Some Dems in U.S. Congress launch word-bombs to attack Ann Coulter. Others attack each other in race to run against Sen. George Allen in Virginia.
What really steams Ann Coulter haters are the facts that every one of her books has become a best seller in all American markets and that her detractors do not have the power to silence her or ban her book. Plus, they can’t handle that Coulter has the true grit and quick wit to slap back! She also has an enormous readership throughout the blogosphere. Still, I'm waiting to see when, or if, The New YorkTimes will review "Godless: The Church of Liberalism and rank it on their Bestsellers List."
All of this leaves people like Democrat Rep. Rahm Emanuel, formerly of the notorious Clinton administration, and the 24+ other Democrat U.S. Reps going to the extreme of using their positions of power in the U.S. Congress as a forum for their high-profile, media-attention-gathering politics of personal destruction hate-speech against Coulter---as they try desperately to stop people from reading her new book. Unfortunately for them, their very public whining garners the very result they fear and are powerless to stop.
Major liberal network TV, liberal talk radio and liberal cable TV show hosts have been engaging in similar attacks on Ann Coulter, some encouraging other guests on their programs along with Coulter to join in on those attacks. When they hear Ann's common-sense explanations in defense of her statements, they all butt in and try to drown her out before she can finish, so the audiences can't hear her responses. But the truth is, given the chance to finish stating her well-developed and reasoned positions, she wins the debates hands down.
Most people---conservative and liberal---have a basic sense of fairness. The above-mentioned hateful attacks demonstrate why it is unfair to gang up on and malign a person, then vigorously try to stop that person from responding to: fraudulent accusations; statements taken out of context; personal attacks and insults; and obstructions to defending himself or herself and actual statements that had been made.
At the end of the day, Coulter will be more famous, wealthy, and able to command an exponentially expanding audience and market. There are enough major outlets for her to get her message out unobstructed. People will not only be eager to read this book, they will be eagerly awaiting her next book... and all others that follow. It's a fact that she is a prolific writer, very astute and very entertaining. Need I say more?
The reason I include the other column is that it exemplifies the same mean-spirited, politics of personal destruction name-calling and hate-speech being thrown out there by Democrats against all those with whom they disagree and/or want to silence. Such as their political opponents, for instance. They don't just want to beat them in an election, they want to destroy them.
This particular brand of politics of personal destruction originated in the Clinton White House war room that became an adjunct of the Democrat National Committee with access to the White House database for their political purposes. It was ratcheted-up during the 8 years of Clinton scandals and impeachment, as well as during the 2000, 2002, and 2004 federal election cycles.
An outgrowth of this type of political war has been the Democrats' perpetual political hate-speech and fake documents war against George W. Bush and his entire administration, their war against winning the Iraq War, and their political fragging of not only the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense, but also our brave and honorable troops fighting the Iraq War and the greater war against worldwide terrorism. They have tried to destroy every conservative Republican in sight---especially those with a high degree of power.
Even in time of war, they have not allowed themselves to choose to follow the high road and offer their support. Not even in the vein of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Rather, they prefer their political war objective: "If you can't beat 'em, destroy 'em." It reminds me of the prevailing theme that runs throughout the work of Albert Camus, where the protagonist, when given a choice between heaven or hell, invariably chooses the latter.
And, since Democrats would immediately counter with "War is hell," for the sake of my analogy, I will substitute the choices of either "success or failure" or "winning and losing." While I agree that war is hell, this war is a far-flung war of ideologies and civilizations against extremist Islamo-fascist terrorism. This Republican administration knows that we have to succeed---that we must win this war. Anything less than success and winning is not an option.
Now..., back to my earlier point. Why is it not all right for Ann Coulter to express her opinion about four 9/11 widows who choose to allow themselves, on the basis of their experiencing grief over the loss of a loved one in war, to be used to promote Democrat ideologies and the anti-war cause---as they revel "in their status as celebrities" and willingly get on the Democrats' and Democrat candidates' bandwagons? It is offensive that these four widows presume to wear their grieving and celebrity as a shield against any opposing voices or criticism, as if they are entitled to be the only voices heard---and as if they are entitled to not have their positions challenged.
The same holds true for Cindy Sheehan, who used her son's death in the Iraq War to catapault herself into a high-profile position where she could command an audience for her own personal anti-war position---a position that her volunteer warrior son did not share---and her recent lament over the death of al Qaeda terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
The fact that each of these women lost a loved one in an act of war does not give them the right to say whatever they choose on public or political issues, apart from their own personal loss, with any expectation that everyone who disagrees with them on those issues will be silenced or that their actions and what they say will be shielded from criticism.
No one has a special right of immunity from criticism or opinions of others in the public forum and public discourse. If those professional "victims" can't take the heat they generate, they're in over their heads in the political arena, which is definitely not a place for thin-skinned sissies.
Here are excerpts from the two above-mentioned columns and links to same:
“Ann Coulter Receives Congressional Letter” here
“...In Coulter's new book "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," she wrote, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much," and that the four were "reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis."
In response, House Democrats from Long Island and New York City have signed their names to a letter drafted by Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington) demanding that Coulter apologize. "Their personal loss should never be minimized, especially in such a cold and callous way as you attack these victims in your book," Israel wrote...
"We understand that you are in the book business and that controversy might make for good sales," Israel wrote to Coulter, "but we would urge you to consider that making mean-spirited comments about women trying to do the right thing might not be worth the resultant rise on the bestseller list."
In his letter, Israel called the women "responsible citizens" who raised their voices in keeping with American tradition...
Asked by Reuters why she had written about the four women, Coulter replied, "I am tired of victims being used as billboards for untenable liberal political beliefs." "A lot of Americans have been seething over the inanities of these professional victims for some time," she added...”
“Sen. Allen's Opponent Calls Rival 'Anti-Christ'" here
"One Democrat calls his rival the "anti-Christ of outsourcing" U.S. jobs and argues that he's trying to buy a win in the Virginia primary. The other fires back, labeling his opponent a sexist who is hostile to affirmative action and is, at heart, a Republican.
Accusations fly freely in the Democratic primary between decorated Vietnam veteran and Reagan-era Navy secretary Jim Webb and former Internet industry lobbyist Harris Miller. The winner Tuesday will face first-term Sen. George Allen, a potential 2008 presidential candidate...
The latest sparring occurred in a debate Friday.
The two clashed over a Webb campaign flier that showed Miller, who is Jewish, with a hooked nose and cash spilling from his pockets as he orders an underling to export U.S. jobs overseas. The text in the comic-book style pamphlet refers to Miller, the former president of the Information Technology Association of America, as the "anti-Christ of outsourcing" for sending high-tech jobs overseas.
"One of the things I hoped we would keep out of this campaign because it has nothing to do with the campaign is my religion and my background," said Miller, who called the flier "despicable..."
When the attacks begin, regardless of who struck first, they escalate, driven by the political consultants' doctrine of letting no slight go unanswered, said Steve Jarding, a veteran Democratic strategist and adviser to Webb...
Allen holds a huge financial edge over either Democrat. He had $7.5 million on hand for his campaign at the end of May, according to Federal Election Commission records...”