Catfight
Coulter versus Clinton
The uprising of shock from the mainstream over author Ann Coulter’s comments in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is quite predictable. It may shock sensibilities that Ms. Coulter says in her book that a group of widows whose husbands perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks “act as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." The biggest backlash however rises from her personal appearance tongue in cheek commentary on several talk shows where she alleges that that these widows are self-obsessed and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
First of all much of her rhetoric generates publicity and help her sell books. There is much hyperbole laced through her commentary. She tends to be in your face with much of her delivery on many well thought out political positions. The latest example is no exception.
Her argument is basically that liberals often send into the spotlight victims of tragedy who espouse left wing ideology. The resulting compassion for these tragic figures according to Coulter is being used as a shield from critical rebuttal while they go unchallenged on activist rampages. She is using an over the top approach to prove her point.
Coulter concludes that this is a tactic of liberal methodology. She is essentially correct. Unlike most other political commentators however she will not play their game, whither, pull her punches, and be relegated to the shadows. Using clever hijinks she blasts the left at the same time shocking conventional sensibilities.
Take for example Hilary Clinton. Senator Clinton commented on Ms. Coulter’s tome. “Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless," Mrs. Clinton states that she knows a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and that they never wanted to be a member of the tragedy defined group.
The tenor of the retort sounds like Ms. Coulter has hit a nerve. You are not allowed to criticize widows even if you find it repulsive that they are using their spouse’s deaths as a launching pad for political activism. The response tends to validate Ms. Coulter’s assumption.
It is sort of like collecting life insurance. You may find yourself better off financially after your loved one is gone and thanks to their death your fiscal position is elevated. You may be shattered that they died but you take advantage of its benefits. Ms. Coulter is saying that these women sure enjoy the limelight resulting from their spouse’s demise, not the loss itself.
For a family that enjoys parsing words you’d think that Mrs. Clinton of all people would understand. The name Clinton should conjure nothing but the concept of linguistic gymnastics. She however has political interests to think about.
Mrs. Clinton found it beyond her how anyone in the public eye could launch such a mean spirited attack upon victims. You must understand that the political left has not only cultivated but championed victim-hood. It guarantees liberals relevancy. If the populace is always under the thumb of someone then you can be saved by the cavalry (the political left).
Coulter versus Clinton
The uprising of shock from the mainstream over author Ann Coulter’s comments in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is quite predictable. It may shock sensibilities that Ms. Coulter says in her book that a group of widows whose husbands perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks “act as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." The biggest backlash however rises from her personal appearance tongue in cheek commentary on several talk shows where she alleges that that these widows are self-obsessed and enjoying their husbands' deaths.
First of all much of her rhetoric generates publicity and help her sell books. There is much hyperbole laced through her commentary. She tends to be in your face with much of her delivery on many well thought out political positions. The latest example is no exception.
Her argument is basically that liberals often send into the spotlight victims of tragedy who espouse left wing ideology. The resulting compassion for these tragic figures according to Coulter is being used as a shield from critical rebuttal while they go unchallenged on activist rampages. She is using an over the top approach to prove her point.
Coulter concludes that this is a tactic of liberal methodology. She is essentially correct. Unlike most other political commentators however she will not play their game, whither, pull her punches, and be relegated to the shadows. Using clever hijinks she blasts the left at the same time shocking conventional sensibilities.
Take for example Hilary Clinton. Senator Clinton commented on Ms. Coulter’s tome. “Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless," Mrs. Clinton states that she knows a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and that they never wanted to be a member of the tragedy defined group.
The tenor of the retort sounds like Ms. Coulter has hit a nerve. You are not allowed to criticize widows even if you find it repulsive that they are using their spouse’s deaths as a launching pad for political activism. The response tends to validate Ms. Coulter’s assumption.
It is sort of like collecting life insurance. You may find yourself better off financially after your loved one is gone and thanks to their death your fiscal position is elevated. You may be shattered that they died but you take advantage of its benefits. Ms. Coulter is saying that these women sure enjoy the limelight resulting from their spouse’s demise, not the loss itself.
For a family that enjoys parsing words you’d think that Mrs. Clinton of all people would understand. The name Clinton should conjure nothing but the concept of linguistic gymnastics. She however has political interests to think about.
Mrs. Clinton found it beyond her how anyone in the public eye could launch such a mean spirited attack upon victims. You must understand that the political left has not only cultivated but championed victim-hood. It guarantees liberals relevancy. If the populace is always under the thumb of someone then you can be saved by the cavalry (the political left).
As someone who spent 8 years seated at the right hand of her husband President, there was little compassion for truth or openness let alone individuals that got in the path of the Clinton slander machine. With countless scandals under their belt the number of people harmed by their authority has been relegated to history to be forever ignored by all but the historians.
Mrs. Clinton's label as being among the smartest woman in America, bestowed upon her by feminists, seems strange. The Clinton White House attacks upon people were applauded while a mere author is lambasted. Mrs. Clinton is after all a victim of her husband’s philandering. Don’t attack her though she is a casualty!
As the two square off Ms. Coulter’s point is made again. Victims that spin political from their spouse’s tragedies are being as vulgar a site as the specter of the calamities themselves. The activism is what they are enjoying, their new found fame and attention which they would have never achieved without the misfortune to their families. Ms Coulter just wants a level playing field where commentary even from tragic figures may be challenged without undue repercussion. She points it out by using similarly offensive reciprocation.
posted by Giosue' Santarelli at 4:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home