Ann Coulter and the Myth of Liberal Tolerance

In the very first chapter of her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, Ann Coulter exposed the duplicitous character of those who 'demand[ed] campus speech codes, an end to 'intolerance,' and 'hate speech' laws' while continually bearing—down on a single target when attacking conservative women — their appearance.  Now that Ms. Coulter's latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and her defense thereof on numerous television appearances, has put the author, herself, in the cross—hairs of the left, can her personal evisceration be anything less than assured?

In her own prescient words, Coulter described the treatment liberals extend to their female adversaries:

'More than any of their other hate speech, the left's attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything.  There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks.'

She then points out that the women constantly being called ugly are not Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno or Madeline Albright.  No, the party of inclusion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tolerance and Bella Abzug instead target the likes of Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and Katherine Harris.  From Slander:

Journalists have called Linda Tripp 'Barracudaville,' smelling of 'gunpowder and garlic,''ugly and evil,' and Howard Stern in a Fright Wig,''a snitch and an ugly one at that.

Exemplifying the innumerable attacks upon her appearance, Newsweek's Evan Thomas had referred  to Jones as "some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks ..." Superbly researched, in—depth commentary, indeed.

Additionally, as Coulter points out, referring to Ms. Harris:

'Even polished, wealthy, Harvard educated, attractive women will be attacked for their looks if they get in the Democrats' way.'

In her December 1, 2000 article, "Liberals' Art of Trashing of Women," Marianne M. Jennings writes:

'Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, who dared halt county election boards' Carnac routines to divine votes, has brought out the liberals' caustic best. She has not only seized late—night comics' insults, she has earned mainstream press bashing. The Boston Herald described her as 'looking just ghastly.' The Washington Post wrote Mrs. Harris, 'seems to have applied her makeup with a trowel.'"

How marvelous is it, then, that when Coulter decides to comment on a particular group of New Jersey 9/11 widows and the previously sacrosanct subject of the women using their grief 'to make a political point', such devices would, ultimately, be turned against her?

Margaret Nagel, writing for the Huffington Post:

'But because she could be considered in some circles attractive ( if you like the dyed blond, anorexic type — which some men in America clearly do) she is continually given a platform on show after show to vent her twisted views on our world and not be challenged or seen as the heartless narcissist that she is.'

On the June 9, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the self—indulgent host discussed the 'Jersey Girls' situation with Democratic political analyst, Lawrence O'Donnell.  O'Donnell was bloviating on how the Democrats would love for Coulter to step forward and become the Michael Moore of the right, but that she hasn't quite made it 'up to the Michael Moore level.'  The snooty Olbermann responded with:

'It's kind of an uneven fight there. She's not as talented as Michael Moore and she's not as attractive.'

Cutting—edge analysis, Keith! Do you suppose Olbermann had ever paused to comment on how Hillary's choice of pants—suits often make her thighs appear chubby when asked to assess a Rodham Clinton political address?

Another disturbing ploy of the 'tolerant' liberals is to question Ann's sexuality.  Steven Leser at OpEdNews.com typifies this particularly vile tactic:

'Then again, there is that persistent rumor in the liberal blogosphere about Ann being a man in drag on account of her prominent Adam's apple and masculine writing style. Maybe the prison entry physical will produce a 'shocking' discovery. Can you imagine a tranny that looks like Ann being sent to men's prison?'

Putting aside the blatant absurdity and sordid implications of these remarks, Mr. Leser would appear to be as confused about his identity, political, as his words would suggest Ms. Coulter is about hers, sexual.  After all, is it not the politically—correct brigade of the left whose globe—improving missions include convincing the world that homosexuality, transsexuality,  and any other deviant conduct ending in those same nine letters is, in fact, perfectly normal?

Why then, do we find viscous personal attacks annexed to virtually all condemnations of Ann Coulter's thoughts and words?  Perhaps she, herself, explains it best:

'Liberals need not bother with logical persuasion as long as they can prey on people's sense of weakness.'

Most pathetically of all, while researching his Sean Penn fluff piece, cynically yet appropriately titled "Citizen Penn," author John Lahr noticed 'a plastic Barbie—like doll propped against the fireplace.'  Penn explained it to be 'An Ann Coulter Doll' and that 'We violate her.  There are cigarette burns in some funny areas.' 

Sorrowfully, such a disquieting and cowardly practice epitomizes the elite left's intellectual response to a woman who dares put their actions, language, ideologies and, yes, tolerance to the test whenever she speaks or writes.

Marc Sheppard is a business owner, software developer and writer residing on New York's Long Island.  He is a regular contributor to The New Media Journal, Opinion Editorials and Men's News Daily. He welcomes your feedback.

In the very first chapter of her 2002 book, Slander: Liberal Lies About The American Right, Ann Coulter exposed the duplicitous character of those who 'demand[ed] campus speech codes, an end to 'intolerance,' and 'hate speech' laws' while continually bearing—down on a single target when attacking conservative women — their appearance.  Now that Ms. Coulter's latest book, 'Godless: The Church of Liberalism, and her defense thereof on numerous television appearances, has put the author, herself, in the cross—hairs of the left, can her personal evisceration be anything less than assured?

In her own prescient words, Coulter described the treatment liberals extend to their female adversaries:

'More than any of their other hate speech, the left's attacks on women for being ugly tell you everything.  There is nothing so irredeemably cruel as an attack on a woman for her looks.'

She then points out that the women constantly being called ugly are not Maxine Waters, Chelsea Clinton, Janet Reno or Madeline Albright.  No, the party of inclusion, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, tolerance and Bella Abzug instead target the likes of Paula Jones, Linda Tripp and Katherine Harris.  From Slander:

Journalists have called Linda Tripp 'Barracudaville,' smelling of 'gunpowder and garlic,''ugly and evil,' and Howard Stern in a Fright Wig,''a snitch and an ugly one at that.

Exemplifying the innumerable attacks upon her appearance, Newsweek's Evan Thomas had referred  to Jones as "some sleazy woman with big hair coming out of the trailer parks ..." Superbly researched, in—depth commentary, indeed.

Additionally, as Coulter points out, referring to Ms. Harris:

'Even polished, wealthy, Harvard educated, attractive women will be attacked for their looks if they get in the Democrats' way.'

In her December 1, 2000 article, "Liberals' Art of Trashing of Women," Marianne M. Jennings writes:

'Katherine Harris, Florida's secretary of state, who dared halt county election boards' Carnac routines to divine votes, has brought out the liberals' caustic best. She has not only seized late—night comics' insults, she has earned mainstream press bashing. The Boston Herald described her as 'looking just ghastly.' The Washington Post wrote Mrs. Harris, 'seems to have applied her makeup with a trowel.'"

How marvelous is it, then, that when Coulter decides to comment on a particular group of New Jersey 9/11 widows and the previously sacrosanct subject of the women using their grief 'to make a political point', such devices would, ultimately, be turned against her?

Margaret Nagel, writing for the Huffington Post:

'But because she could be considered in some circles attractive ( if you like the dyed blond, anorexic type — which some men in America clearly do) she is continually given a platform on show after show to vent her twisted views on our world and not be challenged or seen as the heartless narcissist that she is.'

On the June 9, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, the self—indulgent host discussed the 'Jersey Girls' situation with Democratic political analyst, Lawrence O'Donnell.  O'Donnell was bloviating on how the Democrats would love for Coulter to step forward and become the Michael Moore of the right, but that she hasn't quite made it 'up to the Michael Moore level.'  The snooty Olbermann responded with:

'It's kind of an uneven fight there. She's not as talented as Michael Moore and she's not as attractive.'

Cutting—edge analysis, Keith! Do you suppose Olbermann had ever paused to comment on how Hillary's choice of pants—suits often make her thighs appear chubby when asked to assess a Rodham Clinton political address?

Another disturbing ploy of the 'tolerant' liberals is to question Ann's sexuality.  Steven Leser at OpEdNews.com typifies this particularly vile tactic:

'Then again, there is that persistent rumor in the liberal blogosphere about Ann being a man in drag on account of her prominent Adam's apple and masculine writing style. Maybe the prison entry physical will produce a 'shocking' discovery. Can you imagine a tranny that looks like Ann being sent to men's prison?'

Putting aside the blatant absurdity and sordid implications of these remarks, Mr. Leser would appear to be as confused about his identity, political, as his words would suggest Ms. Coulter is about hers, sexual.  After all, is it not the politically—correct brigade of the left whose globe—improving missions include convincing the world that homosexuality, transsexuality,  and any other deviant conduct ending in those same nine letters is, in fact, perfectly normal?

Why then, do we find viscous personal attacks annexed to virtually all condemnations of Ann Coulter's thoughts and words?  Perhaps she, herself, explains it best:

'Liberals need not bother with logical persuasion as long as they can prey on people's sense of weakness.'

Most pathetically of all, while researching his Sean Penn fluff piece, cynically yet appropriately titled "Citizen Penn," author John Lahr noticed 'a plastic Barbie—like doll propped against the fireplace.'  Penn explained it to be 'An Ann Coulter Doll' and that 'We violate her.  There are cigarette burns in some funny areas.' 

Sorrowfully, such a disquieting and cowardly practice epitomizes the elite left's intellectual response to a woman who dares put their actions, language, ideologies and, yes, tolerance to the test whenever she speaks or writes.

Marc Sheppard is a business owner, software developer and writer residing on New York's Long Island.  He is a regular contributor to The New Media Journal, Opinion Editorials and Men's News Daily. He welcomes your feedback.