While much of what Ann Coulter says is true, that truth is hidden beneath layers of acidic attacks which do more harm than good. (Perhaps she should have read my warnings in Me vs. the message.)
I think Coulter has done a great job of getting a conservative message out to the masses, but she has also thrown too many bombs. You can’t call our enemies in the War on Terror “ragheads” and expect to be taken seriously.
The points that Coulter raised in her book, Godless, need to be addressed. The left continual shrouds their message in the cloak of an unassailable (for whatever reason) witness – Cindy Sheehan, Joe Wilson, Michael Berg and the Jersey Girls (to some extent Rep. John Murtha and Sen. John Kerry because their military service). If anyone questions the political statements of these bastions of innocence, they are immediately put down as making a personal attack against these brave people.
“How dare you question Cindy Sheehan buddying up with communist dictator Hugo Chavez and calling President Bush the world’s biggest terrorist? She lost her son in Iraq. You can say anything about her.”
Coulter thought she found a way to break through the barricade – a sledgehammer of her vitriolic statements. Maybe she thought she was “taking one for the team.” She would attack these spokespeople, take the heat herself (sell a few books in the process) and actually open up their policies for debate. She would remove the protection by force, but it didn’t and won’t happen that way.
While she has sold some more books through her rhetoric, she has also further insulated these liberal darlings from credible questioning. From here on out, the instant someone disagrees with a Jersey Girl they will be connected to Coulter. They will be asked if they think the widows are enjoying their husbands’ death. The debate will move away from the actual issues to something Coulter wrote – which may be good for her, but it’s not good for conservatism.
Excuse you Aaron, but don't even think about acting like this is a one-way street. People on your side routinely attack those of us on mine for being unPatriotic because we don't lockstep do whatever the President says, tells us, etc. Then you and your side turn around and attack American soldiers, American veterans, and the victims of terrorism who don't have the audacity to believe what you, or more importantly, people like Coulter believe.
So which is it? Is it unpatriotic to criticize the troops, or is it a form of patriotism to criticize the troops? Liberals request equal treatment from conservatives that conservatives demand from everybody else. This isn't terribly complicated.
When I was thinking about this post, I thought about added the fact that conservatives do the same thing in terms of the unpatriotic meme. I simply forgot to do it.
Some liberals deserve that label, like the ones who are essentially sad that Zarqawi is dead, but most are not and only have a different viewpoint.
And slow your trigger down a little bit, I don't think I have attacked any soldiers, veterans or victims of terrorism. I question the policies of some, but I have not attacked any of them personally. I don't even know if I have publically question the policies of any with the exception of Cindy Sheehan.
I would love for it to be equal treatment. I can criticize the policies of Sheehan, Murtha, Jersey Girls etc. without having to worry about someone questioning my compassion. And you can criticize the policies of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, etc. without having to worry about someone questioning your patriotism. But let's do avoid the personal attacks that sullied Coulter's remarks.
You're the one who suggested that this sort of thing only goes one way. It goes both, and its wrong. And I don't enjoy insulting you; Seeker on the other hand…
I never suggested this goes only one way. I simply pointed out a way the liberals do it. I don't see you pointing out too many liberal hypocrisies.
Let it be known and clear that I both recognize and understand that liberals and conservative use underhanded tactics like the ones mentioned above to control poltical debates. Of course liberals do it more, but that's another topic.
Aaron,
That's ridiculous, and you know it. Conservatives do it exactly the same amount. You know this to be true.
I'm not going to waste too much breath on a moron like Coulter. I'll let someone else have a shot at her (From RedStateRabble.blogspot.com)…
There's a Sucker Born Every Minute
Ann Coulter's new diatribe, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, channels ID theorist William Dembski in calling evolution a "cult" and a "fetish."
Coulter claims there is no evidence that evolution is true. "The fossil record," she says "contradicts it, and it is a theory that cannot be disproved. Whatever happens is said to 'prove' evolution. This is the very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology."
It's odd — well, not really — that Coulter would compare evolution to astrology since ID activist Michael Behe recently testified under oath in Dover that intelligent design's proposed re-definition of science would enshrine astrology among its sciences.
The notion that there are gaps in the fossil record or that the fossil record contradicts evolution are nothing more than a shopworn magician's trick.
While he palms the coin, the magicians calls your attention to his shiny cuff links saying,"See, there's nothing up my sleeve."
It's called misdirection.
Like the magician, creationists — whether of the creation "science" or intelligent design variety — call attention to supposed gaps in the fossil record in order to direct the attention of the gullible away from the fact that there simply isn't any physical evidence at all for their absurd beliefs.
RSR suspects Coulter, the most cynical of the current crop of right-wing propagandists, probably understands better than any of the other hucksters currently retailing biblical literalism the truth of P.T. Barnum's, perhaps apocryphal, observation that, "there's a sucker born every minute."
The market for her books like that for the sideshows of old — the bearded lady, the tattooed man, the living skeleton — the sucker population is boundless.
Coulter says "It (evolution) is a theory that cannot be disproved." If she had just read my posts here she would know how evolution can be disproved. Ask her how to disprove creationism :) What? One can't disprove creationism? Well then according to Coulter that qualifies creationism as, "The very definition of a pseudoscience, like astrology." Oh!!! The irony! Coulter is probably one of those people who thinks the Sun orbits the Earth.
No love for Ann?
Sam, it was a joke. Although as I said I don't see yo pointing out liberal hypocrisies, so why you do expect me to spend a large amount of time pointing out conservative ones. I leave that to you.
Cineaste, nice try, but you really should investigate the claims you quote from.
Behe made no such claim. The author either jumped on a talking point without investigating it himself or he purposely mischaracterized Behe's statement to appeal to his anti-ID audience.
I want to expand on this false statement, so I will devote an entire post to it. I am not accusing you of lying, merely not checking out the statements of those you quote from. I don't think you would intentionally lie.