Coulter needs to stuff a sock in it.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Ann Coulter proved once again that when it comes to being tacky, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore haven't got a damn thing on her. She can hold her own in the big fat mouth department.

From AJ , a partial transcript of Coulter's interview with Lauer:

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration:

COULTER: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

She has her defenders however. More at The Anchoress who speaks to the increasing arrogance of certain people who should know better. Instapundit makes a statement as well as does Ed . Some things are just beyond the pale.


David Thomson said...

"I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”

This is the sentence which is beyond the pale. Some of the 9/11 widows are jerks. Still, it is outrageous to accuse them of enjoying the murder of their husbands.

Stephen_M said...

Syl said...

Well, I'm not as totally outraged as other folks. I do note that Ann is not Politically Correct. And that fact does please me.

It's fine to criticize a specific statement, but I'm not willing to throw out her entire message. Or to label her the next Ted Rall.

These widows used their widowhood to beat others over the head with. The other widows only used theirs to say 'You don't speak for me'.

The worship of one specific group of widows over everyone else, and in fact treating them as the one and only voice, made me sick (and was the point at which I stopped watching Chris Matthews.)

The other widows didn't count because their message wasn't acceptable to the Dems. And along comes Cindy Sheehan who got legitimacy from the Left because her son died in Iraq AND she had the proper message.

Death + Proper Message = Legitimate
Death + Wrong Message = Illegitimate

We can completely remove 'Death' from the equation and get the same result. So the death is used only for a shield against criticism as Ann says.

But it is not politically correct to point that out.


offworld said...

I think the whole point is that victims should not be immune to criticism. Ann is priceless.

dag said...

When one person dies it's a tragedy. When 2,986 people are murdered for being alive it's not personal anymore: it's a nation experience that transcends the private grief of anyone or group of individuals.

Regardless of our proximitiy to the people involved, we are personally involved in that those who were murdered are our own in a deep sense of shared national family, something we might not recognise as real until such events as this.

If this were a matter of personal tragedy, then by all means let the people involved have a go at the ones they can find to hang and burn. At which point we will forego our laws and civil society. Welcome, Medea, to the Furies.

Widows, x, y, or z have no privilge here. That's not our law, that's not civilization as I experience it. None of this is personal. It's a matter of law and, dare I mention it, of right and wrong. No widows have a monopoly on those. Victim impact is nonsense. Widows can say anything they please, and they are irrelevant.