Good Steyn Defense Of Coulter

It's Steyn, so of course it's good, though I disagree with the basics of it.

Yes, Coulter's basic argument was sound. Yes, she got a lot more attention for her argument than most others who tried. Yes, she's made this an issue, whereas it wasn't before.

For all that she deserves credit.

But Coulter and Steyn seem to think that Coulter could only accomplish this by going over-the-top. That only an over-the-line provocation could get people talking about the Democrats' Victims Political Rights project.

Maybe. I don't think so. 95% of what Coulter writes is spot-on-- and provocative. And often mean. And just terrific in its meanness.

It's the 5% of what she writes that's the problem, and I remain unconvinced that this over-the-line 5% is necessary for her to make her points. If that occasional "raghead" slur were necessary, somehow, for galvanizing the American public to stick out the fight against terrorism-- well, then, I guess I'd say that a slur would be worth making. But does anyone seriously contend this?

And, honestly, the media -- the gatekeeper of the national dialogue -- isn't really talking about whether or not they are willing participants in the Democrats' tactic of using victims as their spokesmen. What they're talking about is whether Ann Coulter is a nasty bitch. So I really don't know that Coulter has succeeded in making this a live issue whereas others have failed.

posted by Ace at 05:40 PM

| Access Comments