In Defense of Ann Coulter
[posted July 25, 2006 www.raquelwalker.com]
In America, every person is entitled to their own opinion whether reasoned, thoughtful, accurate, or not. Writing a book about national politics is the perfect venue. A likeminded person can buy the book and enjoy it, and a person from the opposite side of the ideological spectrum can disagree and challenge. One can dislike the New York Times for their over eager “bring down the administration” mentality by not purchasing the paper or one can buy a subscription.
The Times however recently published an article that reveals (some identify as treason) a national security operation to track money funneled to America’s enemies during a time of War, while political pundits and opportunist politicians criticize Ann Coulter, a well known conservative legal scholar and syndicated author, because her latest book “Godless” makes allegations (some identify as freedom of speech) of widespread fraud within academia, the main stream media, and a major political party, certainly no violation of Federal law, and indeed a protected right of every individual.
Even so, Senator Clinton of New York takes the time to publicly criticize Coulter, but does not have the courage to challenge the Times who crossed the line for real. Surely a potential presidential contender should be more concerned with national security, than launching a name calling attack on Coulter.
The four women known as the “Jersey Girls” who are at the center of the controversy over “Godless” have an equal right to free speech, which they have expressed most notably during the 2004 National Democrat convention. The point Coulter was making in “Godless” is that the Democrat Party choose poster people to advocate their political ideology that would be immune to criticism. Here, the Jersey Girls are 9/11 widows and even while they may not be experts in political philosophy, Americans are supposed to embrace their viewpoints as fact because four media savvy 9/11 widows asserted them.
Coulter contends that no one is immune to criticism, not even the Jersey Girls. Coulter uses wit, sarcasm and her usual “take no prisoners” manner to counter the points asserted by the Jersey Girls and their allies, the Democrat Party. There is nothing sadistic about it; it is journalistic style and rhetoric. Liberal journalists do it all the time without repercussion, and usually with more despisement and less facts, think Kitty Kelly and Maureen Dowd.
Meanwhile, the main stream media pick and choose several lines from one chapter in “Godless” in order to ostracize Coulter and ultimately, will if they can, censor conservative viewpoints. Notice that there is no opposition to “Godless” except for baseless attacks on Coulter’s character, including an assertion of plagiarism, which was quickly rebuked. No arguments have been made to counter Coulter’s strong opposition to the theory of Darwinism (four chapters dedicated to the topic). No arguments have been made to counter Coulter’s account of the Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame debacle, and no arguments have been made to counter the story of the lives behind Willie Horton’s victims.
Instead Coulter is accused of being “vicious” and “mean-spirited” because of several lines in one chapter of eleven as if the rest of the book’s 281 pages do not exist. Time and time again, the main stream media will question the credibility of conservative thinkers, but embrace liberal thought as true and politically correct. Who becomes the watchdog for liberal thought and subsequently the target of contempt? Courageous journalists like Ann Coulter.