Me at OTB, just now [1]:
Frankly, I understand both sides of this business about Coulter.
Disclosure; as I think I said at my own place, Dodd, and his site’s success were large reason why I decided to get going on my own blog, years ago. I have a good deal of respect for him.
I understand Dodd’s objections to Coulter, but I think the emphasis on those objections is misplaced. While I suppose it is only fair to say that there are occasions when her comments can be considered over the top, which seems to be his main objection….that is by definition the task of any satirist. And that’s really what’s going on here.
IMV, There is nothing that the woman has said which cannot be directly compared to with comments from the side opposite. Nothing.
Further, what she is generating is demonstrably the same kind of heat that’s been tossed at Republicans for generations, now. What annoys so many people on the left is that she’s giving it back.
At the risk of speaking for him , what annoys people like Dodd, best I can tell, is that either side is generating such heat. I respect that, but I suspect that it is time for somebody like Coulter, who has the ability of fighting fire with fire.
Such things are defensive mechanism. When you’re trying to survive in hell, you simply become part of the hell. I view such matters as any other kind of war. The best way to lose, is to limit yourself in terms of weaponry. Until recently that’s what the republicans have been doing. Coulter is remarkable (And becomes such a lightning rod) because she is among the first in recent times to stem that trend.
And unfortunately, that’s what politics has become anymore; a war, carried on by other means… to coin the phrase from the opposite side. Believe me when I tell you, I understand the wish that it wasn’t. Hell… I share it. But it is that way, and the biggest issue now is not succumbing to it.
Add to that, that Coulter, unlike most of those on the left is a satirist. Most of the people who we are comparing two here on the opposite side do not use satire. Moore, since his name is being brought up in this thread, certainly doesn’t make such a claim. But that’s precisely what Coulter is doing.
How such matters are defined, seems to me to be dancing on the head of a fairness doctrine.
I think the left, is finding her as distasteful as they are, for two reasons:
First of all, they can’t control her , though seemingly most of their effort has expanded on that control.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is she it’s too close to home when she makes those kind of comments.
Let’s see, here… an example; , A a video of John Edwards [2] spending at least ten minutes fussing over as hair and is makeup, to the tune of “I feel pretty” and simply coming out and calling the guy a faggot… I think most people will admit there’s kind of a fine line between those two. Granted, at least the video had the advantage of proving the point wordlessly, frame by frame. In any event , ultimately, they both mean the same thing. And as I suggested earlier in this thread Wiegel’s comments, lend some serious truth to the allegation. and that’s the point.
Any kind of humor, regardless of the genre, doesn’t work unless there’s a grain of truth of the center. The bottom line is, Coulter’s comments in general and in the case of Edwards specifically, had that grain of truth as the video and Wiegel’s comments bear out.
as to the comments from her as regards the suicide bomber, how was that any different than the comment she was actually responding to? Seems kind of a draw, to me.
However, in fairness I make an offer; when I see democrats denouncing Bill Maher for his comments as regards Dick Cheney (which, it should be noted, was the context within which Ann was working, at the time… as people would know, if they’d actually play the entire clip as opposed to editing it for their own advantage ) when I see the left going after Wonkette for her excesses, on the same subject no less, when I see them going after Michael Moore, on the same score, and so on, I’ll start taking their complaints about and Coulter a little more seriously.
Since none of that is happened, Nor, it isn’t likely to, they have not a leg to stand on with the complaints.
Wow. Fairness… what a concept, huh? I mean, of course, actual fairness, as opposed to governmental control.
See also, heat, kitchen, Withdrawal therefrom.
And perhaps the issue about governmental control is a point to be made here. We just got through daunting a bullet as regards the “fairness doctrine”. Do we really need to impose another false set of standards on political speech?