You Gotta Love That Coulter Chick

Yes but when Michael Moore, Harry Belefonte, or the Dixie Chicks do it, it's "Activism".

It kinda smells the same.

I forgot to mention: it sells a lot of movies, books and CDs.

Commoditized dissent.

I loved the directors cut

It definitely made the movie that much better.

Howard Stern actually wasn't in that movie.

Republicans dont like to claim her, but she is their base.

Most Republicans have no problem claiming her...until now.

My first reaction to Coulter's comments as expressed on the Today show was "she's really gone too far with this. It's an outrage for her to use the inflammatory rhetoric she is using.

My second reaction came during the day, as I learned more about the story. It became clear that Coulter's point was that the left tends to use those who are grieving against the right, so that the right cannot respond. It's a way of invalidating and dimissing any potential criticism. "These are grieving widows here! What are you, a heartless basard!?"

She also made the point that some of the 9/11 widows were acting as if 9/11 only happened to them and they were using they're tragedy to advance a political agenda. On those points, I think she happens to be right.

In the final analysis, I think it can be said that Coulter was expressing a legitmate opinion in a totally inappropriate, heartless and sickening way. Saying that these women are enjoying their husbands deaths? Saying that they might as well pose for Playboy before their 15 minutes run out? Calling them broads? All of Coulter's points could have been made just as effectively without resorting to ad hominem attacks like that.

So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

Maybe you could actually respond to my post instead of plucking one thing out of context and slamming it. I'm not here to argue her points specifically, only what is behind her coments in total. I'm just pointing out that she had some legitimate points, whether you agree with them or not.

I'm plucking your post? You made 3 points and wrapped it up. I understand completely that you feel she went about it in a horrific manner. I don't think there's much disagreement, from all sides, about that.

Was my short response, to your agreement with Coulters stand on these four 9/11 widows using the tragedy to political ends, too concise? You did state that, "On those points, I think she happens to be right."

Again:

So what? It has been politicized by EVERYONE.

Are there rules as to who can use this tragedy? If there are, I'd posit that the widows/widowers/family of victims are fairly high on the 'allowed to utilize' list.

But the difference is that those celebs go after the politicians...and rightly so. Coulter decides to pick on victims' wives. Bad form. She annoyed me before, but I really can't stand her now.

Wow, the chick is loony! I can't stand her voice anybody else want to afflict bodily harm when she speaks.

It really shows just how far removed from reality Coulter, her defenders and those who agree with them have become. The widows' statement pretty much sums it up

As if what she has said here represents some kind of departure from previous statements.

I think it does.

I don't think you can say that "everyone" has politicized it. I'm not even sure that "politicize" is the right term.
I think what Coulter is trying to say is that they (a few 9/11 widows) are holding up their banner of being 9/11 victims as some sort of special credibility for their other political opinions, even those that really have little to do with 9/11. She's also pointing out that there were 3,000 other victims whose widows are not being given the same voice. Many of those victims support the President and the administration. Why do we not see them?

Take a look at this editorial. It makes the point much better than Coulter did.

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

The other point relates more to the left's exploitation of these ladies and those who are grieving in general. Sheehan is a prime example. When someone is used, or uses her own loss and grief as the sole justification for a strong political statement, that person becomes seemingly infallible. No one can really argue with a crying widow without looking like a complete bastard.

So now the knee-jerk "they all do it" means we have to be utterly incapable of distinguishing differences of tone, content and intent?

Natalie Mains saying she is embarrassed to be from the same state as Bush "smells the same" to you as "I've never seen people people enjoying their husbands deaths so much".

Maybe you should lay off the wine for a while.

Yeah and the Bushoids never used 911 to go to war or to usurp unconstitutional authority? or to smokescreen their oily dealings, or to get Halliburton billion dollar contracts, or to scare Americans or, or,....

How is peace activism a political statement???
Peace is peace.
How is asking to get all the possible info on an event that has changed this world (and some people's fammily status) significantly a political statement???

As long as there are people with SDWs twisted moral logic in this world there will be wars over bullshit just for econimic gais as there have been for 20,000 years. Peace takes a lot more intelligence than war, far more. And also a lot more courage.

The republican US has set back humanity by at least 50 years. The childish reaction to 911 will forever haunt this nation. Osama spent 200,000 we spent trillions and are still nowhere 5 years later. He has won over a nation with rovers on Mars and smart bombs because we went to war.
I wonder if we would have simply written $ 100,000 checks to evry Iraqi and every afgahn if anybody would actually remember the taliban or bin laden or saddam or terrorism??

Their opinions matter because they actually have had to take the issue dead seriously and have it fully consume their lives rather than just play distant rhetorical games online or on TV for entertainment and/or profit.

It's pretty easy to find compilations of her quotes about how she supported the apartheid South African government, how she wished McVeigh had bombed the NY Times rather than the OK City Fed building, how we should invade kill and convert ragheads to Christianity, that women's suffrage should be repealed because they vote for Democrats, that someone should assassinate liberal supreme court justice Stevens, that liberals should be sent to Gitmo and tortured and killed, not to mention writing books with titles accusing liberals as a whole of slander and treason and godlessness. No, it's exactly the same rhetoric.

The fact is, NY and the victims and families are overwhelmingly liberal, and good ol' Ann is just applying to them the same rhetoric she applies to all liberals. Actually, since she didn't call for their murder or torture, she was easier on them than usual.

SDW2001:


Is there such thing as an illegitimate opinion?

The point isn't whether or not she's allowed to say what she says, the point is whether or not the statement of opinion has an intellectual credibility, which it doesn't.

"I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
The rebuttal statement from the widows strikes right at the heart of the matter.
" 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."

That's a little too serious and real for the talk radio world, which is where Coulter lives.

Just read those two statements and which one seems like an intelligent and thoughtful person?



The left's exploitation? What the hell are you talking about?

The selective outrage over the political use of 9/11 is absolutely laughable. These women actually have a stake in it.
You would cry and cheer for pro-war widows.

For all the things she has said, as regards terror threats etc, one would expect her to be on the TSA's No Fly List". Or is that a privilege reserved for Green Party members, peace activists and folk who generally oppose US government sanctioned violence and killing?

If Mians' comments don't suffice, try Franken calling for Rove's 'execution', calling Limbaugh a 'Big Fat Idiot', or Belafonte calling Bush 'the greatest terrorist in the world', etc.; there are really too many to choose from -- even without tapping Moore's outright dishonesty and borderline paranoia.

The fact remains that vilifying people to score points is childish, and unconstructive.

I'm recommending the the Bodegas Castano 2003 Hecula. It scores a 90, and you can get it for 12.99 (not at Freds though)

The difference is between vilifying people in power and people who are only known because their families were killed in 9/11.

There is a HUGE difference there. Massive.

It's the difference between doing satire and being a bully.

Certainly not. The Bush administration and the right have gotten no political mileage whatsoever out of 9/11. They rarely mention it. And when they do, it can scarcely be considered "politics", since notions like "liberals will get us all killed because they're weak on terror" are simply objectively true.


Yeah, they want a real investigation into 9/11 and changes to how homeland security is done, just random Bush bashing. Kinda like that bitch Maureen Kanka who agitated for changes in sex offender reporting after her child Megan was raped and murdered. Like she was the only one that ever happened to! You know, I've never seen the mother of a raped and murder child enjoy themselves so much.


Yes, these women have been given a national platform to endlessly push their agenda. Unlike, say, Ann Coulter, who has to spread the word by putting up signs on bus stations.


Not much of a strategy then, since the right has had no trouble at all smearing Sheehan as either a hapless pawn or cynical schemer. "Bitch in the Ditch" T-shirt, anyone? And those 9/11 widow whores sure do seem to getting a free ride.

At any rate, it of course is simply impossible for a person who has suffered a loss to make calculations as to how that loss came about and become politically active towards reducing the potential of more, and similar losses in the future. Republicanism teaches us that "working for change for the greater good" is liberal bullshit meant to conceal "personal gain and partisan vendetta", the only actual human motivations. Ann Coulter is pretty upfront about that, why can't these sob sisters come clean?

The best we can say about these "victims" is that they are tools of the (vile, will stoop to any depths) left, because grieving women are too stupid or naive to actually be agents of their own destiny.

I may be wrong...but maybe you have quotes from the aforementioned insulting, ridiculing and treating 9/11 victims like crap? Could we see them please? Otherwise there is no comparison other than in the eyes of a ...fan.

This chick (if she is one indeed ) is wacko. Her hate filled remarks beg one question. Why is she not in a padded room somewhere and why is anyone other than Fox giving her airtime to spew her crap? It's amazing.

Edit: ok, two questions.

I don't think Moore's dishonesty needs any explanation. As far as I'm concerned, he made his money in essentially the same way Coulter is now.

(#1 on Amazon, BTW.)

There's no logic to saying Moore and Coulter are similar in any way except they are both politically active.

Moore does not rely on shock to get his point across, he is a far more thoughtful and insightful commentator than Coulter. He's done real things for real people for over a decade.

Moore at his worst doesn't even play the same character Coulter does. At his worst he simpers and pouts, her entire schtick is East German dominatrix.

I'm not saying you have to like him, but to throw him in with Coulter is just asinine.

She may not have much tact, but she's certainly got balls.

Literally, perhaps.

(chuckle)

I probably shouldn't be drinking soda when I read lines like that. Too much Coke through nose...and sprayed across monitor.

Is that a rebuttal of some kind?

Oh...you mean you were serious?

Gosh, that's even funnier!

DING DING DING!!!! BRussell hits the nail squarely on the head.

As far as you're concerned you'll rationalize this however it is convenient to you. To compare the two is ludicrous.

I'm sure you bought a few copies to group read with other freepers while drinking cheap wine perhaps?