Political vultures
Ann Coulter has been described in many ways - caustic, firebrand, vicious...the list goes on. Add hate-monger and terrorist to the list now. Now I will admit that Ann is not my cup of tea, but the Logical Husband enjoys her weekly columns and I do read them from time to time, so I know that these characterizations are way off base. The firestorm was sparked when Ann made some remarks (while promoting her new book) about the "Jersey Girls". The "Jersey Girls" are a group of 9/11 widows who have become national security spokespeople for the Democratic Party. They are largely responsible for the formation of the 9/11 committee - because they were certain that the US government was somehow behind the attacks and wanted Congress to prove it! What sparked all of this outrage was a comment in an interview with Matt Lauer on the Today Show where she said "I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.”
Both sides are in a full furor over the issue. Hillary Clinton, Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt have all called for Ms. Coulter to apologize for the remarks. To an extent, I agree, but this brouhaha does lead to a broader discussion.
Many grieving parents and spouses have, as a result of their losses, thrown themselves into drafting state and federal policy as an outlet for their grief. Patty Wetterling, John Walsh, Marc Klaas and Megan Kanka's family are all classic examples of how the loss of a loved one has turned into changes in state and national policy! However, when one uses ones grief to do nothing constructive, to do nothing but slam the policy of the state and federal government for "not doing enough" or for not doing the "right thing" in that person's mind, then they can open themselves up for partisan attack - because they are the ones who started the partisan attack. When a political party - when either political party - hides behind the grief of a mourning family in order to launch attacks at it's opponents it should not try to deflect a response to said attacks!
Ann calls it "liberal infallibility"...people who support liberal causes and policies and who criticize the policies of the right, but are "untouchable" by the right if they try to respond. Cindy Sheehan is a prime example. When talking about the war, Mother Sheehan is beyond criticizm because "she lost a son". However, there are many Gold Star Mothers who support the war effort, but they do not get a critical "pass" like Mother Sheehan does! Soldiers who are anti-war are lionized, but those that support the war are labeled "brainwashed" and any who defend the troops but who have not served (for whatever reason) are called "chicken hawks" and are told that their opinions are invalid because they "didn't serve".
The discussion that needs to be raised is this - at what point does the preying on the dead become acceptable? Is it better when the vultures come from your own family versus someone from the outside? Why can't an objective third party comment on the words and deeds of the immediate family member?
I can't defend the remarks that Ann made and I won't defend those who have used the cold, dead bodies of their loved ones as a political stepping stone all the while using their dead loved ones to deflect any and all criticism, whether the criticism is warranted or not.
Both sides are in a full furor over the issue. Hillary Clinton, Captain Ed and Hugh Hewitt have all called for Ms. Coulter to apologize for the remarks. To an extent, I agree, but this brouhaha does lead to a broader discussion.
Many grieving parents and spouses have, as a result of their losses, thrown themselves into drafting state and federal policy as an outlet for their grief. Patty Wetterling, John Walsh, Marc Klaas and Megan Kanka's family are all classic examples of how the loss of a loved one has turned into changes in state and national policy! However, when one uses ones grief to do nothing constructive, to do nothing but slam the policy of the state and federal government for "not doing enough" or for not doing the "right thing" in that person's mind, then they can open themselves up for partisan attack - because they are the ones who started the partisan attack. When a political party - when either political party - hides behind the grief of a mourning family in order to launch attacks at it's opponents it should not try to deflect a response to said attacks!
Ann calls it "liberal infallibility"...people who support liberal causes and policies and who criticize the policies of the right, but are "untouchable" by the right if they try to respond. Cindy Sheehan is a prime example. When talking about the war, Mother Sheehan is beyond criticizm because "she lost a son". However, there are many Gold Star Mothers who support the war effort, but they do not get a critical "pass" like Mother Sheehan does! Soldiers who are anti-war are lionized, but those that support the war are labeled "brainwashed" and any who defend the troops but who have not served (for whatever reason) are called "chicken hawks" and are told that their opinions are invalid because they "didn't serve".
The discussion that needs to be raised is this - at what point does the preying on the dead become acceptable? Is it better when the vultures come from your own family versus someone from the outside? Why can't an objective third party comment on the words and deeds of the immediate family member?
I can't defend the remarks that Ann made and I won't defend those who have used the cold, dead bodies of their loved ones as a political stepping stone all the while using their dead loved ones to deflect any and all criticism, whether the criticism is warranted or not.
posted by The Lady Logician at
9:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home