Thinking Right

By Lynn

June 12, 2006 08:10 AM | Link to this

She called them what they were. Cheap hussies that got rich because their husbands got incenerated! Get over it already!

By Lola

June 12, 2006 08:18 AM | Link to this

Ann is not afraid to say things like they are, and she’s not PC, which in the leftist world is an unforgivable characteristic. Now that she’s exposed the left’s tactics of using “victims” to speak as unopposable experts on things, maybe more people will see it for what it is. GO ANN!!!

By Sam

June 12, 2006 08:20 AM | Link to this

Thanks for the straw man, Wooten. Those 9/11 widows are just one of many groups who are voicing their displeasure at the situation in Iraq. Typical right-wing blowhardism — don’t like the message, attack the messenger. And it’s pathetic how far backwards you’ll bend to hew to this strategy — the criticism of this group is their supposed inoculation from criticism. Tell me again how that works?

By Lauren

June 12, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Ann Coulter proves time and time again that the Republican party is a party of big mouthed bullies. In her opinion NOTHING gives you the right to speak out against the President or any Republican leadership. Not losing your son in Iraq or your spouse in 9/11. She makes sure that if you criticize the President that you will pay and you will pay in the worst way. She will call you every name in the book! She is a terrible person but I like for her to talk and talk as loud as possible. Everytime she speaks she confirms to me what that party is all about. She even says she wants to supress the “free” speech of those who disagree with her! She is very dangerous. It’s nice to know you back her up, Mr. Wooten. But then, I figured you would. And Republican authored books go to the bestseller list because Republican groups and think tanks buy them by the thousands and give them away at events. It’s not because the public is buying them on their own. This party is on its way out of power because they are so hate-filled, bullying and bigoted and because they have made such a mess of this country and the war in Iraq. The only people who don’t think so are the 30% who drank the kool-ade and love them no matter what.

By

June 12, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this

I am glad to see what lies at the heart of so many “christians”. Apparently hate not love is the message that Christ wants sent out.

By George P. Burdell

June 12, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

I am as conservative as it comes, and I have never, ever gotten what the big deal is about her. She never says anything thoughtful or insightful. I am not really sure why those on the right or left even pay her attention. Ignore her and let’s pray she fades into oblivion.

By Kevin

June 12, 2006 08:23 AM | Link to this

Cheap hussies? Very sensitive of you considering they lost their husbands in a terror attack.. and good for them for speaking out against Bush.. they did what they thought was right (and I think by now it’s pretty obvious they were correct)

By Larry

June 12, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

I’ve been telling people the same thing about the Columbine parents too. Fame is a powerful drug Thanks Jim.

By Rival

June 12, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Nice deflection, Jim.

This has nothing to do with “victimhood.” The point in publicly rebuking her is to combat the “opinion-as-journalism” that Coulter, Malkin, Rush and others (including those on the Left, but let’s face it: they don’t get nearly the air-time that the Righties get) utilize to get press (and sell books!).

Words have meaning, and if you viciously attack a group who have the ultimate sypathy of an entire nation for what they went through, you’re going to get called for it. What, did Coulter not have enough time to make fun of any 9/11 orphans? I can’t wait to hear her opinion on all those “crybaby” cancer patients…

Funny that one of Coulter’s earlier books was entitled “Slander.”

By robert

June 12, 2006 08:25 AM | Link to this

Wow you writers are out of touch . And once again its freedom of speach unless the left does not agree. Hang her ? For what? sedition to your cause. Im not even going to start on the what about list like your beloved Micheal Moore even though hes been sued for slander countless times.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

June 12, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

Anne Coulter’s work is undeniably in bad taste and makes the right look as disgraceful as some critics argue it is, but it is satire. It’s sarcasm, yes, in poor taste, but not to be taken literally. Unfortunately, Jim Wooten doesn’t qualify for that disclaimer. He actually believes the offensive refuse he prints. To call it devoid of sensitivity and written in an intellectual vacuum would be far too kind. Thanks, Jim, for showing your true colors yet again.

By Mark

June 12, 2006 08:26 AM | Link to this

She is not that bad. It is okay for the liberals to skewer the conservatives but let a conservative say something that may offend the liberals or their causes and it is wrong. I say “RIGHT ON, ANN!!”. The liberals need to get over it and start to figure out how to unite the country and not bash Freedom of Speech.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

I guess Ms. Sheehan and the widows are incapable of speaking their own minds. Silly britches.

Lynn, honey, you must be a pawn or a tool for Mr. Wooten. So get back to the kitchen, dearie, and leave the war talk to us menfolk.

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 08:30 AM | Link to this

Ann’s last couple of books were marvelously well written, with an abundance of footnotes to support her factual contentions. I’ve read only the first chapter of the new book - teaser was posted online - but this looks like another powerful indictment of the left.

As to the kerfuffle on the harpies, the left is proving the point Ann is making - that the left is unwilling to debate any argument on substance, but merely submits unassailable “victim” to make emotional pleas. We will not see Hillary and Ann on the same stage in the next couple of years. Too bad - that would be fun to watch - the “smartest woman in the world” debating substance with Ann.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

June 12, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Classy post there, Lynn- bad mouth the 9/11 widows. And conservatives try to claim that liberals are unAmerican. Lynn here is the new poster child for abhorrent conservative ideology.

By Ken

June 12, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Aside from the fact that I would never vote for the party that the KKK supports..(Democrats in the past, Republicans now); Ann Coulter shows why hate groups support Bush.

By Rival

June 12, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

Robert,

Please realize: no one on the “Left” has advocated hanging Ann Coulter.

That was Jim Wooten’s title to this blog post, an over-the-top rhetorical trick to suggest that the legitimate rebuking Ann is getting is somehow unfair and severe.

By Chris

June 12, 2006 08:34 AM | Link to this

Since when is it “Christian” to bad mouth people with such vitriol? As I drive around my conservative neighborhood, I often see the “What would Jesus do?” bumper stickers. Would Jesus have used the words Ann Coulter uses? I don’t think so. And that’s why the Republicans will lose the House, and perhaps the Senate, in this November’s election. They spew hate … and it is quite obvious.

By Marc M

June 12, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Oh, brother. (eyes rolled up into the back of my head) So Ann Coulter calls a spade a spade. BFD. I admire her for having the guts to speak the truth. The whining “victims” are sacred cows that are being skewered and the misguided “do-gooders” don’t like it one bit.

When were we ever guaranteed that everything in our lives would be perfect?

GET OVER IT!

By N-GA

June 12, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

Jim, I find it interesting that you don’t feel that a mother whose child has died in a war should not have more strongly reported views that people who have not experienced such a tragedy. I suggest that those who have never served on active duty, or have not had someone very close to them killed or wounded in war should be very careful when expressing their opinion about sending other people’s sons and daughters off to fight and die for a suspect cause.

You express your views regularly in the AJC, and often you have little or no direct experience on the subject. You have your bully pulpit and Cindy Sheehan has hers. So does Ann Coulter, but I suspect that the vast majority of Americans feel that while she is free to express her opinion, she should do it in a more respectful way.

By Topher

June 12, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

The 9/11 widows in question have been been outspoken about wanting a new investigation, because the Kean Commission was an obvious cover-up. Not suprising that they’re a target from supporters of the war on terror, and our civil liberties.

By Independent

June 12, 2006 08:36 AM | Link to this

As far as I’m concerned, she ranks right up there with Jessie Jackson and Cynthia McKinney. Sensible folks don’t pay attention to those two, so why would they pay any attention to Ann.

By robert

June 12, 2006 08:37 AM | Link to this

Rival . I guess you dont read or watch much news. And you dont actually believe Jims a conservative do you ?

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this

Jim, you have hit a hot nerve here. I’ll bet you get 500 posts today.

By Tyler Durdin

June 12, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

There was probably another way for Coulter to make her point, but it’s very obvious that these widows have used their spouses’ tragic deaths as a tool to advance their political ideals. What I can’t understand is how at the same time they criticize the administration for not doing enough before 9/11, they are critical of the President’s efforts to prevent another attack. Iraq was a safe-haven for terrorist activity (additional reports coming out just today will add further evidence to this fact) and Saddam Hussein was a clearly a gathering threat (The UN wholeheartedly agreed). The moment those planes flew into the towers, his fate was essentially sealed. I am thankful that Bush has the stamina to see this through to the end. People often ask, “but isn’t this too high a price to pay?” And I remind them that the US losses in WWII were over 200,000 brave men and women. The total Russian losses in the same war were over 20 million. Yet, there seems to be little debate about whether or not those sacrifices had to be made to protect the world from tyranny and oppression. Somebody needs to tell the 9/11 widows that the purpose of attacks were not to murder their husbands. It was to kill as many AMERICANS as possible. We are all in this together.

By One person's opinion

June 12, 2006 08:42 AM | Link to this

Wait… it sounds like your upset because it’s too hard to “swift boat” these critics. The 9/11 widows and Cindy Sheehan are difficult to “swift boat” because they haven’t done anything you can scream about, except have Americans hear their stories. Is the problem that we are paying attention to them and you’re vitrolic hyperboyle won’t make us stop listening to good sense?

By

June 12, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this

Those who denounce Coulter’s “hate speech” have no problem turning around and accusing Bush of personally directing war crimes, domestic spying and racial discrimination of Katrina victims.

The stench of hypocrisy is blanketing the Left these days.

Hey, Jay Bookman, are you listening?

By Miranda

June 12, 2006 08:44 AM | Link to this

I think Ann’s so snide because she’s hungry. If the camera didn’t add 10 pounds (which apparently only gets added to her head)a graphics artist would have to draw her into the frame. I mean really, those pies didn’t get thrown at her out of malice, those people were just trying to feed her for goodness sakes!

By N-GA

June 12, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Mark,

You posted: “The liberals need to get over it and start to figure out how to unite the country and not bash Freedom of Speech.”

I respond that cons like you need to educate yourselves more. Liberals are not attacking Ann Coulter’s freedom of speech. She certainly has that right. They are simply using their own right of free speech to criticize Ms. Coulter and her published remarks. Liberals, unlike many cons, don’t advocate book-burning.

By Mark

June 12, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Those who denounce Coulter’s “hate speech” have no problem turning around and accusing Bush of personally directing war crimes, domestic spying and racial discrimination of Katrina victims.

The stench of hypocrisy is blanketing the Left these days.

Hey, Jay Bookman, are you listening?

By wounded in iraq

June 12, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this

HMMMMM!!!!! total federal payout for a 9/11 victim killed was 1.25 million (on average) total federal payout for a soldier killed in Iraq, 12K (on average). correct me if i am wrong, but something just don’t feel right about that one, yeah yeah yeah, i know we “volunteered” knowing the risks and all, but 12k v.s. 1.2 mill? i don’t care how you try to justify the disparity it just isn’t right. Go Anne!!!!

By clyde

June 12, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

If those that cry the loudest would actually read what she writes and think about what she says before making instant judgements, their opinions might be more worthwhile. Instant judgement, like instant analysis, is just that. By the way, the reason people on the left can’t stand her is she says what much of America thinks, and is part of a national media discourse that, until the advent of Fox News and the internet, was buried by the NY Times, Atlanta Journal, LA Times and their fellow travelers. Amazing how a second opinion gets things riled up, isn’t it?

By shrdiv

June 12, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

Wooten and Ann Coulter are great examples of an extremist Republican Party that continues to encourage Americans to hate and be divisive against each other. Last time I checked this behavior was exactly what the Bible teaches against.

They continue to display the qualities that are the worst of humanity.

The 9/11 widows, like many victims of horrible crimes, work to ensure that the same does not happen to other Americans. Cindy Sheehan continues to do the same. And she has never been a pawn and was active in the anti-war movement WAY BEFORE she took her stand in Crawford against Bush.

Wooten would have you believe that all is better and superior with the Republican party leadership. But we are not part of the media elite like Wooten is and we Americans know what it has been like to live in this country and try to raise our families in George W. Bush’s America these past 6 years:

It has been hell. Republicans can’t govern. We invaded the WRONG country. Our deficit is the highest in history, yet the GOP continues to cut taxes and leave more irresponsible debt for our children. An American city (New Orleans) drowned on Bush’s watch - and those people and others in Mississipi and Alabama STILL haven’t gotten the kind of help we owe them since they paid their taxes.

Go shovel that crap elsewhere, Wooten. It is not selling. Just look at Bush’s approval ratings!

By time for the truth

June 12, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this

Ann Coulter is undoubtedly fast becoming Supreme Court Justice material. These petty and small minded hateful attacks on her by lefty pinkos are simply driven by envy and fear of her astute, sardonic observations about their own party of hate - Kennedy, Schumer, Dingy Harry Reid, and the feminazis Pelosi, Shrillary, et al.

Coulter’s books are meticulously researched, her lampooning of the liberal left is always excellent entertainment. Her trenchant rhetoric is never anything like as toxic or poisonous or off the mark factually as the humourless vituperative, venomous commie lovin’ neanderthals infesting the failing Soros slush fund joke that is Dead Air America. The average far left blogs - like Huffington.com are filled daily with Goebbels’s like baiting of Bush and Cheney et al.

The intellectual dishonesty of the left is essentially moral fascism - its OK if we sneer at you conservatives using outrageous smears etc but the second a conservative hands it back - the preverbial hypocritical liberal stuck pig squeals into view.

Coulter simply pointed out an undeniable, despicable fact - the pinkos now have sunk to the amoral depths of frequently trotting out lefty victims that hide behind personal tragedy whilst parroting Bush hate or anti-GOP propaganda - thereby supposedly innoculating them from any legitimate, obvious critique of their pinko tactic.

BEEN FOUND OUT NOW - AINT YA!! BIG anti-liberal SMIRK

Legitimate criticism and fair speech is one thing but the crazed Bush hater Sheehan and these odious millionaire self styled media whores, The Jersey Girls, who campaigned for the thankfully defeated (home movie camera in a war zone - for my first political campaign toting) band aid warrior-hero Kerry - among others - are perfectly fair game once they make their lefty views (repeatedly) public!!

By Tyler Durdin

June 12, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

Ah, yes. If only John Kerry were president, things in New Orleans would have been so much different. You really show your ignorance when you make statements like that. This coming from the same person who says Republicans are “divisive.”

By Sam

June 12, 2006 08:58 AM | Link to this

wounded in iraq, thank you for your service and here’s to your recovery. But in this case you’re comparing apples and oranges. Nobody sat down and decided that one group is 100x more valuable than the other.

By RW-(the original)

June 12, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

The fact remains that there really is one person that trashed the memory of ALL the the 9/11 victims by calling them “little Eichmann’s”, while Ann Coulter goes after the FOUR widows that have become media darlings and are called, by the antique media, for their opinion on everything under the sun. No matter the question, the answer from the Jersey girls is always “Bush sucks” and they pretend to speak for all victims. Cindy Sheehan is different, she answers every question “George sucks”.

So where can I find all the outrage from the left over the words of Ward Churchill?

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

June 12, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

It’s ironic that every time Bush or any other Republican is on television they have to repeat the 9-11 chant (usually pronounced “nan-levin”). Remember nan-levin. Nan-levin this and nan-levin that. So what do conservatives say about the people who actually had family members killed on “nan-levin”? They criticize them in disrespectful, nasty terminology. Now that’s unAmerican. Bush and company don’t need to bring up 9-11 in campaign speeches or for policy justification since they had no personal loss in the attack, and all they do is ignore the wishes and beliefs of the victims, and instead drag them through the mud.

By N-GA

June 12, 2006 08:59 AM | Link to this

Wounded in Iraq,

Government payments to victims of terror are a product of this administration. The Oklahoma City bombing victims and their families didn’t get anything beyond standard benefits and insurance. It was this administration that supplemented insurance payouts to allow thousands of families to get million dollar plus payments. It is this administration that believes that money will sooth any hurt, solve any problem.

Look at military recruiting…rather than re-instituting the draft (political suicide), this administration is paying huge enlistment bonuses, paying larger bonuses for those who re-up, and reducing the standards of enlistment. Ann Coulter isn’t criticizing all the 9/11 families that got a million dollars, only those that she hates.

By

June 12, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

I think Ann calls them the way she sees them. The LEFT thinks they should have the corner on the market. Until someone starts calling their hand and then all they can do is whimper and talk about how mean everyone is that does not go along with their point of view. Just look at Hillary, her face has changed so much I bet her husband does not even recognize her.

By Bob

June 12, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

Hypocracy…that is what is at the bottom of this. These people hate it when people like Ann Coulter calls their bluff! She is right. And it isn’t about liberal versus conservative. It is about what is right versus what has become abusive opportunism by those who take advantage of misfortune. A misfortunate situation doesn’t make someone an political activist with expertise in anything but grief. Don’t carry it into the political realm!

By Van

June 12, 2006 09:01 AM | Link to this

shrdiv,

The only time I ever hear about “HATE” it is from some leftie that thinks they are being picked on.

The Jersey Girls have made a ton of money shilling for the atni-america crowd.

It took someone like Ann Coulter to shake off this mantle of PC and call it like it is.

Outside of the 4 women Ann named, which other 9/11 widows have capitalized on 9/11 to get rich?

By RobC

June 12, 2006 09:04 AM | Link to this

The Left’s exploitation of the 9-11 widows and Cindy Sheehan are classic examples of the logical fallacy known as “appeal to pity.” Their attacks against Ann are another logical fallacy known as the “ad hominem” argument: Ann’s book exposes the hypocrisy and lies of the Left, and they attack her since they can’t refute the truth of her claims.

By A.L.

June 12, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this

It’s really amazing: many of the libs who have responded to Mr. Wooten’s blog over the past week have taken a great deal of delight in sterotyping conseratives as ignorant, racist, homophobic, etc.

And then, these same libs get their panties in a wad when someone like Ms. Coulter gives them a dose of their own medicine.

Speaking of underwear: is Fave still wearing MEN’S drawers on his head … with the MEN still in them?

By N-GA

June 12, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this

Jim W.,

BTW…Cindy Sheehan does not profess to be an expert in war, as you seem to suggest in your analogy. I do think she qualifies as an expert in losing a son in war. And she has every right to express herself, just like you would defend to the death the right of pro-life demonstrators to express themselves wherever they choose to protest. I suspect she would object to being called a “pawn”, much as you would object to being described as a “paid Republican shill”.

By chris broe

June 12, 2006 09:13 AM | Link to this

Mr. Wooten, you forgot to report that Ann Coulter chased a liberal up a tree in New Jersey over the weekend. (The ranger’s not going to like this, Yogi)

By

June 12, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

We have become a nation that spawns a new cottage industry with every crime. John Walsh, the Simpson and Goldman families, Columbine etc. You migth quibble with her choice of words but families taking advantage of a crisis for a new career, money, or publicity is just plain wrong

By getalife

June 12, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this

The thing you call ann is an entertainer like Rush who will say anything to get paid. This is a publicity stunt to pimp her book and it is working.

The sad part is people take them seriously and is a strong indicator of their mind set.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 09:18 AM | Link to this

“hypocrisy”

It’s just one of the many words you bottomfeeders routinely spell incorrectly. Not only can’t you spell it, but you obviously have no idea what it means. So here are some examples:

Put yellow ribbons on your SUVs about supporting the troops - but lie about and ridicule a dead soldier’s mother.

Invoke 9/11 at every opportunity, yet call victims’ widows ghouls and cheap hussies.

Cheerlead and thump your chest for war - from behind your computer screen instead of an M-16.

“hypocrisy”

By N-GA

June 12, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this

I am genuinely perplexed. As far as I know, these widows got the same [equivalent] payout as all the other victim’s spouses. These widows are not using their status to get more money. They are simply using their tragic loss to express their views on this administration’s handling of terrorism. And for doing this they are vilified.

Ann Coulter has lost nothing, yet she gets the big bucks for being the “vilifier”. What a country!! What hypocrisy.

By time for the truth

June 12, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

to the lefty Kerry lovin? moron!!

New Orleans would have happened exactly the same way!! The levees were weakened years ago by corrupt DemoNcrat politcos in the state/city who diverted funds elsewhere! Also recent satellite photos have shown that NO is sinking much faster than thought, hence the levees in the more vulnerable areas failed first and NOTHING could have stopped that!!

And the race baitin’ useless Ray ‘School Bus’ Nagin could have DUH!!! moved the school buses out with people in them and stopped hiding in fear on the upper reaches of a downton hotel and actually done something to make a difference. It was actually state DemoNcrats who refused the National Guard before the storm and turned back FEMA buses/supplies. But according to the drive by media its ALL Bush’s fault, even the levees which were built years ago - that’s Bush’s fault too!!

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Here’s a conversation with Ann Coulter:

Ann: “Liberals are terrible people because they don’t agree with me.”

Anyone: “Why is that, Ann? What makes you the better person so that, by definition, people not like you are bad?”

Ann: “Liberals are terrible people because they don’t agree with me!”

Anyone: “But, Ann, come now, please elaborate. Because a statement like that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not self-evident, you know.”

Ann: “LIBERALS ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON’T AGREE WITH ME!”

Anyone: “Ann….calm down…I just want you to explain, with out shouting, how you came to your conclusion.”

Ann: “LIBERALS ARE TERRIBLE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON’T AGREE WITH ME, AND YOU’RE AN IDIOT AND STINKY, TOO!”

Here’s a conversation with my 5-year old son:

Son: “Mom, do you renember when I was watching Wolverine and he was fighting that bad guy, the one that looks like Lion? And the bad guy wanted to KILL Wolverine but Wolverine just SMASHED him? And the Wolverine turned into Logan and got on his motorcycle and then he had to fight Magneto? But Magneto BEAT Wolverine because of all the metal? And then Cyclops came and BLASTED him? But that’s dangerous because it’s bad. Why is that dangerous, Mom?”

Me: “I’m not sure. What’s dangerous?”

Son: “Mom, it’s dangerous because it’s bad.”

Me: “Wait, I thought you wanted me to explain why it’s dangerous. What is it that’s dangerous?”

Son: “You don’t understand! It’s dangerous because it’s bad!”

Me: “Okay, I understand that, but WHAT is dangerous? Slow down and think about it.”

Son: “NO! IT’S DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT’S BAD! AND YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND!”

Me: “Son, calm down. Stop shouting. I don’t understand better when you yell. I’m only two feet away from you. I can hear you just fine. But I still don’t know what you’re talking about. Something is dangerous because it’s bad. What is dangerous?”

Son: “Mom…it’s dangerous BECAUSE IT’S BAD! YOU JUST DON’T UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU’RE NOT A SUPERHERO LIKE ME!”

If you’re like me you just shrug and wonder at the minds of children.

By wildant

June 12, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this

Do we think that Ms. Sheehan does not believe what she is saying? Yes, the way in which she came about her forum was unfortunate, but now at least she can say what she feels about the war and others listen and talk about it on TV. She isn’t confined to responding to blog comments.

By edge770

June 12, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

Ann is right 99 percent of the time and she brings the 9/11 widows to where they belong. There’s a lot of resentment for example in public safety because these so called 9/11 widows have forgotten where they come from, not helping public safety employees in trouble and sticking it out if for the thugs of New York Schumer and H. Clinton..

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 09:26 AM | Link to this

@ A.L.

There is plenty of evidence that southrons are indeed ignorant, racist homophobes. Sexist, too, as we see in today’s posts.

There is plenty of scholarly research that backs up these findings. Coulter just talks out of her arse.

By GOP

June 12, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

I PERSONALLY LOVE HER, SHE TELLS IT LIKE IT IS. SHE IS NOT AFRAID TO SAY WHAT IS ON HER MIND, THERE SHOULD BE A LOT MORE WOMEN LIKE HER OUT THERE. RIGHT ON ANN, SEAN, NEAL AND MIKE SAVAGE YOU GO GUYS………..

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Here’s a conversation with Jennifer:

Jennifer: Ann Coulter is wrong because I say so.

Me: But Jennifer, have you read the books or followed up with the footnotes.

Jennifer: ANN COULTER IS WRONG BECAUSE I SAY SO….

By B.

June 12, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

This is very much like the little boy who went around the grocery store tripping old ladies. A man stopped him, and told him not to be a jerk. His mother called the cops, because a man had called her son a jerk - and it’s wrong to call little boys jerks.

Only a mother could focus on her son being called a jerk, while ignoring the fact that he tripped a bunch of old ladies. And only a complete ideologue could see the backlash against Ann Coulter as a liberal conspiracy.

If her point were that the 9/11 victims’ families have too much pull on things like the WTC memorial, I would have agreed with her. And if she said that being a victim does not provide complete moral authority over the war, I would somewhat agree (though I would question why Wooten thinks that Cindy Sheehan was a pawn, but that Swift Boat Veterans had a message that needed to be heard…)

But that’s not what she said. Coulter said that the widows of 9/ll victims were “witches” who were “happy” that their husbands died. Why witches? What does being a witch (or a b*h, as she probably meant) have to do with politics? It is a purely personal insult - an attack not on the women’s views, but on the women. It’s “these women who hold a view opposite of mine are ugly, green, and fly broomsticks.”

Regardless of what you think of Hillary Clinton, that statement is “vicious” (and more than a little dumb). Regardless of what sort of loaded terminology the word “sensitivity” has for you, that statement is “beyond insensitive.” It was mean. It was malicious. And if it represents the way that Republicans feel - if they truly believe that no slander, no viciousness is too extreme to be used against their “opponents” (even if their opponents are ordinary Americans speaking their mind after suffering great tragedy), then Republicans are “a cabal of bloviators, bully boys and blowhards.” I don’t see any grand “liberal” conspiracy in saying so.

By Lynda

June 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

Geez! Much of this is just flat out mean. You should be ashamed.

By Rival

June 12, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

I guess you dont read or watch much news. And you dont actually believe Jims a conservative do you ?

Robert,

I’m blind, so, no, I don’t “read” or “watch” news. And I never called Jim a conservative.

There’s a difference between “Republican” and “conservative”. Not much of the latter around anymore.

By Duncan

June 12, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Ann Coulter is an opportunist…most of what comes out of her mouth might as well come out the other end. She incites emotions from the left and the right and that sells books, gets her speaking engatements, and makes her rich.

I mean come on…does anybody really believe she is religious?

If Jim Wooten really wanted to be taken serious he’d get just as nasty as her instead of his usual smarmy off-the-cuff mish mash of opinions.

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

where did I say I thought she was wrong? I didn’t. I didn’t give my opinion on the validity of her point. I only said she was loud and nonsensical, which she is, footnotes aside.

You don’t really think she wrote any of her books, did you? People like her don’t write. They have ghostwriters. And it’s easy as pie to reference your point, all day long.

I’d like to see her opinion in a peer-reviewed political journal. If she made peer review even ONE TIME, I’d give her spiel the time of day.

By chris broe

June 12, 2006 09:38 AM | Link to this

Watching any Ann Coulter interview spotlights the Republican Majority’s Accomplishments in the same way that Katie Courik’s live colonoscopy did.

By Dancan

June 12, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

That should be engagements…

By die hard hawks fan

June 12, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this

MAKE THAT MONEY ANN!

THEY CAN HATE CUZ THEY AINT MAKING THAT MONEY!!

I HEARD SHE GOT A BIG OLE ADVANCE!!!

By MK

June 12, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this

This Ann Coulter woman wants publicity at any cost, when on TV you’d think she is ready for a model photo shoot, hair just so, legs lovingly exposed , hard steely look, she is ready like a dragon with her inflammatory regurgitation of viciousness and intolerance , Hitler would have loved this woman. I dont hate her for expressing her views, but I cant helped being repulsed for a complete lack of rspect and sensitivity towards her suffering countrywomen. In spite of her remarks I dont believe these Jersey women are happy their husbands died, no more that Cindy Sheehan is glad her son died in Iraq, c’mon

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

Wolverine is Logan (1).

Ann Coulter is very hungry (2).

Perhaps our problem would be solved if Ann ate Wolverine for breakfast. She already has the same claws so we know that she can consume adamantium.

Footnotes:

(1) Jennifer. Wootan Blog: “Hang ‘er high, that darn Ann Coulter”. June 12, 2006 09:23 AM.

(2) Miranda. Wootan Blog: “Hang ‘er high, that darn Ann Coulter”. June 12, 2006 08:44 AM

By

June 12, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Part of what Coulter aims for is shock value to garner attention, cloak herself in some kind of credentials, and make money. That’s true of most every political commentator, self appointed or not. It doesn’t seem that the debate or criticism is so much about her ideology or views as it is her meanspiritedness, absence of humanity and capability of fair play. It is doubtful that very many outside the capitol’s journalistic beltway really care what she thinks or says or buy her books. But no matter where one stands on an issue, people personally touched by national tragedies or actions should be allowed to act on their view without personal attacks, without evidence. And all the rest of us, whether conservative or liberal, have just as much right to public and private opinions without gratuitous personal attacks. If someone like Coulter, who is outside the personal pain and who only speaks but doesn’t act, gets such attention where is the validity of her criticism? I guess it helps sell her book and line her pocketbook, much more lucratively than the money and power Sheehan or the widows got. She gives conservatives a bad name and I am ashamed of her.

By Rob

June 12, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

I find it hilarious that a spokeperson for the gay-bashing right is a closeted TRANNY!!! I have news for you people there is not a person in this world who is born with female parts who has an adam’s apple. And “she” has a huge one! Ann Coulter? More like Man Coulter! And what’s better, right wing men find he/she attractive! Funniest thing ever!!

By Second coming of Anna

June 12, 2006 09:50 AM | Link to this

Jim Wooten, thank you for finally clarifying for me what I had been struggling with for years. I couldn’t understand why I, someone who has an MBA from a world renowned university - has been in management for a decade - is a proud Catholic - and happily married, white heterosexual father of two - just couldn’t join the Republican Party. Well, it became apparant to me today that unless you have the following temperament “if it didn’t happen to me, it’s not that big of a deal. If they don’t look like me or talk like me, I don’t care what happens to them. If someone disagrees with me, they are not only unpatriotic they are also subhuman and worthy of ridicule.” What happened to the party of Lincoln. I know black Americans are thankful that Lincoln and other Republicans of the age didn’t feel the way Republicans do now. Jim this article cheapens you - while I have enjoyed and been challenged by your Op-ed pieces before, this one sickens me; yet shows me clearly why I am not a Republican.

By Joe Wilson

June 12, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this

To be famous in this country, all you have to do is bash others in public media. Easy money.

By steve

June 12, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

I believe maybe Ann was a little too harsh by suggesting that maybe their husbands were thinking about divorce. However, the along with “Cindy” don’t have a free pass to call our President a liar, murderer, bastard, etc. Once they became the pawns of the far left nuts their shield of invincibility comes off. The far left has given them a platform from which to regurgitate the vile that festers in the stomachs of the Michael Moores and Al Franken of this world and they are fair game. It’s a shame this vocal minority gets all the press, but thats to be expected when they’re preaching to the choir (media). And one more thing..I live in America, so why should I have to press 1 for English ??

By concerned citizen

June 12, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

That’s fine Wooten. You can question the motives or expertise of someone who’s been relieved of their loved ones forever. But that cuts both ways. Let’s question Ann Coulter’s motives and qualifications to make the statements that she does. What has she done or experienced that makes her an authority on anything (other than hate mongoring)? I imagine that the early days of Hitler were very similar to Coulter’s rhetoric, appealing to the worst in people, trying to encourage people to hate people who are not like themselves (i.e. white and rich). I find Coulter and her kind very disgusting and ironic. These are the people who question the patroitism of anyone who would voice a dissenting opinion about the actions of the President or Congress. This is ironic because these same people hate the Constitution and the rights it guarantees. They obviously hate freedom of speech, ripping anyone who uses it to say something differing from them. They doubly hate freedom of the press, citing the “liberal media” constantly as the enemy. I guess it never occurred to these people that they look like idiots in the media because the truth paints them that way, like Bush has no one to blame but himself for his poll numbers. These people hate freedom of religion, because they think everyone should be a Christian, citing some misguided information that the United States was somehow founded to be a Christian nation. The facts are that while most of the founding fathers were men of faith, they were first and foremost Enlightenment thinkers, seeking to create a government that was secular but respectful of all religions. They can point to all the imagery in the buildings in D.C. all they want, but its the words written in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. that are what matters. About the only right these people support to the death is the right to bear arms. Go figure. I support Ann Coulter’s right to free speech, so she can make herself look like a fool all she wants. But I don’t have to suffer people defending her fire-breathing hate, like you Wooten.

By Joe Wilson

June 12, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Ann is a man. See how easy it is? LOL.

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

No, Ann is not a man. That’s just childish. She’s waaaaaaay too thin to be a man. And that kind of thinness is only something women care about (1).

(1) Miranda. Wootan Blog: “Hang ‘er high, that darn Ann Coulter”. June 12, 2006 08:44 AM.

By Rob

June 12, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

If the GOP were to try to make love to Ann Coulter they would have their own personal Crying Game. She’s a tripod!!

By TS

June 12, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Freedom of speech is what this is all about. Ann Coulter has the right to say what she wants…the widows of 9/11 have the right to say what they want…we have the right to listen to what we want. If Ann Coulter says something that most people disagree with then they can stop buying her books. I don’t agree with what she said…but she has the right to say it. I don’t fear the terrorists as much as I fear the time when people no longer question things and blindly go along. KEEP FREEDOM OF SPEECH ALIVE! Question Authority!!!

By Mark

June 12, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

You Rethugs/cancervatives are so ridiculous. The 30 percent of you still buying Bush’s/Coulter’s nonsense apparently don’t have a brain of your own to think with so you let these two morons dictate your thinking for you. That’s the good thing about being a lib, we have open minds to all ideas until something is so stupid that it deserves the backlash the skinny woman is getting right now. You ask why Conservative talk radio is popular and Air America is not. Because liberals don’t need to be preached to by some big mouth idiot (Rush, Hannity, Boortz, Bill O). We think for ourselves.

By chris broe

June 12, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Tom Delay are the icons of the Right’s Lunatic Fringe. Democrats are counting on those three to keep talking till November.

Bush’s timeline for US troops withdrawal: “When a self governing Iraq can sustain and defend itself”.

I wonder how long that is in Dogtag Years.

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

Dear Jennifer, I am certain you are a good and decent person, and you are surely profoundly insulted by Ann’s harsh language. But, do you really believe Ann did not write her book? She marshals her arguments as any well-trained attorney would, and she works from a solid foundation of fact.

While she uses language that rings loudly, the foundation for what she says is sound. (At least it was in the two prior books - I cannot yet affirm for this book.)

To your inquiry, it is technically true that you did not affirm that there was any lack of truth in anything Ann said. Would you confirm that you believe what she wrote is true, but merely insensitive, or is your argument merely a red herring?

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

@ Steve

It is wrong to call Bush a liar, a murderer, and a bastard.

His parents were married before he was born.

By chris broe

June 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

How are Zarqawi and Ann Coulter alike? Zarqawi eluded US troops for 3 years. Ann Coulter has eluded the cream pie for 3 years.

By Sam

June 12, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

My father is a PoliSci professor, my wife is a music teacher. If I had been killed in WTC on 9/11, my father’s observations on my death would be more important (to the rest of the world)than my wife’s.

I don’t know that any of the Jersey Girls have any qualifications to be homeland security, foreign affairs, military strategy experts, other than their victim-hood.

By ec

June 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

send Ann to Iraq and lets hope she gets shot!

By Neil

June 12, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

Jim - Are you serious? Ann Coulter might have a good idea or two, but her comments lower the level of public discourse tremendously. For you to defend her comments speaks volumes.

By James

June 12, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

My friends who live in NY say this story is absolutely true; some of these people (and let’s all admit that they are mostly widows) have received several million dollars in life insurance from their spouses’ employers, more money from the city and state governments, still more from “relief funds,” free college education for their kids, etc.

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

Neil, I think you just proved Jim’s (and Ann’s) point. As you acknowledge, Ann has a few good ideas. Instead of addressing (dare I say “attacking”) her ideas, you lament her language. Do you agree with her point, or not? If not, why not? This is your chance to elevate the discussion.

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

don’t bother with pandering to any sense of dignity. I don’t care what you think of me, really.

No, Ann did not write this book. Books take a long time to write, especially any books that require researching facts. I know this from experience. Just writing a scientific research paper cand take 6 months, easily. Writing fiction takes longer, if you also have a dayjob. Ann has a dayjob. She has lackeys that run around finding facts that support her agenda and then a ghostwriter who puts it together. She gives the nod and it goes to publishing. This is not an insult to her. This is done ALL the time.

However, she NEVER gives the limitations to her points. Only in peer review are people forced to admit the limitations of their hypotheses and indicate the consequences and suggest how to adjust for them.

As a rule, I read stuff like hers for entertainment only. And I really think that’s all it is.

As for the validity of what she says? In regards to the 911 widows. Are they using their husband’s deaths to further their political agenda? Sure they are. Everyone has a cause. Some people’s causes are brought about by personal tragedy, such as having a gay son beaten and tied to a fence, having a child who shoots up a school or having a child who was shot at school, or having your husband die in a terrorist attack.

But the people who’s causes were created by personal tragedy are given spotlight to speak. And you can be sure they don’t want this to happen to anyone else. Just because they think the way to stop it from happening again is not the way you think does not invalidate their opinion. They’re just lucky that they have that spotlight.

I ask, where are the 911 widows who disagree with these 911 widows? Out of >2000 victims of 911 surely there is a contingent who disagree with these women? Where are they? Why are they silent?

That silence makes these women’s voices so much louder.

By getalife

June 12, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this

Instead of bashing these women, they should be rewarded. They actually accomplished something many have failed at.

Actually getting the government to do something for the security of this country.

By Lauren

June 12, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

I am a proud liberal and I absolutely do not waht to limit Ann Coulter’s free speech. But she does want to limit mine. She said so in an October 2005 speech in Florida. Republicans only support free speech when someone they like is talking. Otherwise, it’s crucify anyone who disagrees with them. I know why the right loves her, she says what they are usually afraid to say in polite society. She gives a voice to their usually closeted bigotry, prejudice and hatred. They can’t get enough of that. As far as talk radio goes, Mark is right. Lefties don’t listen to it because we don’t need some blowhard up there making us feel better about our views by confirming and affirming them. We think for ourselves and we don’t need to held by our hands and patted on the head and told we are right. I have listened from time to time to a few minutes here and there of Rush and Boortz. I don’t know how you guys listen to them every day. They are totally predictable! They say the same darn thing everyday. You must like repetitiveness but I don’t.

By concerned citizen

June 12, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

You know what else is ironic? Ann Coulter lambastes these ladies who lost their husbands on 9/11. And yet she takes up the mantle of victim herself (as a U.S. citizen) of terrorist attacks by her support for the Bush administration and their so-called war on terrorism. As Americans, we were all attacked, our way of life, by these fanatics. But not one of us who did not lose a family member or friend on that day, or the subsequent military activities, can claim the right to a louder voice than those who did. America is a vehicle on the road of life that has veered off the highway to the right because we’ve only got one hand on the wheel. We can hear the thumpity thump of those warning bumps letting us know it’s time to put our left hand back on the wheel, to get us back in the center of the road before it’s too late.

By CDog

June 12, 2006 10:14 AM | Link to this

Let’s be honest for moment. The real issue for liberals is what Ann Coulter says and believes, not how she says it. Liberals are going to tail against her no matter how she says it, so she might as well have a little caustic fun with it. Could any liberal give an example of a pro-life, pro-Iraq war, anti-darwinism, pro-abstinence, anti-homosexuality, pro-public acknowledgement of God commentator who says things the way you would like them said?

BTW, try actually reading the Bible before you presume to be an expert on it. Jesus said in Revelation 3:19, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”

By arman

June 12, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this

Oh c’mon. What a non-issue. Ann Colter is such a POS. Her latest book is called “Godless”. However, the church that she alleges to attend in Manhatten has never heard of her. I find that kind of funny. In addition, why does she wear coctail dresses to interviews at 7am (with Matt Lauer the other day)?

As for the 9-11 widows. Give me a break. How many times have Republicans and commentators like Sean Hannity invoked 9-11 in order to justify the administrations actions in Iraq etc. If someone challenges someone like Hannity about the war, he instantly accuses you of endangering the troops, then, in a last ditch effort to make you look unpatriotic, he says “do you not remember the 3000 people who were murdered in the WTC only 5 years ago? You are living in a pre-9/11 mindset…”. So, politicians and commentators can use it for their gain, but those who lost loved ones cannot speak of it at all, even when their interest is improving national security?

And Ann said they were above reproach etc, but she had no problem attacking and criticizing them. Do you not see the contradiction? She is a bumbling idiot, who plays on the emotions of ignorant extremist.

By Sam

June 12, 2006 10:16 AM | Link to this

All this talk about Coulter’s meticulous research etc doesn’t mean much — if you begin with your conclusion, you can always find sources to shoehorn into the rhetoric. Coulter relies on stringently enforced selection bias to make her points, then makes them in such an odious fashion that, in a rational universe, she would never have gained such traction.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

@ James

Sounds like you are a little jealous. Would you have your spouse or a parent killed for $2M? How about a $1M? $500K? How about a big party weekend at Tunica?

Trash.

By Nikster

June 12, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

I think what Anne said was correct. You have a group of ” 911 widows” who got rich off their husbands’ tragic deaths. Now that they have lots of other people’s money, they decide they are experts on 911 & we better listen to them or else. Cynthia McKinney loves them. Not everyone who lost a family member got rich off them.Seems some people thought they deserved more than others & the sad part is they got it. Don’t condemn Anne because she said things that needed to be said & no one else had the gut or courage to say it. She understood the fallout & outrage she’d get.

By Jennifer

June 12, 2006 10:20 AM | Link to this

uh…nikster…what’s the link to cynthia mckinney? just a random slam on democrats?

By Stewart

June 12, 2006 10:21 AM | Link to this

Though I do not find Ann’s tone very effective, she does make valid points. The extreme left seeks out victims of tragedies to be spokepersons and then berates those that challenge these views because it is politically incorrect to do so. The Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan have taken an equally virile tone towards the President. Going much further than saying his policies are screwed up etc. They chose to make it personal. Listen to Al Franken, Michael Moore and other liberal political commenters. They are just as offensive as Ann Coulter. Doesn’t make it right, but we are all hypocrites when we attack the opposing tactics when in reality they are all working out of the same political play book! When we can all sit back and realize that the Republicans are not Nazis and all Democrats are not Socialists, this country will be much better off.

By jbmlaw

June 12, 2006 10:23 AM | Link to this

Sam, normally if there is a logic flaw or factual error, there is no shortage of people willing to set the record straight (i.e., Swift Boat vets or CBS come to mind.) I think I have heard of no such critique of Coulter’s thesis in the last couple of books. Does anyone yet dispute that John and Robert Kennedy were friends and supporters of Joseph McCarthy? Or even the fundamental question, that McCarthy was right about communist infiltration of the State Department and the Department of the Army? Ann writes tough, but her arguments withstand all comers.

By GodHatesTrash

June 12, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

@ Nikster

Maybe Ann and the widows have something in common - the widows get rich off their husbands tragic death, and Ann gets rich off yours and others tragic stupidity.

By Joe

June 12, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

I can’t think of a time, Jim, where I’ve seen the widow of someone killed in a car wreck (I was taught in driving school, by the way, that it’s not an “accident,” that little PC term you use) became an “instant authority on freeway design and construction…”

Perhaps you could provide an example of this?

And, by the way, sorry to hear about your victimhood in the course of having to hear the opinions of those people whom you disagree with. You poor thing.

By Lauren

June 12, 2006 10:26 AM | Link to this

CDog if you are trying to use Revelations for a literal quot