Ann Coulter: An Embarrassment to Conservatives

[Ralph]

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Massive chip on her Coulter
BY ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, June 6th, 2006

When their husbands were killed on 9/11, four New Jersey widows tried to find out why - and now no-holds-barred conservative pundit Ann Coulter is mercilessly denouncing them as "witches."

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her new book.

Her brutal words were challenged yesterday on national television by "Today" host Matt Lauer - and she was slammed by the widows she derided as self-absorbed, limelight-seeking "harpies."

"I'd like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father's death," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

"She sounds like a very disturbed, unraveled person," added Breitweiser.

In "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," the uncompromisingly right-wing Coulter writes the Jersey Girls have no right to criticize President Bush or any of the failures that led to the terror attacks.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .

"These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza bonded after their husbands died on 9/11, leaving them with seven children and a desire for answers.

They pushed to create the 9/11 commission, which put out a scathing report criticizing the Clinton and Bush administrations for not taking the terrorist threat more seriously - and found New York's emergency response system wasn't prepared for a serious attack.

"Our ports have not been secured. Our borders have not been secured. We still haven't caught [Osama] Bin Laden," Van Auken said yesterday. "She's not even talking about what we were talking about. She's just attacking."

The Jersey Girls - or, as Coulter calls them, "the Witches of East Brunswick" - have been criticized before, but never like this. Van Auken told the Daily News she was stunned by the vitriol.

"Having my husband burn alive in a building brought me no joy," she said. "Watching it unfold on national TV and .seeing it repeated endlessly was beyond what I could describe. Telling my children they would never see their father again was not fun. And we had no plans to divorce."

When Lauer grilled Coulter about the book, she yelled at him so harshly that gasps echoed through Rockefeller Center - and then she made a wisecrack about CBS-bound former host Katie Couric.

"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?" Lauer asked.

As the exchange grew tense, Coulter said, "Look, you're getting testy with me."

She later added: "Hey, where's Katie? Did she leave or something?"

Last night, Coulter didn't back down from bashing the 9/11 widows. "These women got paid. They ought to take their money and shut up about it," Coulter said on MSNBC's "The Situation with Tucker Carlson."

Coulter made headlines in the past when she called for blowing up The New York Times Building, advocated forcing Muslims to become Christians and wrote an entire book that said every American liberal is guilty of treason.

Her controversial writings have made her a best-selling .author and syndicated columnist and put her on the cover of Time magazine. She's made big bucks in the process, buying a $1.5 million condo on the upper East Side.

Politicians of both parties denounced Coulter's comments.

"It's totally inhumane to be saying things like this about people who went through such agony," said Rep. Pete King (R-L.I.).

"It seems that she's just full of anger and hate," said Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan), who held a news conference yesterday with relatives of 9/11 victims on the country's failure to improve security.

"Like an insecure child, it's always been clear that Ann Coulter is prepared to do anything to get attention," added Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn, Queens). "This is a new low."

With Michael McAuliff in Washington
and Derek Rose

[Auntie Lynn]

I took a real drubbing on this very site some time back when I suggested that she was a real twit...a chacun son gout...

[Ralph]

I took a real drubbing on this very site some time back when I suggested that she was a real twit...a chacun son gout...

*****

And she's not even pretty.

[Ralph]

Hillary lashes out at Ann Coulter
6/7/2006, 2:08 p.m. ET
By DEVLIN BARRETT
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton lashed out at Ann Coulter for a "vicious, mean-spirited attack" on a group of outspoken 9/11 widows, whom the right-wing television pundit described as "self-obsessed" and enjoying their husbands' deaths.

Coulter writes in a new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," that a group of New Jersey widows whose husbands perished in the World Trade Center act "as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them."

She also wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."

Clinton, who has felt Coulter's wrath over the years, responded angrily on Wednesday.

"Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless,'" the senator said. "I know a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11. They never wanted to be a member of a group that is defined by the tragedy of what happened."

The New York Democrat and former first lady said she found it "unimaginable that anyone in the public eye could launch a vicious, mean-spirited attack on people whom I've known over the last four and a half years to be concerned deeply about the safety and security of our country."

The senator spoke after delivering a speech on protecting children from exposure to sex- and violence-saturated media.

Coulter appeared Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, and reiterated her stance, saying the women used their grief "to make a political point."

Her criticism was aimed at four New Jersey women whom she dubbed "The Witches of East Brunswick," after the town where two of them live.

They have spent the years since the 2001 terror attacks supporting an independent commission to examine government failures before the attack, and in the 2004 presidential campaign they endorsed Democrat John Kerry.

The women are Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza of New Jersey.

The women, who are still pushing for changes in how the government guards against future attacks, issued a joint statement after Coulter's television appearance.

"We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulters statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day," the women said.

[Werner]

And such scum sells books!

[pizza]

These ladies are public figures, involved in political discourse on a national level, and have publicly taken and invited some pretty cheap and offensive shots at Republican figures themselves, including Donald Rumsfeld and Carl Rove. This kind of stuff isn't surprising and Coulter isn't unique in that respect. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and a few other liberal extremists of the NYT editorial staff are experts at and guilty of the same kind of smear tactics. That's the level to which much of politics in America has sunk to nowadays.


Wikipedia says:

Kristin Breitweiser is a lawyer and one of the Jersey Girls, four women from New Jersey who were widowed when their husbands were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequently researched the policy and intelligence failures that led up to the attacks. She was instrumental in bringing the 9/11 Commission into existence. She has testified before Congress and has been spoken of as a potential candidate for the United States Senate.

Although Breitweiser stated that she voted for George W. Bush in 2000, she vigorously supported John Kerry in 2004 and is now an outspoken democratic critic of the Bush Administration, claiming Bush has not made the United States safer since the attacks, as well as criticizing the war in Iraq.

Since May 2005 she's been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Breitweiser

[pizza]

From the Wall Street Journal


The 9/11 Widows
Americans are beginning to tire of them.

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

"I watched my husband murdered live on TV. . . . At any point in time the casualties could have been lessened, and it seems to me there wasn't even an attempt made."

--Monica Gabrielle

"Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch."

-- Kristin Breitweiser

No one by now needs briefings on the identities of the commentators quoted above. The core group of widows led by the foursome known as "The Jersey Girls," credited with bringing the 9/11 Commission into being, are by now world famous. Their already established status in the media, as a small but heroically determined band of sisters speaking truth to power, reached ever greater heights last week, when National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made her appearance at a commission session--an event that would not have taken place, it was understood, without the pressure from the widows. Television interviewers everywhere scrambled to land these guests--a far cry from the time, last June, when group leader Kristin Breitweiser spoke of her disappointment in the press, complaining to one journalist, "I've been scheduled to go on 'Meet the Press' and 'Hardball' so many times, and I'm always canceled."

No one is canceling her these days. The night of Ms. Rice's appearance, the Jersey Girls appeared on "Hardball," to charge that the national security adviser had failed to do her job, that the government failed to provide a timely military response, that the president had spent time reading to schoolchildren after learning of the attack, that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots. Others who had lost family to the terrorists' assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers. Debra Burlingame--lifelong Democrat, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, captain of American Airlines flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, did manage to land an interview after Ms. Rice's appearance. When she had finished airing her views critical of the accusatory tone and tactics of the Jersey Girls, her interviewer, ABC congressional reporter Linda Douglass marveled, "This is the first time I've heard this point of view."

That shouldn't have been surprising. The hearing room that day had seen a substantial group of 9/11 families, similarly irate over the Jersey Girls and their accusations--families that made their feelings evident in their burst of loud applause when Ms. Rice scored a telling zinger under questioning. But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story--that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration "to its knees"--and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story.

A fair number of the Americans not working in the media may, on the other hand, by now be experiencing Jersey Girls Fatigue--or taking a hard look at the pronouncements of the widows. Statements like that of Monica Gabrielle, for example (not one of the Jersey Girls, though an activist of similar persuasion), who declared that she could discern no attempt to lessen the casualties on Sept. 11. What can one make of such a description of the day that saw firefighters by the hundreds lose their lives in valiant attempts to bring people to safety from the burning floors of the World Trade Center--that saw deeds like that of Morgan Stanley's security chief, Rick Rescorla, who escorted 2,700 employees safely out of the South Tower, before he finally lost his own life?

But the best known and most quoted pronouncement of all had come in the form of a question put by the leader of the Jersey Girls. "We simply wanted to know," Ms. Breitweiser said, by way of explaining the group's position, "why our husbands were killed. Why they went to work one day and didn't come back."

The answer, seared into the nation's heart, is that, like some 3,000 others who perished that day, those husbands didn't come home because a cadre of Islamist fanatics wanted to kill as many of the hated American infidels in their tall towers and places of government as they could, and they did so. Clearly, this must be a truth also known to those widows who asked the question--though in no way one would notice.

Who, listening to them, would not be struck by the fact that all their fury and accusation is aimed not at the killers who snuffed out their husbands' and so many other lives, but at the American president, his administration, and an ever wider assortment of targets including the Air Force, the Port Authority, the City of New York? In the public pronouncements of the Jersey Girls we find, indeed, hardly a jot of accusatory rage at the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. We have, on the other hand, more than a few declarations like that of Ms. Breitweiser, announcing that "President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day."

The venerable status accorded this group of widows comes as no surprise given our times, an age quick to confer both celebrity and authority on those who have suffered. As the experience of the Jersey Girls shows, that authority isn't necessarily limited to matters moral or spiritual. All that the widows have had to say--including wisdom mind-numbingly obvious, or obviously false and irrelevant--on the failures of this or that government agency, on derelictions of duty they charged to the president, the vice president, the national security adviser, Norad and the rest, has been received by most of the media and members of Congress with utmost wonder and admiration. They had become prosecutors and investigators, unearthing clues and connections related to 9/11, with, we're regularly informed, unrivalled dedication and skill.

The day of Ms. Rice's appearance before the Commission, a radiant Gail Sheehy, author of "Hillary's Choice," beamed gratitude as she congratulated the host of "Hardball" for bringing the women on as guests. She had been following the New Jersey moms for two years, Ms. Sheehy said, and they were always leaks ahead--of everyone. She wanted to note, too, "how the moms kept making that point that it was her [Ms. Rice's] job" to inform the president. Another indicator of their expertise.

Ms. Sheehy was hardly alone in her faith in the widows and their special skills. Their every shred of opinion about the hearings last week was actively solicited--as will be true, no doubt, this week. Asked what question she would put to Ms. Rice, if she could, one Jersey Girl answered, after some thought, that it would be, What did she know and when did she know it? The answer wasn't the first to suggest that the nation now confronted a new investigation of government malfeasance, and coverups on the order of Watergate, and that we'd been brought to this cleansing by the work of four New Jersey widows. One NBC journalist ended his summation of Ms. Rice's testimony with an urgent coda: The issue of real significance that day, he explained, would be how the families of the 9/11 victims reacted to her testimony. There would have been no doubt, in the mind of anyone listening, which families he meant.

Really? How can that be?--is the only reasonable response to that claim, which would not have been made in a saner time. How could it be that the most important issue emerging from an inquiry into undeniable intelligence failures, at a time of utmost national peril, was the way the victims' families reacted to the hearings?

Little wonder, given all this, that the 9/11 Four blossomed, under a warm media sun and the attention of legislators, into activists increasingly confident of their authority--that, with every passing month, their list of government agencies and agents guilty of dereliction of duty grew apace. So did their assurance that it had been given to them, as victims, to determine the proper standards of taste and respectfulness to be applied in everything related to Sept. 11, including, it turned out, the images of the destroyed World Trade Center in George Bush's first campaign ad, which elicited, from some of them, bitter charges of political exploitation.

Out of their loss and tragedy the widows had forged new lives as investigators of 9/11, analysts of what might have been had every agency of government done as it should. No one would begrudge them this solace.

Nor can anyone miss, by now, the darker side of this spectacle of the widows, awash in their sense of victims' entitlement, as they press ahead with ever more strident claims about the way the government failed them. Or how profoundly different all this is from the way in which citizens in other times and places reacted to national tragedy.

From August 1940 to May 1941, the Luftwaffe's nightly terror bombings killed 43,000 British men, women and children. That was only phase one. Phase two, involving the V-1 flying bombs and, later, rockets, killed an additional 6,180. The British defense, was, to the say the least, ineffectual, particularly in the early stages of the war--the antiaircraft guns were few, the fire control system inadequate, as was the radar system. Still, it would have been impossible, then as now, to imagine victims of those nightly assaults rising up to declare war on their government, charging its leaders, say, with failure to develop effective radar--the British government had, after all, had plenty of warning that war was coming. It occurred to no one, including families who had lost husbands, wives and children, to claim that tens of thousands had been murdered on Winston Churchill's watch. They understood that their war was with the enemies bombing them.

Nor, to take an example closer to our time, did the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing give rise to a campaign of accusation (notwithstanding a conspiracy theory or two) against the government for its failure to prevent the attack.

Yesterday's session of the 9/11 Commission brought an appearance by Attorney General John Ashcroft--a reminder, among other things, of various intriguing questions posed by some of Ms. Breitweiser's analyses (delivered in her testimony before the 2002 congressional committee) of the ways the Sept. 11 attack might have been foiled. If the Federal Aviation Administration had properly alerted passengers to the dangers they faced, she asked, how many victims might have thought twice before boarding an aircraft? And "how many victims would have taken notice of these Middle Eastern men while they were boarding their plane? Could these men have been stopped?"

A good question. One can only imagine how a broadcast of the warning, "Watch out for Middle Eastern men in line near you, as you board your flight," would have gone down in those quarters of the culture daily worried to death about the alleged threat to civil rights posed by profiling and similar steps designed to weed out terrorists. Consider, a veteran political aide mordantly asks, what the response would have been if John Ashcroft had issued a statement calling for such a precaution, prior to Sept. 11.

This week, as last, there will be no lack of air time for the Jersey Four, or journalists ravenous for their views. CBS's "The Early Show" yesterday brought a report from Monica Gabrielle, attesting that her husband might have escaped from the South Tower if the facts about the Aug. 6 "PDB" memo had been shared with the public. The saga of the widows can be expected to run on along entirely familiar lines. The only question of interest that remains is how Americans view the Jersey Four and company, and how long before they turn them off.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/medialog/?id=110004950

[Ralph]

These ladies are public figures, involved in political discourse on a national level, and have publicly taken and invited some pretty cheap and offensive shots at Republican figures themselves, including Donald Rumsfeld and Carl Rove. This kind of stuff isn't surprising and Coulter isn't unique in that respect. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and a few other liberal extremists of the NYT editorial staff are experts at and guilty of the same kind of smear tactics. That's the level to which much of politics in America has sunk to nowadays.


Wikipedia says:

Kristin Breitweiser is a lawyer and one of the Jersey Girls, four women from New Jersey who were widowed when their husbands were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequently researched the policy and intelligence failures that led up to the attacks. She was instrumental in bringing the 9/11 Commission into existence. She has testified before Congress and has been spoken of as a potential candidate for the United States Senate.

Although Breitweiser stated that she voted for George W. Bush in 2000, she vigorously supported John Kerry in 2004 and is now an outspoken democratic critic of the Bush Administration, claiming Bush has not made the United States safer since the attacks, as well as criticizing the war in Iraq.

Since May 2005 she's been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Breitweiser

*****

The only relevance of the fact that these women are public figures is that they would have to meet the Times v. Sullivan standard to prevail in a defamation action. And there's no suggestion any of them are contemplating that. Nor should they.

I don't recall reading anything by Dowd or Rich that descends to the ad hominem level of Coulter's trashy invectives. And if they did it would be equally deplorable.

[Corlyss_D]

host Matt Lauer -

I'm surprised someone so ill-equiped for mortal intellectual combat would take on Coulter. He's so far out of his league it's a wonder he didn't call in sick. But I'm sure the result was what they intended: a conservative made to look mean and insensitive. The meek, inoffensive, lamb-like Lauer, and the poor grieving widows . . . tsk tsk. The ratings must have been enormous.

"I'd like her to meet my daughter and tell her how anyone could enjoy their father's death," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four widows known as the "Jersey Girls."

Well, I don't know the ladies, but if they are anything like Cindy Sheehan, then yes, there is such a thing as trading politically on the death of a loved one. Sarah Brady of the Brady Bunch is a perfect example of this genre of politicians who expect their activities to be exempt from criticism because said political activity results from a tragedy and is a form of grief therapy for them. That gal in New York whose husband was killed on the commuter train certainly did it. The guy whose little girl was killed last year in Florida by the serial sex offender does it. Mel Carnahan's widow did it. However, these people all want their political activities to be shielded from scrutiny in the political arena because of their loss. Grief doesn't excuse every subsequent behavior in newly-minted politicians any more than it does in murderers. At some point they have to take responsibility for their politics and fight it out in the political arena without recourse using their loss as some kind of magic bullet that dispenses with all criticism of their political positions and ambitions.

They pushed to create the 9/11 commission,

So! They are the ones to blame!

"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?" Lauer asked.

Ah, now we get to the crux of the matter. Like I said, these widows and people like them turn a tragedy into a way of life, especially into political activity, then when you question their political activity, the goals or the nature of it, they whine that they are poor victims of someone or something and you have no right to criticise their activities. If they don't like hardball, they should not come to play.

[Corlyss_D]

Hillary lashes out at Ann Coulter

Another remarkably light weight for the contest.

[pizza]

These ladies are public figures, involved in political discourse on a national level, and have publicly taken and invited some pretty cheap and offensive shots at Republican figures themselves, including Donald Rumsfeld and Carl Rove. This kind of stuff isn't surprising and Coulter isn't unique in that respect. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and a few other liberal extremists of the NYT editorial staff are experts at and guilty of the same kind of smear tactics. That's the level to which much of politics in America has sunk to nowadays.


Wikipedia says:

Kristin Breitweiser is a lawyer and one of the Jersey Girls, four women from New Jersey who were widowed when their husbands were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequently researched the policy and intelligence failures that led up to the attacks. She was instrumental in bringing the 9/11 Commission into existence. She has testified before Congress and has been spoken of as a potential candidate for the United States Senate.

Although Breitweiser stated that she voted for George W. Bush in 2000, she vigorously supported John Kerry in 2004 and is now an outspoken democratic critic of the Bush Administration, claiming Bush has not made the United States safer since the attacks, as well as criticizing the war in Iraq.

Since May 2005 she's been a contributing blogger at The Huffington Post.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristen_Breitweiser

*****

The only relevance of the fact that these women are public figures is that they would have to meet the Times v. Sullivan standard to prevail in a defamation action. And there's no suggestion any of them are contemplating that. Nor should they.

I don't recall reading anything by Dowd or Rich that descends to the ad hominem level of Coulter's trashy invectives. And if they did it would be equally deplorable.

Ralph: From one of your posts:

"The women......... issued a joint statement after Coulter's television appearance.

"We have been slandered. Contrary to Ms. Coulters statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day," the women said."

[Alban Berg]

New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," Coulter writes in her new book.

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis," Coulter writes.

"And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy. . .."

This is what's known as "compassionate conservatism."

Her controversial writings have made her a best-selling .author and syndicated columnist and put her on the cover of Time magazine. She's made big bucks in the process, buying a $1.5 million condo on the upper East Side.

This broad is a millionaire, lionized on TV and in articles about her, reveling in her status as a celebrity. . . .

[Corlyss_D]

The only relevance of the fact that these women are public figures is that they would have to meet the Times v. Sullivan standard to prevail in a defamation action. And there's no suggestion any of them are contemplating that. Nor should they.

I'm sure Pizza didn't mean that kind of public figure. Besides, the women are getting tons of publicity out of this. Coulter is doing them a favor. They ought to be less outraged, but then that is the coin of their commerce.

[Ralph]

No one who takes a public position should be shielded from criticism. The congresswoman whose husband was murdered on the commuter train chose a new direction in life and one which her constituents approve of since she didn't become, as some predicted, a one-term wonder.

The same can be said for others mentioned in Corlyss's post. Just as Cindy Sheehan tried to seize the media spotlight to advance her cause, those supporting the Iraq war who also lost children have done the same. None are immune from critical responses but all should be spared from the low brow, cruel taunts of people like Ann Coulter. Noto bene: Coulter has every right to spew her venom just as I have the right to express my revulsion of her.

[Corlyss_D]

No one who takes a public position should be shielded from criticism.

No one means no one. When they seek to become political creatures, they forfeit the right to status solely as mourners. Coulter and others make political comments to and about political actors that they would never make to or about mere mourners not seeking to capitalize on their grief. Yes, of course these people have a right to do what they do; they just don't have a right to immunity from criticism because of their loss.

[Ralph]

Referring to her targets as "harpies" and asking whether their deceased husbands might have been planning to divorce them? That's criticism of their expressed viewpoints? It's savage, wrong and it has no place in civilized and civil discourse. Which Coulter doesn't engage in.

[Lilith]

I found her amusing in the beginning, but she has lost any credibility she had with these 'way over the top' assaults.
I consider her more of a political clown at this point in time... but a venomous one at that.

[Fugu]

Figures Corlyss and pizza would rise to defend Coulter. Like minds you know.

[Werner]

The hearless, mindless nonsense of Corlyss' last post boggles the mind. Can she for just a moment put herself in the position of those women whose lives were changes in the crucible of 9/11? Does that harpy Coulter have any human concern or decency?

And that, estimable attorneys of the right, you defend?

[RebLem]

No one who takes a public position should be shielded from criticism.

No one means no one. When they seek to become political creatures, they forfeit the right to status solely as mourners. Coulter and others make political comments to and about political actors that they would never make to or about mere mourners not seeking to capitalize on their grief. Yes, of course these people have a right to do what they do; they just don't have a right to immunity from criticism because of their loss.

Now, here's a shocker--Ann Coulter doesn't have any immunity either. Suggesting that their husbands may have been planning on divoricing "the harpies" is slander in the common parlance meaining of the term, even though it is well understood that it is not an actionable offense. But we need to get over this sort of moral minimalism in this country that if its not actionable, its not immoral.

These women say they got no pleasure from watching their husband's die. OTOH, let us have a little compassion for Ann Coulter, too. It is easy to understand how a woman like her anorexic self, brain starved for nutrients, and talking with the likes of Sean Hannity, Druggie Limbaugh, and Bill "The Loofah Kid" O'Reilly on a daily basis, would find such a statement hard to believe. She has never had a compassionate moment in her life, and she thinks everyone is like her, the poor, deluded fool.

And, Corlyss, Ann Coulter was not "made to look mean." She did that all by her lil ole lonesome (forever lonesome, I'll bet) self.

Oh, and one question, Corlyss. Lets get this out in the open. Exactly what public policy positions have the Jersey Girls taken that you disagree with, or do you think they, alone among Americans, just have no First Amendment rights?

[Corlyss_D]

The hearless, mindless nonsense of Corlyss' last post boggles the mind.

Well, you certainly fell for the maudlin sentimentality of "You must adopt my policy position because I have suffered." If I came to you and said, "I've had cancer and I've effectively lost my mother to Alzheimer's, so you have to support the President on the war in Iraq" you'd spot the howling fallacy immediately.

If resisting that kind of cheap emotionalism makes me heartless and mindless, then so be it. I don't feel the least bit guilty demanding that people who trade on their misfortune to make political careers for themselves subject themselves to the same kind of critical analysis as politicians have no misfortune to trade on.

Coulter may not be deft at it, but she's calling attention to the essentially bankrupt quality of the widows' appeal.

[Werner]

Maudlin sentimentality is not my thing. Decency is something I try for. Empathy for tragedy is not a weakness - its lack a is debit. And if exlpoited for profit - as Coulter and the other goons of the right do - there is no way to justify it.

And, Corlyss, I just looked back at your first paragraph, mentioning two situations I've been aware of, and I never thought that that fact and your support of our parody of a president had any connection. I continue to be in your corner - whatever that's worth - on the personal kicks you've taken - it does happen in some way to us all but is none the less felt by us all - but these are separate issues.

And when it comes to this Coulter ***** stuffing her pockets at the expense of people whoi have suffered more than she could ever imagine, I draw the line.

[Corlyss_D]

Maudlin sentimentality is not my thing. Decency is something I try for. Empathy for tragedy is not a weakness - its lack a debit. And if exlpoited for profit - as Coulter and the other goons of the right do - there is no way to justify it.

What about the widows' exploiting their tragedy for profit? That's okay because they are anti-war? Gimme a break.

[Werner]

Isn't that an accusation you're parroting from that lowlife creature?

[RebLem]

Maudlin sentimentality is not my thing. Decency is something I try for. Empathy for tragedy is not a weakness - its lack a debit. And if exlpoited for profit - as Coulter and the other goons of the right do - there is no way to justify it.

What about the widows' exploiting their tragedy for profit? That's okay because they are anti-war? Gimme a break.

What profit? Other than speaking fees from ppl who want to hear them? Is that wrong? Or are right wingers the only ones who have a right to make money off 9/11? If they knew someone in the building, are they then disqualified from earning money indirectly from it? And tell me where all these rules you have made up are written down. What is the name of the statute, or the Commandment, or the chapter in the Book of Mormon?

[Corlyss_D]

Figures Corlyss and pizza would rise to defend Coulter. Like minds you know.

I'm not defending Coulter. I don't read her. She's only slightly less loudly obnoxious than James Carville.

I'm denouncing the practice of people -women mostly - leveraging their private grief into public policies which they then defend by invoking their loss rather than meeting the critics of the policies on the merits.

[Werner]

Corlyss, in your efficiency, you answered my post before I finished writing it. You might look at it again and perhaps gain some context.

[Corlyss_D]

Now, here's a shocker--Ann Coulter doesn't have any immunity either.

Did I say she was? I'm not interested in what she said. I'm interested in the phenomenon so fully on display here in this thread of debate on public policy being silenced because one of the parties has suffered a catastrophic loss of a loved one.

But we need to get over this sort of moral minimalism

We need to get over the "Bread and Circuses" atmosphere of these silly encounters between deeply antagonistic sides just to watch the fall out. And while I'm at it, we need more critical thinking too.

Oh, and one question, Corlyss. Lets get this out in the open. Exactly what public policy positions have the Jersey Girls taken that you disagree with, or do you think they, alone among Americans, just have no First Amendment rights?

Oh, there's always some sort of half-assed foundation followed by an agenda of political activities designed to ensure "never again." Then the next thing you know, these folks find that they can earn more income handling the affairs of the foundation and pushing its political goals. I'll start with their activism that got us the 9/11 commission. Except for the history of consistent failures on the part of many administration they managed to compile, it was a completely worthless but typical waste of money.

[Fugu]

Figures Corlyss and pizza would rise to defend Coulter. Like minds you know.

I'm not defending Coulter. I don't read her. She's only slightly less loudly obnoxious than James Carville.

I'm denouncing the practice of people -women mostly - leveraging their private grief into public policies which they then defend by invoking their loss rather than meeting the critics of the policies on the merits.

You may not read her, but you sure are defending the bitch's view.

[Corlyss_D]

Corlyss, in your efficiency, you answered my post before I finished writing it. You might look at it again and perhaps gain some context.

I know. I was editing. Then you were editing. It happens when we're online together. I ought to call you!

And, Corlyss, I just looked back at your first paragraph, mentioning two situations I've been aware of, and I never thought that that fact and your support of our parody of a president had any connection. I continue to be in your corner - whatever that's worth - on the personal kicks you've taken - it does happen in some way to us all but is none the less felt by us all - but these are separate issues.

I rest my case, Werner. You just made my point. Of course I know you are an exquisitely sensitive and compassionate man and you sympathize with my problems. But it doesn't make you want to support the policy I advocate. I wouldn't expect you to. Hell, I wouldn't expect anyone to. But that's what Sarah Brady does. That's what all these victims-turned-activists do. They want you to set aside your usual reaction (What does this policy entail? Who's affected? How much will it cost? What are the long-term implications?) and support whatever they are advocating merely because they lost a loved one. As you said, these are separate issues. Forget for a second that you basically agree with their anti-administration sentiment. I think it's confusing things. You understand it instantly when you disagree with the policy.

[Corlyss_D]

You may not read her, but you sure are defending the bitch's view.

You would too if you disagreed with the policies such people want you adopt merely because they suffered a loss. Just turn it around. Suppose someone came to you and said "I lost my husband and son in 9/11, so I want you to support Bush's policy in Iraq." You'd get it in a heartbeat. It's the thought process that Coulter is attacking at the crux. How she has done it certainly has gotten a lot of attention for both the Jersey Girls and for what she's criticising.

[Corlyss_D]

What profit? Other than speaking fees from ppl who want to hear them?

Reb, don't talk like a naif. It's beneath you. Like I said, there's always a foundation followed by a political agenda and activities in furtherance of that agenda. Here are some of Breitweisers:

September 11th Advocates
Just 4 Moms from New Jersey
9/11 Citizens Watch (a 501c3 tax exempt organization - how nice!)
And those are just the ones I could find in about 30 minutes looking.

Breitweiser is a frequent guest on Hardball and has plans for a political career - in advocacy if nothing else. She served as an advisor to the Kerry campaign. She was running for Senate in New Jersey in 04 apparently briefly. I don't know how that came out, but I know she's not a Senator from New Jersey.

You don't have to believe me or Anne Coulter to understand how much money can be made as an "advocacy" group, aka lobbyist.

Here's a swell deconstruction of the kind of "analysis" that these people want you go thru. http://www.umdparc.org/AdAnalysisEverSince.htm PARC is similar to factcheck.org. Here's the heart of it:

Ad Assumptions

* * *

Second, “Ever Since” also assumes that viewers/voters will recognize Kristen Breitweiser. For those viewers/voters who watch CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News, Breitweiser is a familiar and prominent person – she serves as the co-chair of September 11th Advocates and as a founding member of the 9/11 Commission's "Family Steering Committee." It was also Breitweiser who testified before the September 11 th Commission last spring on behalf of all victims' families. Her story and her advocacy are well known within such circles. Yet, for viewers and voters who do not know her, her story is just one of 3,000 tragic stories to emerge from September 11 th . Her support of John Kerry, although notable because of her personal connection to the terrorist attacks, does not carry nearly the same significance if viewer/voters do not know of Breitweiser's work following September 11 th.

If they knew someone in the building, are they then disqualified from earning money indirectly from it?

Not the point.

And tell me where all these rules you have made up are written down.

I didn't make them up. They are very old principles that combine to expose logical fallacies.

What is the name of the statute, or the Commandment, or the chapter in the Book of Mormon?

Cheap shot, don't you think? In addition to being irrelevant.

[Corlyss_D]

No one by now needs briefings on the identities of the commentators quoted above.

I did. I never heard of them until Ralph put up the story. I recognize the type, however.

[pizza]

Figures Corlyss and pizza would rise to defend Coulter. Like minds you know.

My first post on the subject:

"These ladies are public figures, involved in political discourse on a national level, and have publicly taken and invited some pretty cheap and offensive shots at Republican figures themselves, including Donald Rumsfeld and Carl Rove. This kind of stuff isn't surprising and Coulter isn't unique in that respect. Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich and a few other liberal extremists of the NYT editorial staff are experts at and guilty of the same kind of smear tactics. That's the level to which much of politics in America has sunk to nowadays."

My second post was an opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal.

My third was a reply to Ralph's post concerning the ladies' claim of slander.

Looney lefty Dan Ferguson is a lot closer to Coulter's mindset than I am. It figures that he would say I'm defending her. Dan operates entirely on a personal ad hominem level. One is hard pressed to find any of his posts that address controversial political subjects on their merits; there are certainly none in this thread. Leftist hacks such as he cannot abide having their opinions challenged and anyone who dares to critique an anti-conservative opinion piece is grist for his mill. Except for the absence of entertaining syntax, his is precisely the kind of cheap drivel Coulter would spew.

At least she makes a good living at it.

[Teresa B]

Well, as Corlyss suggested in another thread, I'll don my asbestos-lined undies and throw in my 2 cents.

I can fathom the viewpoint that these "Jersey Widows" are taking their misfortune and cashing in on it in various ways. (Is this something rare here in the U.S.?--Nope.) They may well be wrong-headed in some of their attacks.

I also understand (as I said about Cindy Sheehan, and still contend here) where they come from. Some people handle this sort of grief quietly and others seem to need a coping mechanism that involves crusading against the perpetrators--whether the perps are the right ones, or various people/institutions that are in their path.

These people do not have a balanced worldview, but a highly skewed one that can blind them to virtually everything except the crusade. I don't believe financial gain is their primary motive--rather there's an unquenchable need to somehow make it all better by changing the world such that this "never happens to anyone else."

Whether or not these widows are tiresome or obnoxious, they are playing from an entirely different field than Ann Coulter is. Coulter may have valid criticism, but in my book she negates it with all the vicious invective. Of course she knows sensationalism sells, and she probably practices her cobra impressions in front of a mirror every night.

Well, that went to at least 8 cents, so I'll quit there.
Teresa

[Alban Berg]

The irony in my opinion is that Coulter is not altogether wrong - there is a tone in these women of playing the Bereaved Widow role for the cameras. It's something almost impossible to avoid as soon as they go public, Carolyn McCarthy being one of the rare exceptions who has risen above it. But the further irony is that Coulter's self-aggrandizing gutter style is far worse than that of the persons she accuses.

[Ralph]

Well, as Corlyss suggested in another thread, I'll don my asbestos-lined undies and throw in my 2 cents.

I can fathom the viewpoint that these "Jersey Widows" are taking their misfortune and cashing in on it in various ways. (Is this something rare here in the U.S.?--Nope.) They may well be wrong-headed in some of their attacks.

I also understand (as I said about Cindy Sheehan, and still contend here) where they come from. Some people handle this sort of grief quietly and others seem to need a coping mechanism that involves crusading against the perpetrators--whether the perps are the right ones, or various people/institutions that are in their path.

These people do not have a balanced worldview, but a highly skewed one that can blind them to virtually everything except the crusade. I don't believe financial gain is their primary motive--rather there's an unquenchable need to somehow make it all better by changing the world such that this "never happens to anyone else."

Whether or not these widows are tiresome or obnoxious, they are playing from an entirely different field than Ann Coulter is. Coulter may have valid criticism, but in my book she negates it with all the vicious invective. Of course she knows sensationalism sells, and she probably practices her cobra impressions in front of a mirror every night.

Well, that went to at least 8 cents, so I'll quit there.
Teresa

*****

Good post!

[Alban Berg]

Looney lefty Dan Ferguson

Dan operates entirely on a personal ad hominem level.

Leftist hacks

cheap drivel

Don't lecture me on the subject of McCarthyism, twit.

You haven't the vaguest understanding of what our Constitution means, and why the presumption of innocence attaches to anyone accused of a crime, do you, twit.

If you're going to accuse others of "personal ad hominem attacks" and "cheap drivel," don't descend to the identical tactics yourself. Tell me, pizza, how does calling Lilith a "twit" (whether true or not) strengthen your case? Did you use similar strategies against your opponents while at the bar? (Did I just engage in a personal ad hominem attack right there? )

[Ralph]

Looney lefty Dan Ferguson

Dan operates entirely on a personal ad hominem level.

Leftist hacks

cheap drivel

Don't lecture me on the subject of McCarthyism, twit.

You haven't the vaguest understanding of what our Constitution means, and why the presumption of innocence attaches to anyone accused of a crime, do you, twit.

If you're going to accuse others of "personal ad hominem attacks" and "cheap drivel," don't descend to the identical tactics yourself. Tell me, pizza, how does calling Lilith a "twit" (whether true or not) strengthen your case? Did you use similar strategies against your opponents while at the bar? (Did I just engage in a personal ad hominem attack right there? )

*****

And "twit" is such an ambiguous word. I use it as a term of endearment on dates.

[Donald Isler]

Teresa put her finger on it.

For me, it's not which political side you take. There is just no excuse for the viciousness, and the type of vocabulary Coulter uses to describe people who have had tragic personal losses. She has an appalling lack of decency which, I think for most people, will gradually be the undoing of any credibility she may have had in the first place.

[pizza]

Looney lefty Dan Ferguson

Dan operates entirely on a personal ad hominem level.

Leftist hacks

cheap drivel

Don't lecture me on the subject of McCarthyism, twit.

You haven't the vaguest understanding of what our Constitution means, and why the presumption of innocence attaches to anyone accused of a crime, do you, twit.

If you're going to accuse others of "personal ad hominem attacks" and "cheap drivel," don't descend to the identical tactics yourself. Tell me, pizza, how does calling Lilith a "twit" (whether true or not) strengthen your case? Did you use similar strategies against your opponents while at the bar? (Did I just engage in a personal ad hominem attack right there? )

I don't think I operate on an ad hominem level and whether one agrees or disagrees with my position, I usually back it up with facts and reasoned argument. The interjection of an occasional negative adjective concerning a particularly obnoxious opponent -- usually well placed and equally well deserved by its recipient doesn't affect the quality of the argument, and as a matter of record, you'll have to go to some serious lengths to find any similar language employed by me where any posters other than the two you've mentioned are concerned.

As far as strategies in court are concerned, I once called a judge who threatened me with contempt for refusing to produce a witness I had no obligation to produce, a "hack that wouldn't know how to draw the order". I survived intact.

[BWV 1080]

Thanks Teresa, you expressed the situation perfectly.

Its depressing how stupid most conservative thought is becoming. Coulter, Hannity & 90% of talk radio has become a mirror image of the thoughtless, dogmatic politically correct left wing that they rail against.

I sure miss Firing Line & WFB

[Barry]

Thanks Teresa, you expressed the situation perfectly.

Its depressing how stupid most conservative thought is becoming. Coulter, Hannity & 90% of talk radio has become a mirror image of the thoughtless, dogmatic politically correct left wing that they rail against.

I sure miss Firing Line & WFB

To echo the constant reminders of our old friend Dennis, the best place, at least on the tube, to find serious discussions on serious issues is C-Span (all three of them). I don't spend much time watching the Senate and House floor debates, but the think-tank pannel discussions and some of the committee hearings are extremely interesting and informative. There was a great AEI discussion/debate on gay marriage over the weekend (with no name calling and both sides admitting the valid points made by the other side), and last night they had Greenspan on discussing the dangers of our dependence on foreign oil and what we should and shouldn't do about it with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

[Fugu]

Looney lefty Dan Ferguson

Dan operates entirely on a personal ad hominem level.

Leftist hacks

cheap drivel

Don't lecture me on the subject of McCarthyism, twit.

You haven't the vaguest understanding of what our Constitution means, and why the presumption of innocence attaches to anyone accused of a crime, do you, twit.

If you're going to accuse others of "personal ad hominem attacks" and "cheap drivel," don't descend to the identical tactics yourself. Tell me, pizza, how does calling Lilith a "twit" (whether true or not) strengthen your case? Did you use similar strategies against your opponents while at the bar? (Did I just engage in a personal ad hominem attack right there? )

I don't think I operate on an ad hominem level and whether one agrees or disagrees with my position, I usually back it up with facts and reasoned argument. The interjection of an occasional negative adjective concerning a particularly obnoxious opponent -- usually well placed and equally well deserved by its recipient doesn't affect the quality of the argument, and as a matter of record, you'll have to go to some serious lengths to find any similar language employed by me where any posters other than the two you've mentioned are concerned.

As far as strategies in court are concerned, I once called a judge who threatened me with contempt for refusing to produce a witness I had no obligation to produce, a "hack that wouldn't know how to draw the order". I survived intact.

For the most part all you've done is throw in articles from right-wing websites that espouse your view. You've contributed very little here of your own.

[DavidRoss]

I know nothing about any of this except for what I’ve read in this thread. No one seems to deny Coulter’s charges, but some object to her vilification of people cashing in on the tragedy of 9/11 for the sake of fame, fortune, and political capital. Apparently Coulter thinks that’s what they’re doing, regards it as despicable, and minces no words in denouncing them for it. Surely there must be more to the story than this…are Coulter’s accusations wrong? Are those now claiming outrage over her words equally outraged by their own or others’ equally harsh characterizations of Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, even Coulter herself, both now and in the past?

Self-righteous hypocrisy in the service of ideology is shameful, regardless of which part of the political spectrum it comes from. If we cannot stop hating each other so much, simply because we disagree on the most effective means to achieve our mutual goals, then I fear America is doomed. How long can a nation so divided by irrational hatred stand as a nation? If even the clear and present danger posed by an aggressive, implacable foe has us tearing at one another’s’ throats instead of uniting against the common threat, then our enemies are right to despise us as stupid, decadent, and weak.

[Fugu]

David,

You presume Coulter's got something otherwise she wouldn't say it. The bitch says anything because she knows the more offensive she gets the more books she sells. I wouldn't buy a book of hers at Goodwill, nor check it out of any library.

[pizza]

Well, well, if it ain't Coulter at her best! Not that any liberals will agree, but she can be incisive, funny and in good taste as well!

Hey You, Browsing Godless – Buy the Book or Get Out!
By Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 8, 2006

The long-anticipated book Godless: The Church of Liberalism was finally released this week. If the New York Times reviews it at all, they'll only talk about the Ann Coulter action-figure doll, so I think I'll write my own review.

Godless begins with a murder at the Louvre and then takes readers on a roller-coaster ride through the Church of Liberalism in a desperate game of cat and mouse in which the hunter becomes the hunted – with a twist at the end you simply won't believe! It's a real page-turner – even the book-on-tape version and large-print edition! Who knew a book about politics could make such an ideal gift – especially with Father's Day just two weeks away!

The main problem with Godless is that I had to walk through the valley of darkness to find it. You will have to push past surly bookstore clerks, proceed past the weird people in the "self-help" section, and finally past the stacks and stacks of Hillary Clinton's memoirs. If all else fails, ask for the "hate speech" section of your local bookstore. Ironically, if you find Godless without asking for assistance, it's considered a minor miracle.

This is not a book about liberals. I stress this in anticipation of Alan Colmes hectoring the author to name names. (For people who resented being asked to "name names" during the 1950s, these liberals sure aren't shy about demanding that conservatives do the same today.)

It is a book about liberalism, our official state religion. Liberalism is a doctrine with a specific set of tenets that can be discussed, just like other religions.

The Christian religion, for example, frowns on lying and premarital sex. That is simply a fact about Christianity. This does not mean no Christian has ever lied or had premarital sex. Indeed, some Christians have committed murder, adultery, thievery, gluttony. That does not mean there's no such thing as Christianity any more than videotape of Rep. William Jefferson accepting cash bribes means there's no such thing as congressional ethics rules.

Similarly, the liberal religion supports abortion, but that doesn't mean every single liberal has had an abortion. We can rejoice that liberals do not always practice their religion.

Godless examines a set of beliefs known as "liberalism." It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven't yet found the common ancestor...but like O.J., the search continues.)

The demand that their religion be discussed only with reference to specific individuals – who is godless? are you saying I'm godless? – is simply an attempt to prevent us from talking about their religion. This tactic didn't work with Slander or Treason, and it's not going to work now.

It's not just that liberals ban Reform rabbis from saying brief prayers at high-school graduations and swoop down on courthouses and town squares across America to cart off Ten Commandments monuments. The liberal hostility to God-based religions has already been copiously documented by many others. Godless goes far beyond this well-established liberal hostility to real religions.

The thesis of Godless is: Liberalism is a religion. The liberal religion has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods, its own clergy. The basic tenet of liberalism is that nature is god and men are monkeys. (Except not as pure-hearted as actual monkeys, who don't pollute, make nukes or believe in God.)

Liberals deny, of course, that liberalism is a religion – otherwise, they'd lose their government funding. "Separation of church and state" means separation of your church from the state, but total unity between their church and the state.

Two months ago, the 9th Circuit held that a school can prohibit a student from exercising his First Amendment rights by wearing a t-shirt that said "Homosexuality Is Shameful."

Even the Left's pretend-adoration of "free speech" (meaning: treason and pornography) must give way to speech that is contrary to the tenets of the church of liberalism on the sacred grounds of a government school.

How might the ACLU respond if a school attempted to ban a t-shirt that said something like "Creationism Is Shameful"? We'd never hear the end of warnings about the coming theocracy.

In fact, students are actually required to wear "Creationism Is Shameful" t-shirts in Dover, PA, where – thanks to a lawsuit by the ACLU – the liberal clergy have declared Darwinism the only true church, immunized from argument. Ye shall put no other God before it. Not one.

Liberals believe in Darwinism as a matter of faith, despite the fact that, at this point, the only thing that can be said for certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for 1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for 2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of 1).

If only Darwinism were true, someday we might evolve public schools with the ability to entertain opposable ideas about the creation of man.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=22829

[Donald Isler]

The main thing this stupid article by Coulter shows is how fearful the right is. Liberals are caricatured, as usual. The woman will apparently say anything to get attention, and money. I suppose if I were to go along with the kind of stereotyping she does (as none of the people she mentions at all resemble any of the many liberals that I know) I would say that the right must have a monopoly on prostituting itself.

But since I don't want to sink to her level I won't say that.

[pizza]

The main thing this stupid article by Coulter shows is how fearful the right is. Liberals are caricatured, as usual. The woman will apparently say anything to get attention, and money. I suppose if I were to go along with the kind of stereotyping she does (as none of the people she mentions at all resemble any of the many liberals that I know) I would say that the right must have a monopoly on prostituting itself.

But since I don't want to sink to her level I won't say that.

Caricature is efficient and legitimate. It gets right to the heart of a matter where complex verbiage fails.

I don't see anything "fearful" in the article -- it's a good sales pitch for her book, and unless she were to name names, stereotypical descriptions are good substitutes for covering a lot of ground.

You just happen to hang out with the wrong liberals, Donald.

[Donald Isler]

I don't think I hang around with the wrong liberals. But since you don't want to associate yourself with them you will accept as typical these distortions.

It's obvious what the "fear factor" here is about. The right exaggerates things to create an enemy they hope others will believe in, because they think it will increase support for them. Indeed, the fall of Communism in Europe has been rough on the right. They have to look elsewhere for enemies for Americans to fear.