Ann Coulter is an Asshole

Published on June 8, 2006 By Ionolast In Current Events

NEW YORK - Conservative pundit Ann Coulter was front page news Wednesday for what she's written about some 9/11 widows:

"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities," writes Coulter.

She's also under fire for what she said Tuesday in an interview with the "Today" show's Matt Lauer.

"If you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?" asked Lauer.

"No, but don't use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it," Coulter responded.

Coulter was on the "Today" show to push her latest anti-liberal book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," already an Amazon.com best seller.

But the interview kept returning to Coulter's attacks on the 9/11 widows. She called them "harpies" and wondered in print whether their husbands had been planning to divorce them.

A statement from four of the widows says: "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."

Coulter says she believes everything she says and writes, but has she gone too far?

"It's the ugliness of the charge that she's making and the ugliness of the words she's using that are drawing attention to her, but it's almost like she’s a figure in a circus and you say, 'Oh my God, can you believe that?'" says former White House adviser David Gergen.

Still, the tempest was a trigger for a red/blue debate on MSNBC TV with criticism for Coulter from both sides.

"I think it was shameful what she said, Chris, but I think these widows have attacked President Bush," Dom Giordano, a conservative talk show host with radio station WPHT, told "Hardball's" Chris Matthews.

"I think she’s a sad, pathetic, unhappy person," said liberal counter-voice Sam Greenfield, a talk show host with radio station WWRL.

All of it fallout from a television exchange likely to be remembered well beyond the impact of a few ill-tempered sentences in print.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

Even if she doesn't really mean those things and only said them to spark controversy and sell more books, are the people she insulted going to forgive her when she says, "I only did it because I'm a greedy bitch?"

Links to more of the story

Link

Link

Comments (Page 2)

Dr Guy

on Jun 08, 2006

So I'm totally unimpressed by arguments based on the idea that it's okay if your thinking is weak, so long as your feelings are strong.

And that is why you are conservative and not liberal.

bakerstreet

on Jun 08, 2006

"Is Coulter an expert on dealing with tragic loss?"

Hrm...

"I want to look in my daughter's eyes and know that she is safe...I am voting for John Kerry."

"on 9/11, my life was in a long, dark tunnel. Now I can see some light. John Kerry has the answers."

"Defense contractors need to recognize the fact that with $40 billion of a budget being spent on things that are not making us safer, we need a director of national intelligence to reallocate those funds to human intelligence on the ground."

"What do we say to our children at this point in time? My son is 14. In three years he could be drafted to go to the war if that is brought back -- you can go to war, but we will not protect you here at home. That's unconscionable."

Oddly enough, I'm not seeing any of their 'dealing with tragic loss' expertise there. I'm seeing people farming out their tragic loss in order to grant themselves status they don't deserve. Maybe I'm pretty egotistical, but I'd put myself up against them any day of the week in terms of knowledge and skill translating current events into political opinion.

Granted, I can't touch them in terms of discussing personal loss, and if they ever talk about that again, you won't hear me complaining.

shadesofgrey

on Jun 08, 2006

Oddly enough, I'm not seeing any of their 'dealing with tragic loss' expertise there. I'm seeing people farming out their tragic loss in order to grant themselves status they don't deserve.

When GW decided to use 9/11 as part of his re-election campaign, he opened the door for this. The Republican party tried to capitalize on the deaths of these people--where was Ann Coulter then?

MythicalMino

on Jun 08, 2006

not sure I understand why Bush WOULDN'T use 9/11 in his re-election campaign. I mean...really....one of the biggest things to happen to this country....and ppl expect Bush to not mention it?

bakerstreet

on Jun 08, 2006

"The Republican party tried to capitalize on the deaths of these people--where was Ann Coulter then?"

That's a pretty facetious argument. The people running for political office were politicians. Republicans may have opened the door for scrutiny of their policies, but nothing they did elevated housewives to the status of intelligence analysts or political commentators. Losing a loved one doesn't, either.

Sure, no one is saying that they can't step up and challenge Bush's policies. The fact that they get these speaking engagements and roles in presidential elections, etc., is directly due to their loss. Bush didn't "open the door" for people to drag their grief around like a resume, they did that themselves. Without it, their opinions would be no more interesting that mine or yours.

And above all, once they wave the bloody shirt, they can't sit there and pretend that they are separate from the political forum. They are fair game for the same level of derision any other political bobblehead gets. Feel free to look at the venom over at DU and tell me if it is any more tasteful than what the widows got.

The point isn't that they are whoring out their grief. I think Coulter could tolerate that. The annoying part is that they are perpetually the fragile flowers of the debate, and you make yourself the villian if you question or antagonize them.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 08, 2006

Stutefish

It's my theory that emotions are excellent for telling you that something has to be done, but that emotions suck for telling you what has to be done, and why.

So I'm totally unimpressed by arguments based on the idea that it's okay if your thinking is weak, so long as your feelings are strong.

Exactly, there is a place for emotion, but if someone's entire claim to fame is based on it, I don't see why we're considered "heartless" if we don't play their silly little game.

Ionolast

on Jun 08, 2006

there is a place for emotion, but if someone's entire claim to fame is based on it, I don't see why we're considered "heartless" if we don't play their silly little game.

Sounds like people who claim to have had a religious, supernatural experience so they become evangelists and go around preaching and "healing" people vs. people who don't believe them.

bakerstreet

on Jun 09, 2006

Except they aren't even claiming to have had an experience that somehow enlightened them on politics and defense to the point their opinion means more than any other civilian. We aren't even asked to believe they know their asses from holes in the ground, we are just expected to sit quietly and give them their say because someone killed their husbands.

Like Ann Coulter, I have to ask... why? If I square off with a far lefty from DU, I would expect as bad or worse than what Coulter handed out here. Yet when a far right talking head like Coulter faces off against Sheehan or the 9/11 wives, it is unfair to question their ideas. To quote Cindy Sheehan:

"It would be so amazing if your show would put me, or another parent who lost their child on who disagrees with the war and this administration: to have just an entire show..without presenting the false side of the debate. That would take a lot of courage and integrity. I hope your program will exhibit these qualities. "

The attitude seems to be that since they have suffered, that they have earned an exclusive ear whenever they want to promote their political agenda. Let them claim to be "enlightened", it would make more sense, frankly.

Jewbu

on Jun 09, 2006

Good lord. What is the matter with you guys? Victims of such tragedies may not be experts in policy, but they can become so, and moreover are galvinized by their experience. The Cindy Sheehans of the world, just like the mothers of MADD and other action orgaizations are often grassroots folks who, having been touched deeply by real events get off their asses and do something to correct the situation. And you people sit around at your computers and cry foul.

Daiwa

on Jun 09, 2006

The point is, the media and the left simply concede that they have become experts in policy, no questions asked. No one begrudges them their activism; that is a healthy thing which stimulates examination. I do begrudge people losing all objectivity in their presence and deferring to them as deserving arbiters of policy, particularly when they inject political partisanship into the debate. I don't think MADD is an apt comparison.

JillUser

on Jun 09, 2006

I think she could have made her point without being an asshole.

I totally agree. I am certain she did it for shock value in order to draw attention.

I would now highly suggest you listen to Cordelia and remove the word asshole from your title before this thread gets wiped.

ParaTed2k

on Jun 09, 2006

Sodaiho:

The thing is, Sodaiho, the 9/11 widows and Cindy Whatsername cry foul anytime someone challenges them, yet they feel free to trash anyone they want. They have openly trashed others in the same boat who don't share their opinions.

Dr Guy

on Jun 09, 2006

would now highly suggest you listen to Cordelia and remove the word asshole from your title before this thread gets wiped.

The word Cordelia objected to was cunt. He changed it to A$$hole. But I can see that this is almost as objectionable.

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 09, 2006

BINGO! It would be like me claiming my voice should be the only one heard on CPS reform because I lost two brothers to CPS, not because of the endless hours of research I have spent studying the system and finding flaws. My credibility should be based on my expertise, not on my experience with personal tragedy.

As I said on my blog, I don't like the phrasing Coulter used, but I agree strongly with the point. But where I would have ended my comments with a question mark (metaphorically speaking), she ended them with an explanation point. The fact that we are debating this so heavily shows precisely how effective she was.

JillUser

on Jun 09, 2006

The word Cordelia objected to was cunt. He changed it to A$$hole. But I can see that this is almost as objectionable.

I see. Glad I missed the original version. Too bad people can't make their points without lowering themselves to using such language. I think it lacks cooth to use objectionable language in your title anyway.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!