This is why the lefties do not like Ann
Why Ann Coulter is right
Posted: June 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public-policy debates: Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and true to form, liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they are is not because Ann has broken some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife or relative. Rather, the reason they are so outraged by this is because it stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who "can't be criticized."
Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped-up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in "Godless" in reference to the "Jersey Girls." The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9-11. They jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, cutting commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.
In recent years, liberal spokespeople have grown infamous for self-destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give-and-take response and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words, liberals' use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized, so the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.
An interesting point: When the GOP invited widows of 9-11 to participate in their national convention, charges went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard-pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the president's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked, and their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
The Jersey Girls, on the other hand, have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9-11 commission's findings to the operation of the global War on Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words, they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them, to enter the fray, to don the gloves and to mix it up.
But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror, does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?
Which is Ann's point.
Ann's criticism is legitimate. If liberals in America wish truly to 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 victims.
For the last few weeks, Rep. Jack Murtha has been crisscrossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave Marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device, after which some women and children tragically ended up dead. The Marines claimed that they were fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out, but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the Marines' account.
Liberals are using the exact same tactics today – firing upon people of faith who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote, but they do so from behind victims against whom, they believe, no one would fire back. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates.
Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so, she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well-being of political discourse in general.
By paying the price for us, she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance and not to fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.
What a twisted world it would become otherwise.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50568
Why Ann Coulter is right
Posted: June 9, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Liberals in America have been staging a new strategy on winning public-policy debates: Simply provide spokespeople that no one is allowed to respond to. Ann Coulter had the gall to challenge that and let loose with some direct observations in her newest best seller, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," and true to form, liberals have been fomenting in response.
The reason they are is not because Ann has broken some sacred respect that one should have for a grieving mother, wife or relative. Rather, the reason they are so outraged by this is because it stabs through the heart the strategy of hiding behind spokespeople who "can't be criticized."
Matt Lauer, Hillary Clinton and Alan Colmes have been laughable in the trumped-up outrage that they share for the statements Coulter makes in "Godless" in reference to the "Jersey Girls." The Jersey Girls are four wives who lost their husbands on 9-11. They jumped into the 2004 election debate early on, cutting commercials for John Kerry, and they are on record for saying some rather hideous remarks about Condoleezza Rice and Karl Rove, not to mention President Bush.
In recent years, liberal spokespeople have grown infamous for self-destruction when they are put into arenas where free debate, give-and-take response and actual dialogue take place. As Ann argues rather convincingly in her new book, this sets up the structure of "liberal infallibility." In other words, liberals' use of victims of tragedies would never be criticized, so the plan is to find as many victims to become the mouthpieces for the left as possible.
An interesting point: When the GOP invited widows of 9-11 to participate in their national convention, charges went up from the left of "pure political posturing." Yet any observer of those who participated would be hard-pressed to know of a single critical thing they said about the president's opponents. The presentation they made dealt with the need for America to remain strong in its stand against terrorism. Kerry's name was never even invoked, and their involvement in the public debate ended that night.
The Jersey Girls, on the other hand, have consistently spoken out and advocated on behalf of leftist interests through the 9-11 commission's findings to the operation of the global War on Terror, the elections of 2004, etc. In other words, they chose, or the liberal Democratic Party chose for them, to enter the fray, to don the gloves and to mix it up.
But what if they're wrong? What if, even in as much pain as they have endured at the hands of terrorists, the substance of what they argue for is as loony as the day is long? Even if Cindy Sheehan lost her heroic son in the War on Terror, does that now mean that everything Cindy Sheehan says is correct?
Which is Ann's point.
Ann's criticism is legitimate. If liberals in America wish truly to 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 victims.
For the last few weeks, Rep. Jack Murtha has been crisscrossing the television pundit circuit criticizing the brave Marines who fell under attack via an improvised explosive device, after which some women and children tragically ended up dead. The Marines claimed that they were fired upon and that those firing upon them did so from behind women and children being used as human shields. The jury is still out, but thus far Murtha has yet to present evidence that contradicts the Marines' account.
Liberals are using the exact same tactics today – firing upon people of faith who believe in God, who believe God's model for marriage is what society should promote, but they do so from behind victims against whom, they believe, no one would fire back. People like the Jersey Girls, Joe Wilson, Cindy Sheehan and Jack Murtha. They do so knowing that they would lose in substantive, equitable fair debates.
Coulter's critics have tried to turn her book into a verbal Haditha. Hillary Clinton was excessively unwise in doing so. Coulter decided to do the brave thing and do something that nobody else would. In doing so, she is again undergoing every ounce of scorn and vehemence that the left can pour out, but she is doing so for the well-being of political discourse in general.
By paying the price for us, she also challenges us to not be so timid, to fight for the integrity of substance and not to fall for the idea that a victim can never be disagreed with.
What a twisted world it would become otherwise.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50568
