THURSDAY'S LETTERS: 'Obscene' Coulter Loving Publicity for Remarks, Strupp Ignores Public on Gay Marriage

By: E&P Staff In today's letters, disbelieving readers respond to Ann Coulter's latest angry rant about the 9/11 widows, while others take issue with Joe Strupp's column on gay marriage.


***

Ann Coulter Loving the Publicity?

Ann Coulter must be loving this. Look at all the publicity she's getting. She doesn't care if it's negative publicity; [she] just wants to sell her book, which, from the first chapter I read online, is so full of hate that it's a wonder her head doesn't explode. So, the more media who have her on their talk shows and write about her online and in the newspaper, the better she likes it. I think she owes the 9/11 widows an apology for her insensitive remarks made on-air and in her book.

Sue Brown
Connecticut



... Ann Coulter is a pit bull ... and I mean that in a good way. She is saying things many of us wish we had the nerve to say, because it's so non-PC. The reason I appreciate Ann is because she is smart, funny, unintimidated, always makes great points ... and she knows how to get those points aired. This is her style and her schtick.

Many of us Conservatives have felt like the schoolyard kid constantly being picked on by the aggressive bullies (the leftwing bomb-throwers) ever since the 2000 election, so we cannot help but applaud the tough kid (Ann) who comes to our aid and punches the bullies back. We are tired of being beaten up.

Ann's words about the "Jersey Girls" was harsh, but no harsher than some of their own words. Who is questioning them? Ann's right. Do these "Jersey Girls" have extra credibility just because they sadly lost loved ones? No! But it's taboo to say so, because they are widows. Ann is pointing that out in a way that makes headlines. In a time when we shy away from showing "offensive cartoons" about Mohammed, it's refreshing to let it all out.

You notice the leftwing bomb-throwers never make the front page with their daily outrageous and hateful statements. The Right is tired of always being polite. I know I am!

Joyce Romano
Redondo Beach, Calif.



... When I heard Ann Coulter make her obscene accusations against those who lost their husbands on 9/11, I literally felt as if I had been punched in the gut. That was despicable, even for Ms. Coulter, a woman who apparently has no standard she will not sink beneath in her self-serving quest for attention and money.

I was shocked that the Today show gave her a forum and has not issued a statement distancing themselves from the statements she made on their show. It was disgusting that Mr. Lauer called her hatred and slander "fun", and the Today show has let the statements made by Ms. Coulter and Mr. Lauer stand without addressing how truly offensive and slanderous they were.

Ann Coulter has advocated murder and the bombing of Americans. Why has the Today show had her on repeatedly? Is there a financial tie-in between Ms. Coulter and NBC or any subsidiary companies? If so, I sincerely hope the people Ms. Coulter slandered sue both her and the Today show.

I hope the Today show is forced by public opinion to address their participation in this matter and their abdication of responsibility to the viewers who allow them into their homes.

Ruth Lopez
Orlando, Fla.



I read in disbelief the words of Ann Coulter describing 9/11 widows as "enjoying" the death of their husbands and using their grief to make a political point. Besides being completely devoid of compassion or empathy, Ms. Coulter ignores the fact that the Bush administration trots out 9/11 every time it wants to justify it's agenda. And what is wrong with making political points? That is how Ms. Coulter makes her living. Is she not driven by her own life experiences? There is no room for name-calling and her brand of vitriol in any serious political debate. Ms. Coulter: don't be so judgmental, especially about someone else's pain. You are supposed to be a Christian.

Dena Lefkowitz
Media, Pa.



In your article on Ann Coulter and her recent comments, the 9/11 widows offer eight different suggestions for avoiding another terrorist attack. Similar to the 9/11 Commission's advice, they all focus on domestic policy. But wasn't it our foreign policy that made us a target for terrorism in the first place? Shouldn't foreign policy be the most obvious starting place for preventing more terrorist attacks?

Americans need to ask themselves what is gained from our Middle East meddlings, and are those gains worth the constant threat of Islamic extremist terrorism? How come this is never discussed in the context of preventing another 9/11? What's the deal?

Mike Dalby



It should be obvious to all that Ann Coulter -- the self-obsessed broad, celebrity-seeking witch -- only describes herself in her books.

The best coverage of this woman is none. Why don't you stick to important matters.

Daniel Simmons
Philadelphia, Pa.


***

Strupp Gay Marriage Column Misses the Point

[Joe Strupp's column] clearly demonstrates what is wrong with the newspapers today, and why they are losing subscribers at an unprecedented rate.

[He calls] for the industry to become more pro-active, which is exactly why the industry is experiencing its current decline. Readers do not want advocacy-agenda driven-journalism.

The industry has lost its way. No longer reporting the news -- but creating it.

When you have the owner of The New York Times recently stating that the purpose of his newspaper is to promote the downfall of the President of the United States, and to stop a war, you're looking at journalism gone awry.

Richard F. Miles
McKinney, Tex.



First, I was not polled by Gallup, so you haven't considered my two cents in your assumptions on the Federal Marriage Amendment. You say this issue doesn't appear in a lineup of concerns to the public, but I say opinions may not be accurately reflected in a poll where a person must prioritize instead of being allowed to choose a number of issues as equally important.

But where you can obtain an accurate assessment is election results. From Alabama to Oregon, the voters have expressed overwhelming, undeniable support for state marriage amendments. Unfortunately, activist judges continue to invalidate the voices of thousands of voters. ... And though Congress is aware there is but one solution to this dilemma, they are treating with contempt the will of the people. It is the same mentality, though worse, that allows politicians to insist they do not want the U.S. to be dependent on foreign oil yet seem at a loss for the single, obvious remedy. It isn't only the Constitution they are unwilling to take on -- they also have stated they are unwilling to do anything, like drill for oil in the Gulf, that might impact our beloved tourism industry.

If you wish to check the pulse of America, immerse yourself in fly-over country for at least the same amount of time you have given the liberal mecca of S.F. and then dare to compare the rejection of gay marriage to racial discrimination. S.F.'s positions on many issues, from gun control to their dismissal of anything military to gay marriage, are foreign concepts to the silent majority that you will find in Middle America.

And you can encourage the media to enter the gay marriage fray, but this is the same media whose reporting is increasingly rejected by the public.

You may see the FMA as a debate that "has wasted time, energy and effort long enough," but yours is just one opinion. Hopefully, states will continue their efforts to protect marriage -- I just read the Pennsylvania legislature has begun the process -- and another Congress will have the opportunity to get it right, once and for all.

M. V. Cole
Florida



Take a look at the polls Joe [Strupp]! By a margin of 4-1 in most states, even the most liberal, the public OPPOSE gay marriage? How in the hell can you write a column urging editors to promote something the public is so opposed to? Are you also one of those people who stand up and say there is no liberal bias in mainstream news? Get a clue, Joe. The people -- and I am one of them -- are AGAINST gay marriage. How about trying something new and exciting in the news and try to be a reflection of the people the press is *supposed* to represent?

Charles Leader
Boise, Idaho



... It is up to E&P if it wishes to become an advocacy organ for the cultural Left in the guise of being a journalism review. I think such a move is self-marginalizing, but it's your publication. There's nothing wrong with being an advocate of gay marriage, but there is something wrong with closed-mindedness. I sense that gay marriage is an emotional issue for its advocates, not particularly well thought out as regards its implications in our democratic and litigious political culture.

This note is not particularly for publication. It is intended perhaps to invite advocates of gay marriage (my gay sister is one) to acknowledge that there are opponents who are intelligent, humane, and possibly even -- who can say for sure? -- correct in their estimation of the long-term positive and negative effects. For this issue, as with so many other issues (illegal immigration, most topically), to degenerate into accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. is not only not good for society, and for open debate; it isn't good for the cause being advocated.

Mark Richard
Columbus, Ohio