If you have a taste for malnourished tranny ghouls.
I think Coulter was calling the people who listened to the widows and gave them forums in which to speak griefarazzi, not the widows themselves. Makes (slightly) more sense that way.
Nope.
From her book…
“[she’s] never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much.”
“how do we know their husband’s weren’t planning to divorce these harpies?”
“now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”
“Witches of East Brunswick”
This doesn’t regard the Jersey Girls, but Maureen Dowd did bestow “absolute” moral authority to Cindy Sheehan.
The single most cogent thing I’ve seen on this controversy.
Given Coulter’s responses to 9/11 widows–calling the Jersey Girls “harpies” and suggesting they appear quickly in Playboy–she is apparently distressed that such personal-attacks are publically dismissed for the idiocy they are, which then unfairly stifles her right to criticize. Well, I guess you’d have that opinion when insults are the only criticism your feeble political mind can mount.
If Ann Coulter is offended that someone would use the death of a loved one in 9/11 to lend weight to their argument, she’s forgotten all about her articles about her friend Barbara Olson.
Damn fine point John.
That Barbara Olson, she was the wife of the past solicitor-general of the United States. It seems he took Ms Coulter’s advice to heart, when he surrendered his professional integrity to draw up the Guantanamo detention strategy.
I don’t understand why the Supreme Court gave him advance notice it was throwing his legal arguments out of court, in 3 major human rights cases. It gave him time to resign before the publication of the Supreme Court judgements completely humiliated him in office. I suppose conservative influence extends that far too.
In which case the point is doubly made: Ms Coulter’s point is plain and she writes at the intellectual forefront of the conservative movement: Her message, simple: Shun integrity. Doesn’t that nicely sum up recent conservative ideology?
I get a little tired of this harping on “leftists” this and “leftists that.” John McCain has made a pretty good living as a Republican member of Congress originally based solely, as far as I can see, on having been a prisoner of war.
Well, that’s a bit of a simplification. John McCain has made a pretty good living as a member of congress based having been a POW, and a Vietnam veteran, and a pilot, and a pretty good politician overall. That said, I agree that both sides play this particular card. Whether they’re entitled to do this or not, I can’t say. The jury in my head is still out on that.
One thing I’ll agree with Astorian about is that if Ann Coulter weren’t such a bitch and if she stuck to things she actually knew about, more people might see her point. For example, Ann used to be a constitutional lawyer, I believe, and when she talks about constitutional law, I actually find myself agreeing with her before she spins off into Blonde Bizarro World. Her eviceration of Bush’s choice of Harriet Miers for the supreme court and her opposition to “judicial activism” and “philosopher kings” on the supreme court bench make perfect sense to me. Of course, she then turns around and makes a joke about how we should poison supreme court justices, so that kind of ruins the effect.
The thing with Ann is that while I think she really believes the shit she writes–especially the constitutional law shit–spreading her views isn’t her main goal. Her main goal is to sell books and get attention, and she’s more than willing to prostitute her views in order to get that publishing deal or TV spot.
Kind of makes me wonder if she ever had a boyfriend in high school, ya’ know? Most of us grow out of the brazen attention whore phase by the last frat party before graduation. Either that or she actually is that crazy.
Maybe I haven’t been keeping up, but the only political activism I remember from the 9/11 widows was their insistence that a committee to investigate what went wrong be formed. This was political in the sense that it exposed the Bush Administration screw ups, but I don’t recall them going beyond this.
Cindy Sheehan was far more political.
We never have found out what went on in the White House before 9/11, though. Maybe if the Dems take over.
The problem with people like Coulter is they are good for the enemy more than anything. People can say ‘look at how mean and nuts Coulter is’ and they will symapthize with whomever she is insulting. I have never heard of the 9/11 widows before now but I am already more sympathetic to them than I would’ve been otherwise. Telling people someone is ugly and should pose in playboy because their political views are different than yours is a great way to make people sympathize with your enemy. Hitler probably did more to end anti-semitism than anybody alive. Look at how revolted the modern developed world is by antisemitism in 2006. Europe spent centuries hating the jews, then the nazis come along, commit brutal repression, and afterwards the jews are welcomed into developed society.
The public discourse in modern US politics is horrible. Half truths, manipulations and insults abound and its obvious most of us (myself included) care more about entertainment than logical discussions of the issues. I liked it when Jon Stewart went on Crossfire and said that show was hurting the country. That show was. However, sadly Stewart’s show has now fallen into a trap of constantly criticizing Bush and the religious right. At least when they logically show inconsistencies in their policies that is something.
That’s a bizarre criticism, since they’re the ones running the country and the Daily Show doesn’t spare Democrats. And this GD thread was inspired by one of Stewart’s comments about such a perceived logical inconsistency.
Its not bizarre at all. When I watch this show I see endless criticism of Bush and his admin, and his audience is obviously very pro-democratic and anti-Bush based on what they applaud. The level of criticism for democrats isn’t as intense or persistent. I don’t care if Stewart wants to be anti-Bush, he is still one of the most logical debators on TV. But he is falling into the trap he came out against 2-3 years ago of bashing one party over another.
This reminds me of something O’Reilly said. he said fox news was fair & balanced and gave both opinions airtime. So Media matters, a liberal organization, decided to test this theory and determine how many conservatives vs. liberals there are on his show.
That and the Daily Show is comedy/satire-it’s not their job to be actual journalists.
[sub]except when it’s convenient for them…[/sub]
Anybody see Coulter on Leno tonight (late because of the overtime hockey game)? If you were expecting fireworks between her and George Carlin, it didn’t materialize. However, if you watched it in HDTV, you got a good look at Carlin’s face throughout the interview over her right shoulder, and he clearly looked uncomfortable with her.
That, of course, didn’t stop the usual late-night-talk-show promotional machine from moving forward, ready to hawk whatever product its guests are trying to sell. Whether it’s the new animated movie “Cars” (Carlin stars as a voice) or a fact-impaired, self-aggrandizing screed, it’s all just product…
Stewart is an iconoclast who uses satire as his main weapon. He apparently sees his job as afflicting those in power and they happen to be Republicans at the moment. The party that’s out of power might be an easy target for satire but it’s a waste of time since its members don’t decide how the government will operate.
If, and when, Democrats get into the majority in the government we’ll see what Stewart does then. I suspect they will offer just as much opportunity for a satirical assault as do the Republicans.
AC is way, way, way, way, way, over the top and it’s too bad that she directs her criticism at the Jersey Girls et al.
She should be directing it at the media which gives the J Girls, Ms. Sheehan and Mr. Berg way more attention than they deserve.
They are not the only ones who have lost loved ones since 9/11. What is it… do they have a better PR team or does ABCNNBCBS sympathise with them just a little bit more?
I don’t think you’re contradicting Malodorous’s post. Coulter wrote, “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.” That was M’s point: grief-arazzis refers to the people who provide a forum for the widows, not the widows themselves, a point that does not change a single thing about the vileness of her sentiments.