Reminder: Listen to Ann Coulter on Pundit Review Radio on Sunday night.
Blogger and radio talk show host Kevin McCullough writes: “Ann’s criticism is legitimate – if liberals in America wish to truly have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about – then stand and make the point, but don’t hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled, and often wrong in their views, simply because they’re a victim. ”
Friday, June 9 @ 5:15 p.m.: Ann Coulter knows the New York Times won’t review her book, so she reviews it herself. 
Ditto, young Ben. Also see Doubting Coulter – At First.
Friday, June 9: John Hawkins of Right Wing News lists his favorite quotes from Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Commenter Greg writes: “I went back and re-read the exchange with Lauer — who obviously didn’t get it. And I think some of us might have gotten a little off track as well. It isn’t that women who have suffered tragedy have no right to an opinion (as Lauer attempted to frame it); it’s that women (or men) who exploit the media to advance political arguments should not be insulated from criticism simply because they experienced a tragedy.
“And Ann has said something that I have believed for a long time: this was not an attack against them personally (the Jerzey Girls, that is). This was an attack against America. They have no more standing to influence government policy than anyone else. Their opinions on Iraq, etc., don’t have added validity just because they lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but it’s true.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
Update: Commenter and blogger Gayle Miller writes: “For those among us with short memories, I will offer a reminder of the behavior of the Jersey Girls [the professional widows Ann "insulted"] during the 9/11 hearings. They were permitted, nay even encouraged, to be rude, disruptive and offensive and NOBODY had the stones or the desire to insist that they behave in a civil manner.”
So this woman is above criticism, right?
Click this video link to listen to Ann’s response to her critics (Thanks, Renee!). After Hillary called Ann’s book “heartless” and “mean” to women. Ann reminded Hillary about her husband’s “heartless” and “mean” treatment of women like Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Bill Clinton raped her. She who is without sin shouldn’t cast stones in glass houses lest she be judged, or something like that.
——————————————————————————————————————
Ann Coulter is going to sell a lot of books.
She does this every time. Liberals hate her, some conservatives do, too, but the rest of us appreciate her edgy commentary and controversial remarks for what they are: press-generating, book marketing plans. Read an excerpt from her book and a column I really liked, Lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas.
Ann says one thing liberals and some conservatives don’t like, and suddenly her photo’s plastered on front pages, her name is uttered on cable news shows all day long, and the blogosphere is buzzing off the…“blogometer†or whatever you’d call it.
Don’t you people understand that she calculates these things? Ever go fishing? Fish are really stupid. They see the dangling bait and go for it. Then they get hooked and reeled it. You’d think fish would have “evolved” and figured out what’s going on. After all these years, their generational axiom should be, “Don’t go near the scrumptious-looking worm if he has a string coming out of his head.”
You’d think humans would have evolved the same way. Ann Coulter throws out the bait, and just like the silly fish, the haters bite it. It happens every time. She knows exactly how to rile people up, and it’s no coincidence that she said something “controversial” on network TV this close to publication. It’s Coulter-Shtick, and I’m probably in the minority of the conservative and Republican blogosphere when I say this: I like it.
Let’s examine what Coulter said in context that was so bad. In an interview with “Today Show” host Matt Lauer, this was the controversial exchange with Lauer quoting from her new book:
Lauer: “Alright on the 9/11 widows and in particular a group that had been outspoken and critical of the administration. ‘These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.’ And this part is, is the part I really need to talk to you about. ‘These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.’”
Coulter: “Yes.”
Lauer: “Because they dare to speak out?”
Coulter: “To speak out using the fact that they’re widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism. How about sending somebody we’re allowed to respond to? No, no we always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die…”
Lauer: “But aren’t they the people in the middle of the story?”
Coulter: “…because then if we respond, ‘Oh you’re questioning their authenticity.’ No the story is…”
Lauer: “So grieve but grieve quietly.”
Coulter: “No the story is an attack on the nation…”
Lauer: “And by the way…”
Coulter: “That requires a foreign policy response. That does not entail the expertise…”
Lauer: “And by the way they also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11.”
Coulter: “Oh not, not the ones I’m talking about.”
Lauer: “No they have.”
Coulter: “No, no, no. Oh no, no, no, no.”
Lauer: “But is your message to them just grieve…”
Coulter: “No, no they were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.”
Lauer: “So if you lose a husband you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?”
Coulter: “No but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point, let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I’m not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.”
(Transcript from News Busters)
It’s important to note that Ann was referring to a “particular” group of 9-11 widows who made commercials for John Kerry and used their husbands’ deaths as a political statement, not women who’ve lost their husbands in war in general.
It’s also important to understand this: Liberals denouncing Ann’s remarks don’t care about the widows; they just don’t like Ann. Any reasonable person can see that. While many of us wouldn’t go out of our way to insult widows, they are not untouchables. If we respond critically to something they say publicly, there is nothing indecent or awful about it.
A point of clarification before I go on. I refused to join the conservative “Get Cindy Sheehan” bandwagon because it was boring and because I believe the woman was whacked out with grief and anger. I also believe she used her son’s death for personal gain and to make a political statement. When people cross over into this realm, they’re fair game. The story just didn’t interest me.
I wonder if some of the same Republican bloggers ragging on Coulter for ragging on professional widows also ragged on Cindy Sheehan. If so, there’s a whole lot of hypocrisy going on…
The professional 9-11 widows Ann is referring to did the same thing. The “9-11 Widows for Kerry” went high profile and endorsed John Kerry, which was their right. They are not above criticism just because they’re widows, for crying out loud.
As I said, Ann Coulter is the master. Look at this Google News spread. She’s everywhere. She’s the top search at Technorati as I write. I just hope Ann does the right thing and thank the same liberals she skewers in her book for helping her sell a ton, including Mrs. Clinton.
Republican and conservative bloggers had their knickers in a twist over Ann earlier this year. At CPAC, she called Islamofascists “ragheads.” They made it a bigger deal than it needed to be and guaranteed that her CPAC appearance would be front page news the next day. With enemies like these, who needs a publicist? I was probably the only one there who wasn’t upset. The reaction was over the top and ridiculous. We’ve become a country of wimps when we can’t even insult the people who want to behead us for Allah. Bring back the real men of WWII!
So is the reaction to Ann’s comments about the group of professional 9-11 widows. Once again, I fail to understand why Republicans are joining the Democratic bandwagon in “outrage.” When viewed in context, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she said. When we disagree with people, though, we tend to take the comments out of context and focus on the “worst” part.
Whether you hate/like/love her, Ann Coulter knows how to play the game. Coulter-Shtick works. People can’t stop talking about her. She’s a bit more edgy in her writing and marketing than I am, but you better believe I’ll develop some kind of Barber-Shtick when I’m ready to sell books, set tongues wagging, and drive the blogosphere crazy.
Bloggers:
- Ed Morrissey compares Ann to Ted Rall, the liberal scribbler who called Condoleezza Rice a “House Nigga.” That may be a tad over the top, Ed.
- Hugh Hewitt says Ann owes the widows an apology.
- Michelle Malkin defends
Other reactions from the Right: Pro: Robbie at Urban Grounds, Ninth State, Atlas Shrugs, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, WILLisms…
Neutral?: Jeff Jarvis…
Con: Stata-Sphere, Sister Toldjah, Right Wing Nuthouse, Outside the Beltway, The Anchoress, Squiggler…
Danny Carlton: “Most news sources twist the story to make it sound as if Ann’s comments are toward all women who’ve lost a loved one in 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.”
The Dragon and the Phoenix: “A culture that encourages victimhood is preparing itself for that role on the world stage. Our enemies are well aware of that, and exploit the weakness.”
Even more publicity: Ann will be on Neal Boortz’s radio show today…
(Wow. I’m referenced far and wide.)
Ding, Dong the Guy is Dead
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, head-terrorist-in-charge, is dead. Why don’t I care? Interesting…Bloggers react: Sister Toldjah, Counterterrorism Blog, MM, Wizbang, Texas Rainmaker…
Is this the air strike that killed Zarqawi? A wicked sense of humor!
