. Those just aren’t winning ideas, because most people care about things, and other people especially.
For the last few weeks Congressman Murtha has been criss-crossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device and as a result tragically some women and children ended up dead.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Ended up dead? Seriously? Ended up dead? I’m speechless.
The marines claimed that they were then fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out – but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the marines’ account.
Liberals are using the exact same tactics today.
Okay, I’ll be your huckleberry. Let’s indulge this nasty little “human shields” analogy McCullough is trying on like a flimsy nightgown. On the ethical slide rule, which has a lower value: placing women and children into harm’s way and daring your enemy to call your bluff, or shooting those women and children indiscriminantly and without remorse because they were placed in harm’s way by your opponent. That’s a rhetorical question, so go ahead and keep your answer to yourself if you like.
Coulter’s critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well being of political discourse in general.
A verbal Haditha? What the fuck does that even mean? And I thought Haditha didn’t actually — aw, fuck it.
Coulter has earned every ounce of scorn and vehemence that’s she’s had to endure (just another day at the office for an empty-hearted provocateur, I suppose), and it’s come from all sides. Hell, even the Anchoress interrupted her hair-brushing reverie to complain.
By paying the price for us she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance, and to not fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.
Ann Coulter, defender of substance and integrity. Now I’ve seen everything.
Look, it works like this: Disagree all you want with a victim. Sometimes their views are lacking in reason, common sense or sound judgement. (That’s why victims don’t sit on juries.) It’s okay to do that. Victims don’t have ultimate, unassailable credibility, because no one has that, but they’ve got some credibility they earned the hard way, and which they would gladly hand over if it were that easy. But you can’t bend the rules, twisting the truth itself, and imply that their unfortunate status as a victim is somehow false because it makes it harder to prove your point.
And, really, if you honestly believe that a person would want to be the victim of a tragedy so they can go on television, sell a few books and meet Jay Leno, would you please tell the rest of us, so we can be sure to stay the fuck away from you?
The fact is that blaming the victim for their own victimness is like the only thing the right has left.
Honestly, I don’t get this smear the 9/11 widows thing. Wouldn’t it just have been easier to go “Their loss has made them lose perspective” rather than calling them harpies who enjoyed their husbands’ (and childrens’) deaths? I have always figured that if someone has lost a child or a husband via a terrible incident (fire, war, terrorism…) that that gives ’em the right to speak about it, even if they want to cheer Bush II on. Don’t we owe it to them to listen to them even if we disagree with what they say?
Ahh, passive constrution. Friend of all those in need of an excuse.
“You see, I had come home from work and went into the kitchen. Fifteen minutes later, the blueberry pie was eaten. Let’s wait for the official investigation.”
Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well being of political discourse in general.
The Broads should take their money and shut up? These Harpies are enjoying their husbands’ deaths? These things she is saying are ultimately for the “well being of political discourse in general”? Um, I just GOTTA be missing something here. Or the stately train of logic has run off the rails and straight into Lala-land.
I’m actually a little confused by Ann’s heated and vituperous criticism of the 9/11 widows over their being off limits to criticism. How, exactly, does this make any sense? It seems kind of like throwing your bottle of milk out the window and getting pissed that you are out of milk.
In a sense, this particular event is not going to go away. Like the congresscritters that voted for the AUF, people who come out in direct support of Ann Coulters hateful, mean and unfair attack on the 9/11 survivors will be repeatedly, if only occasionally, called on their shameful behavior. Perhaps for decades to come. As well they should…
mikey
“The memes went up?” New rule: you can’t use the word meme unless you know what the fuck it means.
Just for the sheer head-explodey-ness, I kind of wish she’d called the Jersey Girls “little Eichmanns.”
He’s basically admitting that unless they can engage in character assasination, the Right has nothing. That they are incapable of engaging the 9/11 widows in a manner that might begin something like this:
“I can only imagine the pain you must feel to lose your husbands in the tragedy of September 11. I appreciate that you are speaking out for the best interests of the country now. However, I think that your recommendations are not in the best interests of the country and here’s why…”
Was that so hard? Offer sympathy to a grieving widow? A little Martin Buber “I/Thou” vibe? And yet disagree with the substantive policy recommendation? Nope, can’t be done. Because if you disagree with Dear Leader’s agenda, you are a vile person and must be callled a vile person. Those who disagree can’t possibly be good Americans. They can’t even really be human beings.
Here was my take on Ann Coulter after watching her being interviewed by Matt Lauer. She has a subtext that she’s not even aware of when she says, “Give me someone I can criticize, give me someone I can talk back to.” Her MO is, as we all know, to smear those who disagree with her (and vice-versa) in the foulest, most extreme way she can think up and ridicule, not refute, their opinions. But she knows that having suffered a great personal loss because of some historical event does confer moral authority, and she hates that. That person does have a special reason why we should listen to them. Sorry, but it’s true. That is why the person is involved in the issue in the first place, and they do have a motive and a perspective that we can’t match. But what Coulter means is that she knows she looks bad when she treats them like everyone else. She’s saying, “All I’ve got is my foul language and my hate, but I look bad when I turn it on grieving people. Get rid of the people with moral authority and give me someone I can attack!” It’s not a question of grieiving widows being untouchable; what she can’t stand is the fact that she has no answer for them–what could she say, “you don’t know what you’re talking about”? She wants them to just go away because they show her up as the pointlessly evil harridan she is.
Oh, my gosh, while I was writing that whole thing, jpj said it in one sentence. (The first one.)
I’m glad you gave that more than the Two Minute Clownho’ treatment as it’s sure to be a Wingnut Classic. Especially the “ended up dead” and “verbal Haditha” lines. You have to get up early in the morning to be that stupid by lunchtime.
And Kevin does look remarkably like Roger from American Dad. Just sayin’.
[W]hen the GOP invited widows of 9/11 to participate in their national convention, the memes went up from the left of “pure political posturing.�
No you fucking dickbag — it was the fact that the national convention was in a city they could give a shit about EXCEPT for the fact that it was in a city which had a certain attack that they could use for their own political posturing that made us say they were merely posturing.
The RudePundit always has the last word when dealing with these jack-booted fascists because when they debase discourse with their lies, willful misinterpretations and abandonment of common decency, they’re establishing the rules of the game they seem to want to play.
Gus said,
“The memes went up?� New rule: you can’t use the word meme unless you know what the fuck it means.
But he hears librul use them fancy college words, and figures that that’s all standing between him and Innelectual Seriousness. And that’s why he’s fomenting.
Coulter’s critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha
Is he implying we forced women and children to read Coulter’s book? That’s a MONSTROUS accusation!
Ann Coulter:
fuckhead?
or shitbag?
the fact that she has the nerve to try and play the victim because people are
[GASP!…SHOCK!!!] not taking kindly to her insults just proves what a laughably stupid harpy she is.
She’s an asswipe of the highest order and her attempts to claim that all she ever encounters is hostility
instead of rational debate is the largest load of horseshit.
Coulter’s gimmick is that she intentionally neuters the possibility of civil debate by being as vile as possible
and then having the nerve to be shocked at the outrage she produces.
After my own family’s experiences, i never thought i’d say some shit like this, but i genuinely wish some
slow, rotting cancer upon her so that she can be as physically diseased as she is mentally and spiritually
If mAnn were really brave, she’d say that to the widows’ faces, directly, live and in person. Has any of the brave 101st Keyboard Kommandos suggested this?
I’m still laughing(albeit grimly) at this guy’s “logic.” It bothers him that we criticize Coulter for ad hominem, it *must* be some devious Liberal strategy, because it’s just not possible she could be criticized on the merits of her argument: we know we “would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates,” he has declared it to be true. So we know Liberal strategy is unfair because they criticize Coulter(She hid not Her face from shame and spitting), and we know criticizing Coulter is unfair because it’s Liberal strategy. It boils down to the fact that he sees Coulter(and the Haditha Marines) exactly how he claims we see the widows and Murtha, as those who can’t be criticized.
mAnn Coulter. If only (s)he had a heart we could drive a stake into….
Ann Coulter operates very much like a really good spiritual teacher by being willing to call a spade a spade. Liberals are hopelessly trapped in fantasy and self-deception and she calls them on it. If they don’t want to hear the wake up call, they will attack her. If they stop and ask themselves if she has a point, they will grow and open spiritually.
If they stop and ask themselves if she has a point, they will grow and open spiritually.
Hey mikey, does Ann Coulter have a point when she spews the foulest of vile hatred and falsehood?
Nope, she’s utterly full of shit, taking the most outrageous path in order to get attention, get on TV, and sell books. She’s a filthy, vile hater who deserves nothing but condemnation.
Hey, thanks for the info, mikey. I feel as if I’ve grown and opened my spiritual, er, stuff.
No sweat, mikey, ask me anything, anytime.
mikey
Master, we are thankful to you that we are here. What must we do to be doing the works of God?
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
“…liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots…”
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. That’s just a joke, for you in the media.”
“Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.”
“There are a lot of bad republicans; there are no good democrats.”
“We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.”
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
Praise be to God.
I’m gonna paraphrase (m)Ann and say that my only regret about September 11 is that Ann Coulter wasn’t in Barbara Olson’s seat
Perhaps I’ve merely hit the low point of my emotional cycle, but this quote:
“There are a lot of bad republicans; there are no good democrats.�
Isn’t entirely off-base right now.
Well, except Feingold.
If a tornado dropped a house from, say, Kansas on Ann Coulter, do you suppose her striped socks would curl up as her body dissolved?
That guy looks like the Daily show correspondant Rob Cordry, after like 30 years of intense drug abuse. Like speedballs every night.
Those are not so much bags under his eyes as they are duffle bags. Get some sleep, dude!
Travis G.
Insightful remarks – thanks.
If Ann needs more research on hateful tactics of liberals, she can use the blogs that attack her personally to prove her point. She is using her freedom of press to present and argue the merits of her positions. The paleo-libos can only curse, name call, and ridicule. I see no liberal blogs that actally present a logical disagreement with her contention that Liberalism is a religion and the God of our fathers is not part of it. The liberal blogs are like “partial birth abortion”, once you really understand what is being defended, you cringe with disgust and horror.
The liberal blogs are like “partial birth abortion�, once you really understand what is being defended, you cringe with disgust and horror.
Ummm, ok, I’m still kind of a beginner, so if this question is somehow rude or not appropriate, I apologize. But Jeezus Key Riste on a Tricycle!! Where are these people coming from??
mikey
Mikey — when a mommy wingnut and a daddy wingnut love each other very much (or a salesman from places unknown ends up in downtown Toledo and doesn’t _want_ to spend his big night all alone)… *Ahem* I have no idea.
On a completely different note… I’d love to follow her around for a week (at a safe distance). Where does she shop? Stores where she’s all but guaranteed to be served by someone as obviously pasty-pale as herself, who probably wears their college diploma on their shirtsleeve, so she knows she’s not being served by a moron? Does she make people tell her what their political leanings are before she deigns to interact with them?
What about when she goes out? How does she deal with all of the obviously inferior people on the streets? And she’s in New York, so she’s probably taken a cab at least once. Or maybe even (God Forbid!) the -subway-. Which, as you know, is full of Muslims and non-republicans alike. How _does_ she deal with it all?
What the heck are paleo-libos? I assume you mean paleo-liberals, but I’ve never heard that term before. I have heard the term neo-liberals, but that was on Fark, where brains go to die. Also, partial-birth abortion is a term created by anti-choicers to refer to intact dilation and extraction.
Never forget these are the same folks that say victims of rape encourage it by the clothing they wear. Complete maniacs…
Okay, Coulter is a woman who calls for her enemies to be killed.
What does she think is going to happen to her if she criticises the widows? Clearly she isn’t losing out on TV appearences. And if she’s not a hypocrite she can’t mind people saying, “Ann Coulter is an evil bitch”.
“The marines claimed that they were then fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. …Liberals are using the exact same tactics today.”
So, in his mind, being used as shield against BULLETS is the same as being used as a shield aginst criticism?
“If Ann needs more research on hateful tactics of liberals, she can use the blogs that attack her personally to prove her point. She is using her freedom of press to present and argue the merits of her positions. The paleo-libos can only curse, name call, and ridicule. I see no liberal blogs that actally present a logical disagreement with her contention that Liberalism is a religion and the God of our fathers is not part of it. The liberal blogs are like “partial birth abortionâ€?, once you really understand what is being defended, you cringe with disgust and horror. ”
Oh-my-frickin’-god. This shite belongs in the Museum of Wingnut Projection. It is, in its own perverse and demented way, perfection itself.