with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed

GODLESS, Ann Coulter’s most recent book, is currently number five on the New York Times’ Bestsellers List for nonfiction hardbacks. As was widely reported in the media, Coulter criticizes some 9/11 widows for, in her view, exploiting their husbands’ deaths for political gain. As the author embarked on promotional appearances for her book she was taken to task time and time again for this criticism which was called a “vicious, mean-spirited attack” by New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. In most cases, the interviews did not get much farther than discussion of this one section of the book.

And that’s exactly what the media wanted to happen.

Let’s face it, if it hadn’t been the line about the four 9/11 widows “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths then it would be another line, but the media’s focus on one statement was nothing more than an attempt to avoid discussing other parts of the book or the overall thrust of the work.

Among other topics discussed in the book, Coulter provides chapters on public schools and teachers, science, and evolution, chapters which I believe were meant to be the primary focus of the work. Coulter’s overall thesis is that liberalism in America increasingly resembles an organized religion, and that this new religion is so deeply entrenched into the country that it constitutes a state religion in and of itself. Obviously the subtitle “The Church Of Liberalism” suggests this theme, but did the media coverage touch on this?

Perhaps some did, but to the casual observer, the headlines overwhelmingly obsessed over the made-up controversy of the 9/11 widow statements. And why was this?

Because it’s easier to pretend to stand up for the poor widows, women who used their status to promote John Kerry’s run for president and shape the 9/11 Commission’s investigations, than to answer Coulter’s well-made arguments that equate liberalism with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed

y Rodham Clinton. In most cases, the interviews did not get much farther than discussion of this one section of the book.

And that’s exactly what the media wanted to happen.

Let’s face it, if it hadn’t been the line about the four 9/11 widows “enjoying” their husbands’ deaths then it would be another line, but the media’s focus on one statement was nothing more than an attempt to avoid discussing other parts of the book or the overall thrust of the work.

Among other topics discussed in the book, Coulter provides chapters on public schools and teachers, science, and evolution, chapters which I believe were meant to be the primary focus of the work. Coulter’s overall thesis is that liberalism in America increasingly resembles an organized religion, and that this new religion is so deeply entrenched into the country that it constitutes a state religion in and of itself. Obviously the subtitle “The Church Of Liberalism” suggests this theme, but did the media coverage touch on this?

Perhaps some did, but to the casual observer, the headlines overwhelmingly obsessed over the made-up controversy of the 9/11 widow statements. And why was this?

Because it’s easier to pretend to stand up for the poor widows, women who used their status to promote John Kerry’s run for president and shape the 9/11 Commission’s investigations, than to answer Coulter’s well-made arguments that equate liberalism with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed

mong other topics discussed in the book, Coulter provides chapters on public schools and teachers, science, and evolution, chapters which I believe were meant to be the primary focus of the work. Coulter’s overall thesis is that liberalism in America increasingly resembles an organized religion, and that this new religion is so deeply entrenched into the country that it constitutes a state religion in and of itself. Obviously the subtitle “The Church Of Liberalism” suggests this theme, but did the media coverage touch on this?

Perhaps some did, but to the casual observer, the headlines overwhelmingly obsessed over the made-up controversy of the 9/11 widow statements. And why was this?

Because it’s easier to pretend to stand up for the poor widows, women who used their status to promote John Kerry’s run for president and shape the 9/11 Commission’s investigations, than to answer Coulter’s well-made arguments that equate liberalism with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed

this theme, but did the media coverage touch on this?

Perhaps some did, but to the casual observer, the headlines overwhelmingly obsessed over the made-up controversy of the 9/11 widow statements. And why was this?

Because it’s easier to pretend to stand up for the poor widows, women who used their status to promote John Kerry’s run for president and shape the 9/11 Commission’s investigations, than to answer Coulter’s well-made arguments that equate liberalism with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed

with religion.

In a big way, the media won the battle. Each broadcast segment that featured Ann was devoted almost totally to the 9/11 widows rather than her other points. Did you know that GODLESS discusses the fact that teachers may already be overpaid for the quality of work they do? Did you know that GODLESS provides a strong argument against the teaching of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution as fact? No?

Why not? Was it because her arguments are easily dismissed due to being poorly formed and presented? Nope. It was because rather than even try to answer the questions she raised, the leftist media did what she argued they always do in her 2003 book SLANDER: The called her names. “Hater,” “vicious,” and “cruel” just to name a few. Notice the implicit righteous indignation in those words. Remember, the media was defending those helpless widows.

At the same time, they were diverting attention away from powerful, well thought out arguments made by America’s number one conservative pundit. I believe Coulter’s book would be number one on the Times’ Bestsellers List right now had the media covered more than one passage from the book.

But seeing as their goal was to keep people from knowing what the book was really about, you have to give them credit for another job well done. In the name of protecting women from verbal attacks, they ignored Coulter’s main thesis by launching verbal attacks of their own.