I had a request to blog about Ann (you know who you are) because she just released another book and she was just criticized heavily by Hilary Clinton who is the smartest woman on the face of the earth except for Washington Governor Christine Gregoire.
I haven't read Ann's book nor have I read any of her books. I have however heard her in several interviews on different websites and she is never and I mean never shy about backing up something she writes. In fact she usually takes her words and makes them more harsh.
First of all, I find Ann Coulter's attitude funny. She is an iconoclast not a politician. (I also find Al Franken funny) It's a politician's job to be diplomatic and attempt to make everyone happy by using double-talk and BS. The job of an iconoclast is to challenge what are commonly held perceptions from a contrary point of view. She's good at it and besides she's trying to sell books. Personally, I relate to her attitudes because I also love seeing icons torn down, but I won't defend her. She can defend herself.
What about the wives of the 9/11 victims that she has been criticizing?
It's the role of an iconoclast to say unpleasant things sometimes. Most of the victims have struggled to go on with their lives, but others have attempted to become public figures using the leverage of their victim status. I refuse to accept that once these people become public figures they are 'untouchable' because they're also high-profile victims. If being an activist is your way of grieving then I'm sorry; you've chosen a terrible way to grieve that will never really help you to heal.
It's like how Grump has told me several times that a Vietnam Vet can win any argument about Nam simply by saying, "...but you weren't there." End of story; Vet wins argument by default.
People like Ann Coulter and Al Franken are important to have around. They make it okay to talk about things we'd normally feel uneasy about...plus, I like Ann's hair.
8 comments:
That's hilarious! I was reading about her book and Hillary's criticism and all the other day. I pretty much agree. I think Ann Coulter is funny, I don't always, or even often, agree with her, but I sure get a kick out of listening to her.
I find the attitudes of the 9/11 widows mentioned to be questionable because they have said that they think terrorism needs to be dealt with. I'm not sure who they expect to deal with it, however, because they are against the administration that is trying, and they are for the people who want to pull out of the war . . . Maybe I'm just confused.
Ann Coulter crossed a line here, big time. It's one thing to criticize the 9/11 widows for their political stand. It's another to say that they enjoy the fact that their loved ones died gruesomely.
I'm not sure how you can defend what horse-face said. Does anyone really believe that one single 9/11 widow or survivor is getting a big kick out of having a dead loved one? I sure don't.
Maybe you don't agree with the political stand they have taken. For example, Esther thinks it's dichotomous that they want terrorism stopped and yet they want to pull out of Iraq and don't support Bush. That's fine. Esther didn't accuse them of secretly being gleeful that their husbands were burned to death by thousands of gallons of jetfuel.
Esther is no Ann Coulter, thank God. Now, I don't agree with Esther's opinion on this. I believe that Iraq has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with fighting the war on terror. We need to fight them over there, you say? Then what the hell is Afghanistan? A county in Texas?
Any terrorism we fight in Iraq is terrorism resulting from our occupation of Iraq. When we leave, it all stops. Except for Al Qaeda, who will fight us anywhere and everywhere. But where is Al Qaeda? Mostly in AFGHANISTAN! You know, the place where Bush never found Osama and pulled all the troops out to attack Iraq.
But see? I didn't call Esther names and accuse her of wanting to see her family die in a fire just because we disagree.
I hope Ann Coulter finds a better way to sell books than to make stupid, outrageous and incorrect remarks. I don't find her funny or controversial, just sad and ridiculous. I'm not a big Hillary fan. She's too right-wing for me. But she's dead on right on this one.
The Vietnam Vet point brings to mind my slight guilt over having my cousin who's a marine who was in Iraq recently, debating on my blog. Naturally the "you weren't there" point comes into play, and he has an advantage because of his involvement.
These women want to debate issues without rebuttal.
Ann's hair? Well, I guess that's libertarian fashion sense- raw beauty without the vulgarity of styling and hair products. Personally, I find Kiran Chetry of Fox News to be the ideal woman in every way.
little-cicero, good luck in debating a vet. My older brother served in the military during Vietnam, whereas I was just young enough to miss it. He didn't even go to Vietnam and he still won't talk about it. It's as if he survived hell. Well, he was stationed in Alaska, so maybe he did.
Your point about the widows of 9/11 is worth debate. Maybe they refuse to stand for rebuttal, maybe they want you try and fail.
But Ann Coulter didn't rebut their political viewpoint, she merely called them witches and accused them of enjoying the deaths of their husbands.
That's modern political debate. If you don't have a winning argument, resort to name calling and false accusations. Democrat: "Global warming will destroy the planet!" Republican: "Buy an SUV, you commie traitor!"
Some of you are missing the point. Ann Coulter has every right to voice her lies and outrageous vitreol, though I'm sure she doesn't believe her own crap. It sells books, and that's ok. But when she stoops this low, she's not leaning on her first amendment rights and she's not debating the other side. She's just being a scumbag. And she's not a natural beauty. Oh gag. She's got legs like matchsticks, signs of anorexia and a face that would stop a clock.
Notice that I didn't accuse her of wanting to see her boyfriend die in a fire so that she can be more famous. That's where the line is, the one she crossed with no apologies.
robert the grump
have you read ann's latest book?
have you read, in context, her cooments about the women?
i dont think you did, because she does, and HAS, refuted the positions these women take.
her remarks about 'enjoying their husbands deaths' has been taken well out of context as well.
i am an ann fan, yes. i like what she does, and how she does it.
whats got the left in a panty twist is the fact that finally somebody on the right is using the same language the left has been using against the right for years, and gotten away with it.
cant think of a single mews anchor who ever called out a democrat for accusing reagan/bush/gringrich/dole/bush etc... for wanting to starve children and enslave blacks. can you?
politically, i'm of the old right, btw. NOT a GOPer. i would be a Libertarian, but i dont smoke enough weed to fit in.
From what I've heard, by "enjoying" she meant "benefitting" as is a common use of the word in context, and in that sense of the word, these women have benefitted greatly from this trajedy, not only from the million dollars handed to them by Uncle Sam, but from the publicity and resulting money. They have become more influential, rich and powerful than they would have been had this trajedy not occurred.
Frankly I would like to see Ann go one one three with these women and debate the issues rather than simply claim that they refuse to do so. I don't know whether they have done so, but that seems the most logical conclusion to prove that this is not all just a publicity stunt.
LC - Kiran Chetry has some classic good looks too. Hopefully she stays away from the facial surgery.
Oh she will Tracy...she will.
Post a Comment