Why can’t Ann Coulter catch a break? It seems like every time the provocative conservative pundit and author comes out with a new book, the media seize on some innocent comment she makes, like, for example, suggesting that all Democrats should be forcibly sterilized with rusty hedge clippers, and take it out of context to imply that Coulter is a hatemonger. Soon she’s forced to appear on every national, regional and local access talk show to defend herself and explain that her new book “is available in bookstores nationwide and on Amazon.com.”
OK, so maybe Ann knows exactly what she’s doing by making all the inflammatory comments. The latest uproar, as you’re probably aware, is over Coulter’s suggestion that the “Jersey Girls,” the Sept. 11 widows who have criticized the Bush administration’s handling of the nation’s security, are celebrating their victimization all the way to the bank. “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much,” Coulter wrote.
For now, let us set aside the question of how many people Coulter has seen enjoying their husbands’ deaths to make any kind of comparison. More importantly, Ann deserves credit for granting free publicity opportunities to all the politicians, commentators and other public figures who have jumped in front of every available TV camera to respond to the latest outrageous Coulter statement. Liberal bloggers in particular posted millions of words to explain why no one should pay attention to anything Coulter says.
Matt Lauer has certainly emerged as a big winner from this latest brouhaha. On the Today Show he confronted Coulter by taking the radical position that the Sept. 11 widows may not have been pumping their fists in the air with delight at their husbands’ brutal murders. Soon the clip was all over the Internet, allowing Matt to leapfrog Tom Hanks in the race for the coveted title of America’s Favorite Nice Guy.
Even the Jersey Girls got in on the act by making the talk show rounds. Seriously, when was the last time anyone thought about the Sept. 11 widows before Ann Coulter put them back on the media’s radar screen?
Clearly, the whole hullabaloo is a win-win-win — for Coulter, for Lauer and the chattering classes, and even for the widows themselves. The only loser is the nation’s public discourse, but the last time I checked public discourse didn’t have a book deal, so who cares about that?
I only wish that the widows’ official statement, which consisted of a refutation of Coulter’s accusations along with an eight-point plan for improving national security, had been more aggressive. They should have thrown gas on the media firestorm by taking a personal shot at Ann, perhaps by saying something along the lines of, “As a woman in her 40s who’s been engaged three times but never married, Ann Coulter can be forgiven for not understanding what it’s like to lose — or even have — a husband. But keep looking, Ann — we’re sure your Mr. Right (pun intended!) is out there somewhere.”
Predictably enough, many critics wondered whether this time Coulter had gone too far. Not me. I think she didn’t go far enough. She was on the right track by pointing out that the Jersey Girls’ husbands might have been contemplating divorce at the time of the attacks. Combine this speculation with the conspiracy theories suggesting that Sept. 11 was not, in fact, the work of Arab terrorists and only one conclusion is possible: that the Sept. 11 widows masterminded the attacks as a means of eliminating their husbands andgetting themselves on Larry King Live.
Matt, let me know when you want me to come on the show to connect the dots for you.
Look for Examiner columnist Malcolm Fleschner’s new book revealing CIA agent Valerie Plame’s secret plan to “out” herself and frame Karl Rove for the job.
