Coulter Redux

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-rutten10jun10,1,4048609.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/enterta
inment/news/la-et-rutten10jun10,1,4048609.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true</a>

Don't know if the link will work but here are some excerpts from one writer's opinion of the shrew.
-----------------------------------
PORNOGRAPHY is difficult to define, wrote Justice Potter Stewart, "but I know it when I see it."

That famously commonsensical line would seem to obviate the need for any deeper analysis of the egregious Ann Coulter. Like most pornographers, however, she is resourceful in the service of her own economic and other interests. That makes it hard to do what most sensible people do when confronted with obscenity, which is look away.

Even the majority of reliably right-wing commentators didn't hesitate in their choice. Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, whose own industrial strength appetite for name-calling makes him the Diamond Jim Brady of televised epithets, had this to say: "Now many conservatives have joined liberals in condemning Coulter's words, but not all."

Still, O'Reilly said, he "believes most Americans reject that kind of vitriol because it is mean and counterproductive…. The question then becomes, why does Ann Coulter do it? No doubt the publicity will sell her some books."

If you've ever encountered Coulter on television or glanced at one of her book covers — all of which feature a "glamour shot" photo — you've probably noticed that she's inevitably dressed in an improbably short and low-cut black dress. At a gaunt 45 years of age, you might think the ingénue with fangs shtick would be wearing rather thin. Still, it's always been true that a certain segment of pornography consumers derive an erotic charge from the trappings of hate. Black leather and relic Nazi paraphernalia, for example, have a kind of iconic status in the sadomasochistic subcultures inclined toward fetishism.
---------------------------------

Bravo, Tim Rutten.

 

Originally Posted By JohnS1

The LA Times grasping a bit, as usual.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Coulter doesn't lie and she is right on target on every point. I read her book and it was excellent.

The book in #1 on Amazon.com and people get that she uses sarcasm to make her points, points that are based in reality.

You telling me the 4 NJ widows are not enjoying being famous, rich, and making political commercials?

Wake up.

Oh, Bill OReilly had his clock cleaned by Coulter when he tried to confront her the other day.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

So the LA Times Entertainment writer is now a pundit. Who knew?

Deft analysis, I must say. I eagerly await his sterling commentary on Bush's tie, Condolezza Rice's hair, and Karl Rove's accessories. The red carpet isn't just a metaphor, apparently.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<You telling me the 4 NJ widows are not enjoying being famous, rich, and making political commercials?>

Yeah. I'll tell you that.

I'm trying to imagine an equivalent scenario. Let's say my spouse was killed by gay bashers. It's highly unlikely since he's a big guy, and gay-bashers tend to pick on small ones, but let's just say.

Let's further say that someone videotaped it or something, it made the news, and became semi-famous in a Matthew Shepard way. As the widower, I made the news, and continued to do so as a sort of commentator on the evils of gay bashing.

I can't imagine I'd enjoy it. More likely, it would be sort of grim work - I'd consider it important, and I'd do it, but I can't imagine it being "enjoyable" considering what led me to it in the first place.

And I'm sure I'd trade it in a heartbeat for the alternative.

 

Originally Posted By ADMIN

<font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<You telling me the 4 NJ widows are not enjoying being famous, rich, and making political commercials?>

Yeah. I'll tell you that.>>

Then you are not watching them very close. They LOVE their new fame as they laugh and giggle as they pose for pictures, ride in limos, demand even MORE money because of 9-11, shill for the democrats, make commercials, do magazine interviews, go on the Today show, live on the HardBall show.

Yep, they are enjoying the fame they have because their husbands died on 9-11.

It's why the other widows from 9-11 can't stand these chicks.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>Bill OReilly had his clock cleaned by Coulter when he tried to confront her the other day.<<

I didn't hear the entire exchange, but I did catch the last part on the radio. I heard the two of them in a reasonably civil exchange, with neither giving an inch.

>>They (the Jersey Girls) LOVE their new fame as they laugh and giggle as they pose for pictures, ride in limos, demand even MORE money because of 9-11, shill for the democrats, make commercials, do magazine interviews, go on the Today show, live on the HardBall show.<<

It is reasonable to demand that proof that Coulter is a liar be provided. It is also reasonable to demand that proof be provided that the Jersey Girls are enjoying their status as spokes-widows.

I looked for evidence of this when this topic originally came up, and found nothing aside from the usual ranting on right wing blogs. Since I don't consider left wing blogs a source of information, I don't consider right wing blogs either.

So please provide a link to a news source that illustrates that the Jersey Girls are having a ball.

(P.S. Smiling for a photo does not, in my book, constitute high times.)

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<<You telling me the 4 NJ widows are not enjoying being famous, rich, and making political commercials?>

Yeah. I'll tell you that.>>

<Then you are not watching them very close.>

I'd say you were watching them through a very skewed prism that kicked in the moment they dared criticize Bush.

 

Originally Posted By JohnS1

It really isn't that unusual for people whose personal tragedies have turned them into spokespersons, to then be accused (sometimes rightly so) for enjoying their new-found status a bit too much.

John Walsh (father of Adam Walsh) comes to mind immediately. There are lots of others whose names escape me this early in the morning, but the point is that Ann Counlter is not bringing up some new phenomena. She is a bit harsh, as usual, but the left has certainly accused the right of similar things in the past. Nothing really new here.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

Dug, do YOU think theese 4 women are not enjoying being famous, being rich, getting massive attention from the liberal media, doing press conferences, making commercials for Kerry, being called on as " political experts "?

All of this came about for one reason. Their husbands died on 9-11 when they were killed by Muslims, not Bush as the NJ 4 widows like to claim.

They seem to be having a grand time and they finally got called on it by Coulter.

Meanwhile, 9-11 widows that support the president are not going all over the country being media darlings.

Coulter's main point was that since they are widows they are "off limits" from harsh comments even if they are spouting far left garbage that Bush killed their husbands.

She is right and these women should not be off limits once they decided to take their koor left wing talking points public, very public.

 

Originally Posted By Dirk_D_from_Oregon

Ann Coulter is the right wing answer to people like Al Franken or Randy Rhodes.

The only difference is shes good looking, and has never been caught lying.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>Dug, do YOU think theese 4 women are not enjoying being famous, being rich, getting massive attention from the liberal media, doing press conferences, making commercials for Kerry, being called on as " political experts "?... They seem to be having a grand time...<<

It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. What matters here are the facts. Remember, it's those "liberals" who base their world view on feelings.

Links to the facts, please.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Coulter's main point was that since they are widows they are "off limits" from harsh comments even if they are spouting far left garbage that Bush killed their husbands.>

Coulter as usual is trying to set herself up as "oppressed" or something when she's nothing of the kind. She keeps saying that some would say she's "not allowed" to talk about these widows. But that's a strawman. Of course she's allowed to. She IS doing so.

If she'd stuck to a supportable point, such as "these widows are wrong in what they say about Bush policy, and here's why..." then no one would have a problem. It's when she indulges in invective that even other conservatives are calling reprehensible that she gets called on it.

However, I'm starting to think that she has done so quite deliberately in order to get everyone talking about her, and hence to sell books. She sells more than far more thoughtful conservatives, which is a shame, but she knows what her schtick is, and she knows it pays the bills. I think she knew if she put in a few beyond the pale comments, everyone would focus on them, everyone would talk about her, and it wouldn't even matter if fellow conservatives slammed her for it. Her audience would eat it up. (And indeed, Beau has done so and is still smacking his lips).

It is pretty ironic to hear Coulter talking about someone who has gotten rich and famous via bad behavior.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>It is pretty ironic to hear Coulter talking about someone who has gotten rich and famous via bad behavior.<<

Yes indeed. It's like watching Ted Kennedy question the moral rectitude of GOP judicial nominees...

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<It doesn't matter how you or I feel about it. What matters here are the facts. Remember, it's those "liberals" who base their world view on feelings.>>

Well, that is true, but I think it does matter what people think about these women.

I think they are having a grand time as rich, left wing media darlings, who yes, miss their dead husbands when they get around to thinking about them between photo shoots, limo rides, and appearances on Hard Ball and the today show.

But that is just my opinion based on their actions.

John Wassh is pissed at criminals because his kid was killed by criminals. He is going after the bad guys and is honoring his son.

 

Originally Posted By DlandDug

>>He is going after the bad guys and is honoring his son.<<

And these women believe they are going after bad guys and honoring their husbands. People may disagree with them, but when it gets down and dirty, they lose credibility.

 

Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

Rutten is more than an "entertainment writer", for those attempting to denigrate him and his opinion. From the Times bio:

Tim Rutten
Regarding Media

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Rutten’s career as a journalist spans more than 30 years at The Times.

Prior to becoming a columnist for the Calendar section in 2002, he held a number of positions, including city bureau chief, metro reporter, editorial writer, assistant national editor, Opinion editor and assistant editor for the Editorial Page. He started at the paper in 1972 as a copy editor in the View section.

He participated in The Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning team coverage of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. He also won a 1991 award from the Greater Los Angeles Press Club for editorial writing.

He majored in political science while attending California State University, Los Angeles.

A native of San Bernardino, Calif., Rutten is married and has two children.

 

Originally Posted By Shooba

>>Links to the facts, please.<<

Good luck with that request Dug.

And even if it can be proved that they're having a "good time" right now, so what? Are they supposed to be in mourning for the rest of their lives?

Unless someone can prove that these women actually said that they are enjoying their husband's deaths, Coulter deserves every bit of scorn being thrown her way.

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<She keeps saying that some would say she's "not allowed" to talk about these widows. But that's a strawman. Of course she's allowed to. She IS doing so.>>

Yet the liberals are demanding she shut up. I don't think she is going to.