Ann Coulter envy: Why blondes have more fun
By Miguel Guanipa (06/15/06)
My mother used to tell me: If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all; unless you are talking to a liberal.
I have pondered these words as I watched the media try to hone in on Ann Coulter’s abrasive comments about the 9/11 widows on her recent book “Godless”; or as Al Gore would probably call them : “Inconvenient Truths”.
As every smart liberal knows, the best way to combat scathing allegations about the real motives behind their itinerant crusades is by launching vicious personal attacks against the ones who are impertinent enough to pull back the curtain on their operations. This is especially true if the allegations have some basis in reality, which happens to be the case with Ms. Coulter’s comments.
The average 60 minutes groupie will probably assume that Coulter had thoughtlessly made a blanket statement maligning all of the 9/11 widows, but of course she was not referring to every single 9/11 widow out there; only the four women from New Jersey whose husbands were killed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and were instrumental in the emergence of the 9/11 Commission, a team of experts whose main purpose for their existence was to carry the banner of those who claim George W. Bush did nothing to make the United States safer since the attacks.
Perhaps her wording could have been altered a bit, but that is more a case of semantics. What Coulter did was to merely point out the obvious. But liberals insist in grating the public with their fastidious attention on the delivery rather than the substance of her argument, which for them has an uncomfortable ring of truth.
It is not a lie -as Ann Coulter observes- that liberals invariably choose their leaders from an inexhaustible pool of victims. These victims are considered sacred cows by the mainstream media in that they are beyond reproach because of the moral high ground which has been conferred upon them by virtue of their tragic circumstances.
Take the recent roster of honoraries like Cindy Sheehan, Nicholas Berg’s father, Michael Moore and in Ms. Coulter’s case, the so called “Jersey Girls”. As if there were no more war widows out there, fathers who lost a son or daughter to the war or disgruntled ideologues who were unfairly targeted by the fast food industry, the media chooses to focus their undivided attention on the plight of a select group of victims who coincidentally happen to adhere to their brand of ideology.
The only problem is that given enough time these figure heads are ultimately shown for the screwballs they really are and begin to say things like “the U.S. must end its occupation of New Orleans”, or characterizing blood thirsty terrorists as “freedom fighters”.
Such was the case with these few widows who aptly capitalized on their personal tragedy and aligned themselves with the far left. In doing so they apparently did not realize that they were unwittingly lending their support to the very terrorists who were responsible for their husband’s deaths as they demonized the president of the United States who is the one that is actually wagging as war against those who perpetrated these crimes. Like the rest of the widows there’s no doubt that they have suffered great loss, but unlike most of them they did not fail to exploit their status as victims for their own personal and political gain.
As is to be expected, liberals would rather divert the public’s attention to the style of Ms. Coulter’s writing and her lanky frame rather than challenge the validity of her arguments. The reason for that is because they secretly dread her comments may be true and it’s awfully hard to argue against the facts. You know a liberal has conceded when all he or she can do is resort to name calling or focus on the personal appearance of the messenger rather than confront the substance of the message. It shows how interested they are in engaging in serious debate.
This is the default strategy of liberals; and not because they are very sensitive when it comes to aesthetics. One quick glance at their most prominent talking heads such as Al Franken, Janeane Garofalo and Bill Maher should prove that liberals do not place a very high premium on appearance. It is simply because the intellectual capital of their camp is basically running on empty these days. Hence they are incapable of formulating a cohesive response that deserves a hearing and resort to their vintage tactics which involve shouting down your opponent, pie throwing and verbal abuse to name a few.
Personally I believe that the root of the liberal’s ire at Ann Coulter’s comments is that she happens to be a very attractive and smart woman who is also a conservative; a rarity among liberal circles. Smart liberals are often rather unappealing and quite reserved about their personal opinions. The attractive ones are usually very low in the scale when it comes to mental coefficient. As a matter of fact, there are scores of these vying for leading roles in the motion pictures industry as we speak.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Miguel Guanipa
