She is testy, harsh and unapologetic.  She is the uncontested queen of invective and vitriol.  And she is likely the focal point of a hatred that is unparalleled by the left… a point which she is really unconcerned with.

Her comments and statements are often frustrating to me because when you dissect them from their sarcasm and grandstanding, there are some serious, real points that need to be made and debated.  Those points, however, are often totally ignore because of the arguments that result from her style and her use of caustic humour.

Take this exchange.  She went toe to toe today with Matt Lauer over her new book, Godless.

The whole interview is interesting if a bit cringing, but there is a point in it I have noted before, that is worthy of a little time here, and nicely illustrates my point.

Ann Coulter Attacks 9/11 Widows, Matt Lauer Thanks Her for the ‘Fun’ of It

LAUER: Do you believe everything in the book or do you put some things in there just to cater to your base?

Note, right out of the chute, he is being a bit biased but never mind.

ANN: No, of course I believe everything.

LAUER: On the 9-11 widows, an in particular a group that had been critical of the administration: “These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9-11 was an attack on our nation and acted like as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently, denouncing bush was part of the closure process.”

And this part is the part I really need to talk to you about: “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much.” Because they dare to speak out?

COULTER: To speak out using the fact they are widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9-11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism, how about sending in somebody we are allowed to respond to. No. No. No. We have to respond to someone who had a family member die. Because then if we respond, oh you are questioning their authenticity.

This is something I have noted before.  Cindy Sheehan, who will be mentioned ina  moment, is a prime example of someone who blankets herself in moral authority.  Her grief is so much more poignant because she lost a son in iraq.  The anti war people eat it up.

So the right has to bring out parents who lost kids in the war who still support the war in order to provide credible equivalency. 

No?  Consider this.  The idea came from the left.  Maureen Dowd may be the architect of the concept.

She said in August 2005 that parents who bury their children have Absolute Moral Authority.

"It’s getting harder for the president to hide from the human consequences of his actions and to control human sentiment about the war by pulling a curtain over the 1,835 troops killed in Iraq; the more than 13,000 wounded, many shorn of limbs; and the number of slain Iraqi civilians - perhaps 25,000, or perhaps double or triple that. More people with impeccable credentials are coming forward to serve as a countervailing moral authority to challenge Mr. Bush."

"But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute. "

This is exactly what Ann was speaking to, and it is a valid point.  People use loss as a credential, a ranking point to give their message validity.  Indeed any kind of traumatic or identifiable and empathetic experience qualifies.  We assign them credibility and relevance based on this whether we intend to or not, and in many cases they count on it and use it to defend themselves, or those they support from critics…unless the critic can offer equal experience or credential.

Cindy Sheehan and the 911 Widows fit this category.  I have seen many liberals defend any criticism of Cindy Sheehan’s message in a horrified and outraged "how dare you, have you no compassion for her?"  Is this not the left giving her an unrestrained forum?  An uncontested credential to be outrageous?

But in this argument Matt completely misses the point.   He keeps her argument locked into an elemental aspect that has nothing to do with her point:

LAUER: So grieve but grieve quietly?

COULTER: No, the story is an attack on the nation. That requires a foreign policy response.

LAUER: By the way, they also criticized the Clinton administration.

COULTER: Not the ones I am talking about. No, no, no.

LAUER: Yeah they have.

COULTER: Oh no, no, no, no, no. They were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.

LAUER: So if you lose a husband, you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?

COULTER: No, but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for being able to talk about, while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point. Let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I am not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.

LAUER: Well apparently you are allowed to respond to them.

COULTER: Yeah, I did….That is the point of liberal infallibility. Of putting up Cindy Sheehan, of putting out these widows, of putting out Joe Wilson. No, no, no. You can’t respond. It’s their doctrine of infallibility. Have someone else make the argument then.

LAUER: What I’m saying is I don’t think they have ever told you, you can’t respond.

But they have, or their defenders have.

This is why Coulter is someone I watch carefully.  She will piss you off with her tone, her manner and her sarcasm, there is no doubt. She sometimes goes far across lines I would not cross.  I think she would do better to speak with less intentional provocation.

But if you bother to take the time, as often as not, there is the basis of a serious debate at the heart of her message.

It is unfortunately too often lost when they stop to beat the messenger.

I wonder if she deliberately writes the way she does to invite the attacks?  Food for thought, because if so, she will have the last laugh as they react just as she intended.

Others: Sister Toldjah, Flopping Aces, Blue Crab Boulevard, Outside The Beltway, Don Surber, Macsmind, Kitty Litter, Expose The Left, Sweetness & Light, Just Barking Mad, The Politburo Diktat, The Strata-Sphere, The Anchoress, Ace of Spades HQ, Hot Air, The Political Pit Bull, The Ninth State, Michelle Malkin, Atlas Shrugs, Iowa Voice, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,

Trackback URI | Comments RSS