I don't know whether to be amused or frightened by Ann Coulter - seriously.
It is clear that she's a few cards short of a full deck, a few pool balls short of a full rack, a few players short of a team, a few - well, you get the point. Despite Coulter's inability to go beyond simplistic stereotypes about liberals when speaking about complex politcal issues, she's always had an uncanny understanding of what makes liberals tick.
Her latest comments, originally published in her book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," were aimed squarely at the most innocent and harmless of targets - 9/11 widows.
In her book, she accused four New Jersey 9/11 widows of profiting off their husbands' deaths, saying, "I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much."
Let's pause there.
I'm not under the delusion that liberals don't have their own Coulters - Al Franken and Bill Maher spring to mind - who turn political commentary into a sort of brutal gladitorial spectacle. I also understand that much of what Coulter says can be seen through the prism of satire. However, Franken and Maher tend to distill their commentary through civil means, belying their far-left-wing views with a good-hearted sense of humor. Coulter does nothing of the sort.
But what poses the greatest concern is that the most active and vocal participants of political commentary in this country are attacking from the fringes of the political spectrum. They make it personal, and they change the focus of political discussion from the issues to personal attacks and character assassinations. I can give Franken, in particular, credit for his approach to this kind of commentary - at least he's funny. But Coulter isn't funny.
Satirists have always had an indelible impact on the way politics are viewed in this country. Mark Twain and Lewis Carroll for example; they were funny.
Coulter represents the worst kind of satirist: devoid of any kind of subtlety and seemingly lacking in conscience. For a woman representing a party that serves as this nation's "moral compass" and is led by a "compassionate conservative," she doesn't seem to have much compassion - or morals.
My favorite gem from the Coulter collection is from an interview with the New York Observer on August 26, 2002:
"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building."
Despite clearly trying to anger liberals, what exactly is Coulter trying to accomplish? Is she serious? Her biggest flaw is that she doesn't make sense. She's the ultimate shock jock - the conservative version of Howard Stern.
In the end, we have to dedicate ourselves completely to the task of filtering out all the crap. There are conservative opinions out there that make sense - like those written for the National Review by Jonah Goldberg - and they do add something worthwhile to political discourse.
Coulter's approach to political commentary amounts to below-the-belt blows.
I have never once heard Coulter suggest an alternative to liberal thinking. Maybe she should start telling us how she thinks the country should be run.
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
