Reminder: Listen to Ann Coulter on Pundit Review Radio on Sunday night.
Blogger and radio talk show host Kevin McCullough writes: “Ann’s criticism is legitimate - if liberals in America wish to truly have a debate on the issues that we all have strong emotions about - then stand and make the point, but don’t hide behind those who are ineffective, unskilled, and often wrong in their views, simply because they’re a victim. ”
Friday, June 9 @ 5:15 p.m.: Ann Coulter knows the New York Times won’t review her book, so she reviews it herself. 
Ditto, young Ben. Also see Doubting Coulter - At First.
Friday, June 9: John Hawkins of Right Wing News lists his favorite quotes from Godless: The Church of Liberalism.
Commenter Greg writes: “I went back and re-read the exchange with Lauer — who obviously didn’t get it. And I think some of us might have gotten a little off track as well. It isn’t that women who have suffered tragedy have no right to an opinion (as Lauer attempted to frame it); it’s that women (or men) who exploit the media to advance political arguments should not be insulated from criticism simply because they experienced a tragedy.
“And Ann has said something that I have believed for a long time: this was not an attack against them personally (the Jerzey Girls, that is). This was an attack against America. They have no more standing to influence government policy than anyone else. Their opinions on Iraq, etc., don’t have added validity just because they lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but it’s true.”
———————————————————————————————————————–
Update: Commenter and blogger Gayle Miller writes: “For those among us with short memories, I will offer a reminder of the behavior of the Jersey Girls [the professional widows Ann “insulted”] during the 9/11 hearings. They were permitted, nay even encouraged, to be rude, disruptive and offensive and NOBODY had the stones or the desire to insist that they behave in a civil manner.”
So this woman is above criticism, right?
Click this video link to listen to Ann’s response to her critics (Thanks, Renee!). After Hillary called Ann’s book “heartless” and “mean” to women. Ann reminded Hillary about her husband’s “heartless” and “mean” treatment of women like Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Bill Clinton raped her. She who is without sin shouldn’t cast stones in glass houses lest she be judged, or something like that.
——————————————————————————————————————
Ann Coulter is going to sell a lot of books.
She does this every time. Liberals hate her, some conservatives do, too, but the rest of us appreciate her edgy commentary and controversial remarks for what they are: press-generating, book marketing plans. Read an excerpt from her book and a column I really liked, Lie down with strippers, wake up with pleas.
Ann says one thing liberals and some conservatives don’t like, and suddenly her photo’s plastered on front pages, her name is uttered on cable news shows all day long, and the blogosphere is buzzing off the…“blogometer†or whatever you’d call it.
Don’t you people understand that she calculates these things? Ever go fishing? Fish are really stupid. They see the dangling bait and go for it. Then they get hooked and reeled it. You’d think fish would have “evolved” and figured out what’s going on. After all these years, their generational axiom should be, “Don’t go near the scrumptious-looking worm if he has a string coming out of his head.”
You’d think humans would have evolved the same way. Ann Coulter throws out the bait, and just like the silly fish, the haters bite it. It happens every time. She knows exactly how to rile people up, and it’s no coincidence that she said something “controversial” on network TV this close to publication. It’s Coulter-Shtick, and I’m probably in the minority of the conservative and Republican blogosphere when I say this: I like it.
Let’s examine what Coulter said in context that was so bad. In an interview with “Today Show” host Matt Lauer, this was the controversial exchange with Lauer quoting from her new book:
Lauer: “Alright on the 9/11 widows and in particular a group that had been outspoken and critical of the administration. ‘These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.’ And this part is, is the part I really need to talk to you about. ‘These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.’”
Coulter: “Yes.”
Lauer: “Because they dare to speak out?”
Coulter: “To speak out using the fact that they’re widows. This is the left’s doctrine of infallibility. If they have a point to make about the 9/11 commission, about how to fight the war on terrorism. How about sending somebody we’re allowed to respond to? No, no we always have to respond to someone who just had a family member die…”
Lauer: “But aren’t they the people in the middle of the story?”
Coulter: “…because then if we respond, ‘Oh you’re questioning their authenticity.’ No the story is…”
Lauer: “So grieve but grieve quietly.”
Coulter: “No the story is an attack on the nation…”
Lauer: “And by the way…”
Coulter: “That requires a foreign policy response. That does not entail the expertise…”
Lauer: “And by the way they also criticized the Clinton administration for their failures leading up to 9/11.”
Coulter: “Oh not, not the ones I’m talking about.”
Lauer: “No they have.”
Coulter: “No, no, no. Oh no, no, no, no.”
Lauer: “But is your message to them just grieve…”
Coulter: “No, no they were cutting commercials for Kerry. They were using their grief in order to make a political point while preventing anyone from responding.”
Lauer: “So if you lose a husband you no longer have the right to have a political point of view?”
Coulter: “No but don’t use the fact that you lost a husband as the basis for your being able to talk about it while preventing people from responding. Let Matt Lauer make the point, let Bill Clinton make the point. Don’t put up someone I’m not allowed to respond to without questioning the authenticity of their grief.”
(Transcript from News Busters)
It’s important to note that Ann was referring to a “particular” group of 9-11 widows who made commercials for John Kerry and used their husbands’ deaths as a political statement, not women who’ve lost their husbands in war in general.
It’s also important to understand this: Liberals denouncing Ann’s remarks don’t care about the widows; they just don’t like Ann. Any reasonable person can see that. While many of us wouldn’t go out of our way to insult widows, they are not untouchables. If we respond critically to something they say publicly, there is nothing indecent or awful about it.
A point of clarification before I go on. I refused to join the conservative “Get Cindy Sheehan” bandwagon because it was boring and because I believe the woman was whacked out with grief and anger. I also believe she used her son’s death for personal gain and to make a political statement. When people cross over into this realm, they’re fair game. The story just didn’t interest me.
I wonder if some of the same Republican bloggers ragging on Coulter for ragging on professional widows also ragged on Cindy Sheehan. If so, there’s a whole lot of hypocrisy going on…
The professional 9-11 widows Ann is referring to did the same thing. The “9-11 Widows for Kerry” went high profile and endorsed John Kerry, which was their right. They are not above criticism just because they’re widows, for crying out loud.
As I said, Ann Coulter is the master. Look at this Google News spread. She’s everywhere. She’s the top search at Technorati as I write. I just hope Ann does the right thing and thank the same liberals she skewers in her book for helping her sell a ton, including Mrs. Clinton.
Republican and conservative bloggers had their knickers in a twist over Ann earlier this year. At CPAC, she called Islamofascists “ragheads.” They made it a bigger deal than it needed to be and guaranteed that her CPAC appearance would be front page news the next day. With enemies like these, who needs a publicist? I was probably the only one there who wasn’t upset. The reaction was over the top and ridiculous. We’ve become a country of wimps when we can’t even insult the people who want to behead us for Allah. Bring back the real men of WWII!
So is the reaction to Ann’s comments about the group of professional 9-11 widows. Once again, I fail to understand why Republicans are joining the Democratic bandwagon in “outrage.” When viewed in context, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what she said. When we disagree with people, though, we tend to take the comments out of context and focus on the “worst” part.
Whether you hate/like/love her, Ann Coulter knows how to play the game. Coulter-Shtick works. People can’t stop talking about her. She’s a bit more edgy in her writing and marketing than I am, but you better believe I’ll develop some kind of Barber-Shtick when I’m ready to sell books, set tongues wagging, and drive the blogosphere crazy.
Bloggers:
- Ed Morrissey compares Ann to Ted Rall, the liberal scribbler who called Condoleezza Rice a “House Nigga.” That may be a tad over the top, Ed.
- Hugh Hewitt says Ann owes the widows an apology.
- Michelle Malkin defends
Other reactions from the Right: Pro: Robbie at Urban Grounds, Ninth State, Atlas Shrugs, Flopping Aces, Confederate Yankee, WILLisms…
Neutral?: Jeff Jarvis…
Con: Stata-Sphere, Sister Toldjah, Right Wing Nuthouse, Outside the Beltway, The Anchoress, Squiggler…
Danny Carlton: “Most news sources twist the story to make it sound as if Ann’s comments are toward all women who’ve lost a loved one in 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq.”
The Dragon and the Phoenix: “A culture that encourages victimhood is preparing itself for that role on the world stage. Our enemies are well aware of that, and exploit the weakness.”
Even more publicity: Ann will be on Neal Boortz’s radio show today…
(Wow. I’m referenced far and wide.)
Ding, Dong the Guy is Dead
Abu Musab al Zarqawi, head-terrorist-in-charge, is dead. Why don’t I care? Interesting…Bloggers react: Sister Toldjah, Counterterrorism Blog, MM, Wizbang, Texas Rainmaker…
Is this the air strike that killed Zarqawi? A wicked sense of humor!
Hello La Shawn-as soon as I can get to a store, I’ll be picking up her new book. I love Ann’s way with words.
With the passing of Zarquawi, the blogosphere should be hopping today. Have a great day!
Comment by Doug — 06.08.06 @ 8:41 am
I can’t agree with you on this on La Shawn. Calling somebody a “raghead” is just as ridiculous as calling Rice or Powell “house niggers.” It is stupid and has no place in a discussion. I am no PC person, but I would have attacked her use of words just as I would have attacked Ted Rall. When having an intellectual discussion/debate, the person that loses is the first person that resorts to name-calling and personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 8:50 am
Adrian,
You miss the point…What Ann Coulter says is intended to cause outrage…the more people talk about her the more successful she is.
La Shawn,
I agree about the widows issue.If you step into the spotlight be prepared to be questioned. Because they lost their husbands on 9/11 doesn’t give them a free pass to promote their political views or opinions without being open to questioning from other points of view.
Comment by James — 06.08.06 @ 9:22 am
Ann Coulter and the “Jersey Girls”
I agree with LaShawn - Ann Coulter is a marketing genius.
Trackback by The Dragon and the Phoenix — 06.08.06 @ 9:25 am
While I agree with her on the widows, I think questioning whether or not their husbands were going to divorce them may be going a bit too far. As for the ragheads, I say call em that as much as you want. When they are trying their best to exterminate us, who cares if they are called names?
Comment by Ian MacD. — 06.08.06 @ 9:27 am
For those among us with short memories, I will offer a reminder of the behavior of the Jersey Girls during the 9/11 hearings. They were permitted, nay even encouraged, to be rude, disruptive and offensive and NOBODY had the stones or the desire to insist that they behave in a civil manner. That is the point when they lost all right to hide behind their widowhood, in my opinion. On one point I disagree, La Shawn, the Jersey girls and Cindy Sheehan are cut from the same cloth - and the only difference is that the Jersey girls have not publicly cozied up to a third-world lunatic like Hugo Chavez! Other than that - I completely agree with you.
I pre-ordered the book from Amazon. I love to help conservative authors debut at #1 - like to see the libs get their knickers in a great big knot whenever possible!
Comment by Gayle Miller — 06.08.06 @ 9:49 am
La Shawn is spot on correct; no one should be suprised by Ann’s comments. You have to wonder if some people are reacting or just acting.
She has consistently had an unfiltered communication style. Couple that with her intellegence, cutting wit and easy-on-the-eyes appearance and you have a person who will be polarizing when making points on politics and religion. This is especially the case for those citizens who tend to react more emotionally than logically.
She has polished this schtick for the last decade until it shines like the sun; burning into the darkness and simultaneously highlights issues while it disinfects or disintegrates them.
On her harsher comments, after wincing and filtering for sardonic humour, I almost always agree with them.
Comment by Shorse — 06.08.06 @ 9:58 am
James,
I did indeed understand that point, but it seems to be a little hypocritical to lambaste elite liberals for name-calling and then turn around and do the same thing yourself. I guess this is where you and I disagree.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 10:00 am
James let me put it like this. There is a difference between calling somebody an “idiot” and calling somebody a name that has to do with their heritage. Say a bunch of black people committed some sort of atrocity and somebody made a comment to the point, “Those darn big-hosed freaks”. Ok there are a lot of “big-nosed” people that just got lumped in with a bunch of idiots. JUST AS there are a lot of “ragheads” that do not agree with this “jihad”. She has taken a portion of one’s culture and tried to turn it into a negative trait. I am not saying that I would prevent Ann from saying this, I am just not going to agree with her use of words even if she is trying to sell books.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 10:08 am
And you can tell who her audience is: guys. Like the Fox Blonde Helmet Heads, she knows how to look: long, straight dyed blonde hair, tight black tops, svelt figure that shows off her hard work with a personal trainer and dietician.
I agree that she definitely knows what she’s doing.
Comment by mj — 06.08.06 @ 10:35 am
I’ll be honest…when I heard Ann’s rebuttal to Hillary….
I stood up and clapped…nothing like cleaning one’s own house before slinging mud at others
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 10:55 am
Renee, it was posted on Drudge yesterday, but I was traveling and didn’t get to link to it. Does anyone have a link?
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.06 @ 10:57 am
It was on the Fox News site under most watched videos this morning. I will see if I can find it.
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 11:06 am
On FoxNews…
Under Most Watched Vidoes on right side…
it is under national (not sure how to link that video though)
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 11:09 am
I’m just glad someone is tackling the menace of widows and grieving mothers.
OK. I get it. Your shtick is similar to BlameBush, a site I enjoy. You can stay. - Admin
Comment by Jon Swift — 06.08.06 @ 11:11 am
Well like I mentioned yesterday, I actually saw her on the Today show and she didn’t seem on point to me at all. She actually seemed a somewhat spacey and I ‘ve seen her on other programs where she was sharp and on fire.
She’s not my cup of tea anyway.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 06.08.06 @ 11:25 am
This will launch the one on the Fox News Site. It’s a 7 minute video with Hannity interviewing her and she reinterates her response to Hillary and explains the victimhood being thrown around.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.html?060706/060706_hc_coulter&%27Coulter%20the%20Cruel%27&Hannity_Colmes&Author%20Ann%20Coulter%20responds%20to%20her%20critics&National&-1&%27Coulter%20the%20Cruel%27&Video%20Launch%20Page
Thanks! - Admin
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 11:27 am
Marketing Genius?
La Shawn Barber thinks quite a few people took the bait regarding Ann Coulter’s book and her interview with Matt Lauer: “Ann says one thing liberals and some conservatives don’t like, and suddenly her photo’s plastered on front pages, her…
Trackback by Pajamas Media — 06.08.06 @ 11:46 am
Personally, I love Ann. If I weren’t married, she’d probably end up arresting me for stalking … but in a good way
Being a Southern boy, however, there are more than a few times when she says things that I just wouldn’t or couldn’t say. I usually end up agreeing with her, but my Southern roots just won’t let me say (or often even think) such things. I end up reading her books exclaiming “Oh My!” or “Oh Dear!” at her witty (and caustic) turn of phrase. But I rarely disagree with her.
So I’d suggest before people start piling on Ann for what she says, make sure it is truly because you think she is wrong, and not just that you wouldn’t have uttered those same words.
Oh, and did you see her on Hannity and Colmes, where Colmes asked her if Jesus would says such things? Didn’t He call the Pharisees a Vipers, thieves and White-washed tombs? Pretty strong (and not pc) stuff for that day. Fortunately, he reached out to that group hated even then… Republicans, err I mean publicans
Comment by Tom — 06.08.06 @ 12:04 pm
It seems sad that we are at the point where “marketing” is seen as a justification of bad behavior. Where does it stop? Does the quest for the almighty dollar trump (no pun intended) everything else? If you can’t make your point without name-calling and insult and belittlement, how strong is your point?
As for the 9-11 widows, I don’t recall any criticism of those that supported President Bush. As with entertainers, it only seems to become an issue if they don’t agree with the Administration.
Comment by Hazel — 06.08.06 @ 12:07 pm
Most of what you wrote is libelous, ad hominem, irrelevant, and a bit childish. I think you’ve landed on the wrong blog, dear. - Admin
Comment by danielle — 06.08.06 @ 12:08 pm
Hazel, nobody is arguing that speaking out against Bush is wrong. I do it all the time! And I’ve caught heat for it, too. But I’m a grown woman and can handle it.
This is the issue in this context: people are condeming Coulter for criticzing “grieving” widows. Period. Widowhood does not immune one from criticism, especially when the widows in question become public figures of a sort, publicly campaigning based on their widowhood.
Look, Coulter and the widows are fair game. Republicans and Dems are all over Coulter; Coulter and others are all over the widows. Free speech is still in effect, the last time I checked.
Re: your remark about not recalling criticism against widows who supported Bush, you obviously don’t read liberal blogs.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.06 @ 12:16 pm
What’s that old saying…
the truth hurts…
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 12:30 pm
Free speech is fine. So is the fact that all of the people involved are leveraging their celebrity to advance a cause/point. What I dislike is the calculation of causing outrage to sell books. I understand it, but it still seems crude. Alas, it seems to work well.
As for supporting Bush, I’ve not seen a Dixie Chicks type episode (protests, death threats, etc) because of support for the Pres(They seem to have done alright!).The most I’ve seen is Ron Silver speaking of not getting the same dinner invitations (Not quite the same as a death threat).
Comment by Hazel — 06.08.06 @ 12:40 pm
Fish often enough and you’ll find that fish aren’t as stupid as one would think, and despite how many people will pick up the book because of the controversy, the ends don’t always justify the means.
Too few people care about using tact to make otherwise difficult statements and then just sink to the level of those who never bothered to try in the first place.
I think Ann Coulter rolls in the mud too often. Aside from that, she’s in no position to declare anyone “godless” if we are to judge by her behavior.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 06.08.06 @ 12:45 pm
You and I are working from two different premises, Hazel. I don’t believe what Coulter said was outrageous, but the woman knows what the media and liberals consider outrageous. Those are two different things. For example, I know what outrages liberals (black liberals in particular), but why should I go out of my way to avoid outraging them, especially when I’m telling the truth?
About the Chicks, I suspect most country music fans are right-leaning folks. The Chicks angered their target audience (although the death threats are dumb, if true). That’s why you saw that level of outrage. Imagine some group like Pearl Jam or whoever liberals like defending Bush. I think you’d see a similar level of outrage from their target audience.
Mark - I agree with the “live by the sword, die by the sword” sentiment, but I still fail to see what Ann said that sparked this level of controversy. I think the hysteria has become contagious. Instead of considering her remarks in context, people are caught up in the media hype.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.06 @ 12:46 pm
Marketing or not, sooner or later the game bites back.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 06.08.06 @ 12:46 pm
Re: Ding dong, the [TERRORIST Zarqawi] is dead…
Of course, the blogosphere is abuzz with news of Zarqawi’s death. With so many blogs to read, I thought I’d choose one to share that really caught my attention.
Over at Newsbusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias there is a headline that states: “ABC Quickly Brings In Peacenik Dad to Condemn Zarqawi Killing”
Tim Graham sums it up well with the following:
“It’s sad that within minutes of announcing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s death, the network morning shows were already carrying criticism of the Bush administration. Not only did NBC invite Sen. Joe Biden to attack Bush incompetence (funny day for that!), ABC’s Bill Weir reminded the audience that Zarqawi beheaded American Nicholas Berg, and then replayed Berg’s left-wing dad saying at the time that he had no desire for his son’s killers to be killed. Weir then reported that he spoke to Berg’s father this morning, and he condemned the Zarqawi killing as part of an endless cycle of retribution.”
The comment section is a real hoot!! Want a laugh? Go read some of them! The first one is great. “Danbo” states, “The media are the terrorists best friends. Even ahead of the democrats.”
He includes this quote:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
At the same site, blogger “semby” brings up Ann Coulter:
“Look out…now Berg’s father is going to be the new anti-war poster child…forget Murtha and Sheehan - because if they can discredit this wonderful news they will stop at nothing to politicize this… This is what Coulter is talking [about]…bring those on who have lost something and then not being able to criticize them. Ann was RIGHT ON!”
Maybe some still think that Ann was a little too harsh on the Jersey Girl widows…but blogger “bigtimer” quotes Ann:
“the truth cannot be delivered with novacain” Anne Coulter
Comment by Christinewjc — 06.08.06 @ 12:52 pm
I concur with Mark. One day Ann’s mouth is going write a check her a** can’t cash.
And she lives in New York too, where the average New Yorker doesn’t mind getting grimy with her. She still does have to walk the streets like everyone else.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 06.08.06 @ 1:01 pm
For all those that don’t see any harm in what Coulter said (”ragheads” or the recent Today show rant), allow me to pose a question. What is the difference between her and Al Frankin/Michael Moore?
Lashawn,
I am not saying that “blunt” statement shouldn’t be made from time to time. And I happen to understand her underlying message about the 9/11 widows. But since conservatives love to bash Frankin and the Air America elite for such types of “slanderous” remarks, we shouldn’t let up when Coulter does it.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 1:08 pm
Truth trumps check writing any day
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 1:09 pm
Ann is without a doubt a marketing genius, but her political commentary is absolutely horrible. I agree the right of others to question the widows should exist, however, I disagree with the notion that someone else should have made their point. Whether you agree or not, how can Matt Lauer, Bill Clinton or anyone else make a point from the view of a 9/11 widow when they didn’t have that horrible experience?
What really gets me (and should anger any conservatives) is the way she resorts to name-calling, makes false accusations and just generally acts immature. See her response to Hillary for proof of that. I can handle opinions that differ from mine, but nothing is accomplished when educated, civil discussion is replaced by immature behavior and name-calling.
Comment by Thomas — 06.08.06 @ 1:20 pm
Adrian, speak for yourself. Don’t lump me in the category of conservatives who “love to bash” Michael Moore and Al Franken. I’ve blogged about Franken in the context of Air America diverting money meant for poor black kids in NYC and Michael Moore in the context of Republican reaction to his book, with no mention of either man’s statements, slanderous or otherwise. If you’ve got problems with “conservatives” who do that, don’t take it out on me. Go straight to the source.
Comment by La Shawn — 06.08.06 @ 1:21 pm
Excellent Renee
Comment by James Newman — 06.08.06 @ 1:22 pm
Hazel, Ann Coulter’s so-called bad behavior is simply that she’s blunt. And she’s willing to say things that diplomatic people would only think and not say for fear of offending someone. Ann’s not afraid of letting hyper-sensitivity stand in the way of brutally honest commentary (like questioning the claim of Islam as the “religion of peace”).
La Shawn, you might know her and if so you certainly know her better than I do, but where I disagree with you is the use of the word “shtick.” To me, that implies that it’s just a put-on or a gimmick. My sense is that what you see in her commentary is pretty much Ann Coulter. It just so happens that her peculiar mix of personality characteristics (biting wit, unabashed conservatism, etc.) along with her brains (and probably her looks, too), make for a very marketable combination. But I doubt that her public persona (”shtick” if you will) is much different than what she’s like in private. Just a guess.
She’s also clearly a hard-worker. You don’t crank out books like she does without keeping your nose to the grind-stone.
Comment by Greg — 06.08.06 @ 1:23 pm
La Shawn I wasn’t directing any attack toward you. I apologize if it came out that way. I was speaking of conservatives in general (of which I am one). I wasn’t trying to lump you in there, just trying to respond to something you had said earlier regarding “blunt” comments.
As far as “the truth hurts”, look at this quote from Coulter’s book:
“And by the way, how do we know their husbands weren’t planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they’d better hurry up and appear in Playboy…”
Well is it just as “truthful” to say, “Hey, the Holocaust wasn’t so bad due to the fact that many of those Jewish people were old and were going to die anyway.” No. That would be wrong is stupid to say.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 1:40 pm
My husband was huffing and puffing about Ann Coulter’s interview with Matt Lauer. I handed him a paper bag to breathe into and said, “Calm down. This is her job. This is what she does. And she does it better than anyone.”
Elsie
Comment by Elsie Jay — 06.08.06 @ 1:59 pm
Adrian, how can you in any way compare what she said to the Holocaust. She was talking about women who are using the deaths of their husbands as a political tool. The Holocaust was organized murder of millions of people. There is no comparison at all, and you should be ashamed for equating them.
Comment by Ian MacD. — 06.08.06 @ 2:12 pm
>>That’s why you saw that level of outrage. Imagine some group like Pearl Jam or whoever liberals like defending Bush. I think you’d see a similar level of outrage from their target audience.>>
Can you say “Zell Miller” or “Joe Lieberman”? Ok, so they don’t sing…but same principle!
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 2:24 pm
re: Dixie Chicks. Godsmack got a bit of the same treatment for the sin of allowing the Navy to use their music in a recruitment ad. (Google Godsmack and Babcock if anyone is interested.) I don’t think it actually ended up amounting to a whole lot but to the people involved, a lack of anti-war ideological purity was unforgivable.
As for widows *for* the war or GOP or Bush not getting the same treatment as Mother Sheehan or the Jersy Girls… I can’t think of any. Oh, there’s the occasional person who says to Cindy, “You don’t speak for me” but I just don’t see an equivalent on the right. Who, on the right, has taken their tragedy and brokered it into a spot in the national lime-light in order to promote their cause?
You can’t say “look how much better they are treated by the left” when they don’t exist.
Comment by Synova — 06.08.06 @ 2:25 pm
>>What is the difference between her and Al Frankin/Michael Moore?>>
Intelligence, logic, vocabulary, and an incredible list of good solid references in her books.
Have you ever read one of them?
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 2:27 pm
I am not comparing them. I am tying to make a point that saying things like that just for marketing purposes is just plain stupid. JUST LIKE the holocaust statement is stupid. You don’t call people “ragheads” or say they their DEAD HUSBANDS were going to “divorce them anyway”, just to sell books or get yourself on TV. What gives Ann anymore right to say the things she says versus a person making insensitive statements about the Holocaust? I am not comparing the two issues, just the absurdity of the statements.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 2:27 pm
Actually, I find Ann’s books a little tough to read. I generally agree with her, but find her a bit too acerbic. My husband’s comment:
Calling Ann “acerbic”, is like calling straight lemon juice “tart”…!
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 2:33 pm
My friend Marty just asked me a very intelligent question (not surprising - he’s an intelligent man): “Did Hillary Clinton and the LWM have anything to say about the tragic victims of 9/11 when Ward Churchill referred to them as “Little Eichmanns?” I think I did read a lot at that time about college professors having “Freedom of Expression.” I guess the same courtesy doesn’t apply to Ann Coulter. I’d want to ask that question of Matt Lauer and the editorial board at the NY Times and the NY Daily News.”
I think Marty has a valid point. The left always prattles on about freedom of expression - when applying it to themselves - but they develop severe amnesia when you try to apply that same logic to someone who disagrees with their [left-wing] point of view.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 06.08.06 @ 2:38 pm
Gayle,
I was wondering that also…but of course we know the answer…
it’s like when Hillary talked about Blacks and the the Republican plantation got no comments from the “liberals” or blacks…
a lot of “hypocrisy” going on
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 2:41 pm
“Intelligence, logic, vocabulary, and an incredible list of good solid references in her books.
Have you ever read one of them?”
If you drill down through the references to their primary sources, they don’t hold up a disturbing portion of the time. At least, that was true of “Slander.”
Adrian:
“You don’t call people “ragheads†or say they their DEAD HUSBANDS were going to “divorce them anywayâ€, just to sell books or get yourself on TV. ”
It’s too much, agreed. Saying “you enjoyed your husband’s death” is not just being blunt–that’s far too far. And all for a buck.
Comment by tvd — 06.08.06 @ 3:17 pm
Zell “Zig-Zag” Miller? Please. And yes, I’ve voted for him at least 5 times in the past.
“Blunt” does not cover slurs. I guess if someone calls me a n-don’t know the policy-word, I should think it a “blunt” statement. I’ve not seen “raghead” used as a term of affection.
The “Did Hillary denounce it?” line really has nothing to do with anything. And there was a lot of discussion about the Republican Plantation remark, much of it in the MSM.
Comment by Hazel — 06.08.06 @ 3:26 pm
Hazel
You prove the point all to well
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 3:34 pm
The Coulter Controversy
Ann Coulter’s gimmick is that she’s basically a right-wing version of a left-wing pundit, except she usually doesn’t cross the line. I take that back: she usually doesn’t do a Mike Powell-esque long jump over the line.
Trackback by Ninth State — 06.08.06 @ 3:35 pm
Who cares about the MSM and what they said about the Republican Plantation (mind you only part of the media covered it)…
what so called “black lovers” (when they want a vote)from the liberal party came out…
Ummm
None
It is the same and again…the hypocrisy is almost funny
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 3:36 pm
We have accomplished a miracle. My brother in law is going to lend me the latest Al Franken book, and I will lend him “Godless” when I finish with it. Peace accords of any kind, especially during an election year, fill the bill as a genuine miracle.
Comment by Doug — 06.08.06 @ 3:39 pm
I’m a little slow, but if you mean “Zig-Zag”, it was given to him some 20 years ago in the Georgia Legislature by the then Republican minority. It was used against him by the GOP in each of his campaigns for Governor. From Wikipedia,:Years before becoming a U.S. senator, he was called by critics “Zigzag Zell.” One example of supposed flip-flopping: In the 1980s he served two years on the board of Georgia’s leading anti-lottery group, but during his gubernatorial campaign in 1990 indicated his support for a lottery only a few weeks after publicly saying he opposed a lottery. He eventually helped push through a lottery.”
The people who now support him couldn’t stand him then.
Comment by Hazel — 06.08.06 @ 3:50 pm
As I recall, the commentary at the time was that various politicians had used the plantation construct without comment from left or right. Her problem was using it in a way that sounded phony and contrived and pandering to the audience who knew it.
Comment by Hazel — 06.08.06 @ 3:58 pm
When I was in Junior High School, I had the privilege of meeting a WWII vet who was at Pearl Harbour when it was attacked. He was invited to our history class to give his perspective on the war.
One of the things which he said has always stuck with me. He said, “In our minds we saw the Japanese as monsters. We pictured them with fangs”.
Two comments on this:
1 I think you have to see your enemy as “not human” in order to do what you have to in war.
If you think of your enemy as being the same as you, you are at a great disadvantage. You can bet that the terrorists don’t get ridiculed by their own for calling us names.
2 There is no way a veteran could speak in a public school today with those thoughts.
Comment by Chris — 06.08.06 @ 4:00 pm
Coulter called Muslims “ragheads”, where as Mikey Moore and Franken actively and often portray their own countrymen as idiots and evil for disagreeing with them. Coulter is acerbic and over the top, but not nearly as much as those two. As for the comparing the absurdity of the statements Adrian, perhaps you are right. But these women have long and loudly harangued about the deaths of their husbands and used it to further their agendas, pimping out the death of their loved ones like Cindy Sheehan.
Comment by Ian MacD. — 06.08.06 @ 4:32 pm
I can’t stop playing the part in the video where Ann suggest Hillary go talk to her husband first about how to treat women…CLASSIC!!
Ooops…we are not suppose to say stuff like that, someone might get offened
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 4:38 pm
Ian,
“pimping out the death of their loved ones”
that’s it exactly
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 4:39 pm
In medieval warfare, the two armies would face off against each other and send out their skirmishers. Some of the skirmishers would be nobles seeking individual combat with enemy nobles. I see Ann Coulter as a skirmisher in the ideological battle between right and left. The skirmishers don’t win the battle. The main body of troops does that. But skirmishers shape the battle. Likewise, Coulter’s rhetoric does not win the ideological war, but shapes the dialogue. Reason wins the argument.
Victims of catastrophe evoke our sympathy but bad fortune does not make victims virtuous. Probably all of us know people in our private lives who have taken advantage of their bad fortune in some unseemly way for personal gain. Certainly the Jersey Girls deserve our sympathy to a point, but when they wave their husbands’ bloody shirts to promote a political agenda, they render themselves contemptible. They lose my sympathy when they blame the deaths of Sep 11 on Rudy Giuliani, George Bush, Condi Rice, George Tenet, everyone except the jihadis who spilled the innocent blood. This poisonous slander is a form of treason, akin to blaming Roosevelt for Auschwitz.
Coulter performs a valuable service by confronting the Jersey Girls and puncturing their rhetoric. Now Coulter does take it over the edge when she speculates that their husbands might have divorced them, but even in that I find a rough justice. Why should the Jersey Girls sling mud without having mud slung back at them? What goes around, comes around. The Jersey Girls make no apology for tarring conservatives in a vile fashion. Why should any apology be made for tarring them? They have reaped what they have sown.
Ann Coulter moves the argument forward by stripping the Jersey Girls of their moral authority, placing their arguments on the table for a fair examination. Now, after the rhetorical skirmishing is complete, the main body of conservative pundits can rebut the Jersey Girls positions rationally and logically. And those extremist lefty positions are ripe for ridicule.
Comment by Tantor — 06.08.06 @ 4:48 pm
Ian, I agree completely that they are fair game to any criticism. But there are line to be drawn between vicious attacks and legitimate criticism. I am all for free speech, but in my opinion, she went too far and crossed the line in both of her statements……EVEN THOUGH I understood her underlying point about the widows.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 5:07 pm
That’s Entertainment, Part DCLXVI
For the time being, Abu al-Zarqawi’s death has eclipsed Ann Coulter in the news, which is as it should be. But I still don’t think I have managed to pin down the distinctions between entertainment, morality, and political discourse. As…
Trackback by Classical Values — 06.08.06 @ 5:16 pm
Adrian,
I don’t lambast anyone for exercising their right of expression. I don’t always agree with how Ann Coulter speaks anymore than I always disagree with how Al Franken speaks. My point is thatin some respects it is like listening to Howard Stern. The only difference is Ann tends to start with a valid arguement. And since I am seeing Michael Moore and The Dixie Chicks used as examples here. lets be honest. Michael Moore uses lies and cut & paste to prove a position that the facts themselves would not support. The Dixie Chicks forgot the first rule of showbiz “Never insult your fan base” when they bashed El Presedente on stage on foriegn soil. If your fanbase is conservitive be prepared to suffer at the box office when you attack their core beliefs.
Comment by James — 06.08.06 @ 5:31 pm
Count me in the Pro-Ann Coulter, conservative blogger camp.
Comment by Robbie — 06.08.06 @ 5:47 pm
Hazel #24 says, “I’ve not seen a Dixie Chicks type episode (protests, death threats, etc) because of support for the Pres.”
I’m not sure what point you intended to make with this statement but if you’re suggesting that only conservatives retaliate against liberals for what they say/do, don’t forget that the student body at New School University tried to get Bob Kerrey to resign as their President because he fought in Viet Nam.
How is that functionally any different than what happened with the Dixie Chicks? Just curious.
Comment by Greg — 06.08.06 @ 5:50 pm
Robbie — glad you didn’t forget the “l” when you added the extra “o” to “blogger”.
Comment by Greg — 06.08.06 @ 5:52 pm
I don’t agree with everything Ann Coulter says but some conservatives are getting too squeamish if they’re starting to turn on a woman of great political courage just because she hurts people’s feelings. Have these people been sentenced to a “sensitivity training” course or something? Like Pat Buchanan (who is more intellectual and more prophetic than her, but not as entertaining), she is a good sacrificial lamb for politically correct neoconservatives who are just as bad as liberals in my book but better at hiding the fact that they’re pink on the inside. That’s not even to say I neccessarily agree with what she’s in trouble for now (at least not to the level that I agree with her defense of the late great Tailgunner Joe McCarthy for example) but I still have a lot of respect for her.
Comment by Johnny Carpati — 06.08.06 @ 6:21 pm
No one in the conservative movement does Ann Coulter better than Ann Coulter does.
The Democrats perfected the slime, run and hide behind political correctness form of sound bite warfare. Ann has studied their strategy and continually beaten them at their own game by tarring and feathering them with the truth.
She doesn’t play fair, she walks all over political correctness with her ten league boots. All the Dems can do in response is to hiss and whine and call Bush a Hitler and our troops a bunch of Nazis. Personally, I think they (Dems) should all hold their breath until they turn blue and make Ann stop pestering them.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.08.06 @ 6:26 pm
It is notable that the first writer to really take the Jersey Girls on and skewer them in acidic wit was Dorothy Rabinowitz of the WSJ back in April of 2004. Coulter just makes a follow-on attack.
Though Coulter was the one with the BALLS to 1st call out Max Cleland back when he was in his “as a war hero triple amputee victim”, “what I say about Bush and anything else is morally unimpeachable and beyond criticism because I’ve suffered so.”
To which Coulter wrote a column saying Max had dropped a grenade on himself after a beer party, not the enemy, and that the voters had got rid of him not because they questioned his patriotism, but because he voted as liberal as Daschle told him to.
When the heavens didn’t part and Ann was not struck down by lightning, others concluded that Max was indeed playing the Cult of Victimhood card and was soon sent packing back to his “attendance optional” cushy patronage job at Export-Import Bank.
I agree with other posters, I wish I could have been a fly on the wall as Coulter’s retort got back to Hillary after she accused Coulter of being vicious towards “unfortunate woman”.
My imagination is she began gasping and opening and closing her mouth like a stunned carp, as aides who know Hillary well began scattering away before the screaming and throwing of objects commenced.
Comment by Chris Ford — 06.08.06 @ 6:55 pm
Johnny,
Don’t turn this into “neocon/sensitivity” argument. Nobody here is saying that Coulter can’t express her opinion. Far from it. She can say whatever she wants just as the rest of us can.
As I have stated there is legitimate criticism (which can hurt feelings, etc.) and then there are vicious attacks that do nothing to further a discussion along. As a Christian (I am not saying that nobody here is or isn’t) and a conservative, I refuse to stoop to the level of Frankin or Moore’s name-calling and vicious attacks, even if they lie.
Personally, I REALLY do not like Jesse Jackson’s policies or attitudes. But what I am not going to do is call him names or viciously attack him by using dead relatives (if he has any) or racial slurs. Period.
Forming a coherent arguments without using vicious attacks isn’t a “neo-con/sensitivity” thing. It is a moral thing.
Comment by Adrian — 06.08.06 @ 7:05 pm
We’ve become a country of wimps when we can’t even insult the people who want to behead us for Allah. Bring back the real men of WWII!
AMEN!!
We’re wimps, but we feel good about how “nice” we are. Had an argument today with one of my moonbat friends about al-Zarqawi–she felt “bad for him” dying in the custody of Iraqi troops (where I’m sure whatever happened was a fraction of what he deserved) because she has “human compassion” and it “makes her feel good” to not judge people. GAH! I want to vomit! No one “felt sorry” for Goebbels or Goering or Mengele…
I feel just fine about reserving my “human compassion” for actual humans–like Nick Berg and the mothers of the children al-Z’s followers have blown up. I don’t see any point in being “nice” to people who want to kill me. And it drives me nuts that that’s the minority viewpoint in this country.
Comment by Radish — 06.08.06 @ 7:06 pm
Ann Coulter is hurting the feeling of a lot of Conservatives who just don’t have the grapes to say what they should be saying. forget the liberals, its the feel good, try to articulate, yada, yada, yada Conservatives that are really angry at her. Mush, and more mush from Hewitt and the rest of them. Stand up like men and women.
Comment by MQ — 06.08.06 @ 7:41 pm
PS,
Even Michelle malkin lacks the courage to stand up for Coulter, she just won’t touch it. Maybe it will hurt her chance to get on FOX or O’rielly.
Comment by MQ — 06.08.06 @ 7:45 pm
La Shawn –
You say: “The “9-11 Widows for Kerry†went high profile and endorsed John Kerry, which was their right. They are not above criticism just because they’re widows, for crying out loud.”
The controversy is whether they deserved insults as “witches” or “harpies” or criticized as publicity hounds — just because they endorsed Kerry.
Surely Coulter does not believe that every activist who opposes her politics has venal motives? The widows can surely disagree with her and still respect their husbands’ memories.
Coulter is absolutely justified in questioning the widows’ expertise; out of line when questioning their motives.
Comment by Andrew Tyndall — 06.08.06 @ 7:53 pm
>>Even Michelle malkin lacks the courage to stand up for Coulter, she just won’t touch it. Maybe it will hurt her chance to get on FOX or O’rielly.>>
Don’t be silly - Coulter’s been on Fox fairly regularly…even sat in for Hannity once or twice, I think.
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 7:56 pm
>>My imagination is she began gasping and opening and closing her mouth like a stunned carp, as aides who know Hillary well began scattering away before the screaming and throwing of objects commenced.>>
Heh heh…you know…_nobody_ really criticizes Hillary. She’s certainly one very smart woman, but she’s a _woman_. That means that there are certain behaviors expected from gentlemen - and _not_ expected. As a result, I think she’s been fairly protected. A little rough verbal treatment might be a bad thing. Either Anne or Condi in debate with her would be worth watching…!
Comment by suek — 06.08.06 @ 8:02 pm
Andrew,
I think their motive gets questinoned based on what actually has spewed out of their mouths…La Sahwn post a great link to what such rany that sounds more like a spoiled 2 year old than a grown woman. If facts are presented, yes, someone can make a call about motive.
I think Ann’s point is made…many think dead relatives automatically means you have honest and pure motives. A grave mistake for anyone to make.
Comment by Renee — 06.08.06 @ 8:02 pm
All press is good press. She is good at manipulating the media and I’m surprised as the reaction when people know what she is doing.
Comment by DarkStar — 06.08.06 @ 8:35 pm
There are certain things you don’t trade and barter upon.
You don’t trade on a friendship.
You don’t barter on your children.
We don’t sell our families don’t the river—you aren’t supposed to, at least not in civilized society.
And, I wouldn’t trade on my widowhood.
It’s called self-aggrandizement; or, capitalizing on a tragedy. Using a tragedy for fun, and profit.
Too many people being enriched, enriching themselves off tragedies—-their own, and other people’s.
Comment by Glamchild — 06.08.06 @ 9:04 pm
You guys might enjoy Ms. Coulter’s CBC appearance, it’s over at the wikipedia.
With a deliberately laid back and prepared interviewer, Coulter couldn’t handle the silence.
Like a kid with ADHD.
I see from her bio she learned not to attempt to work a new crowd since, she’d be a disaster on the BBC, NZTV or ABC. Good media lesson for wannabe Coulters.
Rude is rude and when people don’t laugh or react to script, the meltdown is not pretty.
Comment by Bene D — 06.08.06 @ 10:03 pm
#72 Andrew notes: “Coulter is absolutely justified in questioning the widows’ expertise; out of line when questioning their motives.”
No. Ms. Coulter is not questioning their motives. Their motives are very clear: they are using their accidental fame to promote their political views.
Except for their accidental fame, their political views carry no weight. They have been anointed, by a willing press and the Democrats, as “worthy victims” of 9/11 and they have used that shield in myriad ways.
Ms. Coulter is entirely correct in clearly pointing out that what they are doing is not out of inconsolable grief, but by trading on the tragedy that befell them. They have risen above their grief and taken advantage of the death of their husbands for their own gratification. Their motives are crystal clear.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.08.06 @ 11:03 pm
What is it, Ann says??? Something like, “I write a book, the left is outraged, and everybody has a good time”!!!! The lady is smart and clever. Plus, she looks great in a little black dress!
Comment by Belle — 06.08.06 @ 11:30 pm
Outtakes06.09.06
A time to rejoice? — Paul Schafer from Boar’s Head Tavern raises a couple of interesting questions: “As Christians, are we supposed to rejoice with our nation when our nation killed al-Zargawi? As Christians, are we supposed to rejoice that…
Trackback by the evangelical outpost — 06.09.06 @ 1:31 am
Don’t flatter yourself, dear. Your “challenge” wasn’t anything of the sort. It was an insult. Insult me all you want on your own blog, but it won’t happen here. And before you question my faith, examine your own. - Admin
Comment by Brian aka The Angry Independent — 06.09.06 @ 8:49 am
I went back and re-read the exchange with Lauer — who obviously didn’t get it. And I think some of us might have gotten a little off track as well. It isn’t that women who have suffered tragedy have no right to an opinion (as Lauer attempted to frame it); it’s that women (or men) who exploit the media to advance political arguments should not be insulated from criticism simply because they experienced a tragedy.
And Ann has said something that I have believed for a long time: this was not an attack against them personally (the Jerzey Girls, that is). This was an attack against America. They have no more standing to influence government policy than anyone else. Their opinions on Iraq, etc., don’t have added validity just because they lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks. I’m sorry if that offends anyone but it’s true.
Comment by Greg — 06.09.06 @ 11:36 am
#83 Greg:
Bingo!
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.09.06 @ 11:52 am
Ditto what Helio said
BINGO #83 Greg
Comment by Renee — 06.09.06 @ 12:00 pm
Greg #63:”. . .don’t forget that the student body at New School University tried to get Bob Kerrey to resign as their President because he fought in Viet Nam.”
No, it was because he was saying he might have killed women and children in a raid, not just because he was in Vietnam. A little different.
Comment by Hazel — 06.09.06 @ 4:24 pm
Ann is right in her point, but wrong in her method.
One of the reasons I’m “conservative” even though I’m extremely liberal in some things, is that conservatives are civil, and honest, and willing to engage in debate without the visciousness of the left. The left has no tools at it’s disposal other than viper like assaults on the character of the right, and it is wrong to engage in that sort of assault.
I think the Jersey Girls are the most self righteous self absorbed people I’ve seen in a long time, and I think that this whole “moral authority” thing that the left loves “Don’t question Jack Murtha, he was a MARINE!” “Don’t Question Cindy, her son DIED!” “Don’t challenge Kerry, He was a Ninja who worked in cambodia!” “Don’t Call the Kennedies on their worse than trailor park activities! Their family has suffered so much (40 + years ago)” “Don’t challenge Michael Berg! who better to understand Nicks Wishes?!” Is all an effort to cover up the basic flaws in the orginal debate.
But I will not say that Teddy is Glad his family members died the way they did, so that he could secure a lifetime Senate seat. I would never say that Murtha did not love his country (though he has a hell of a way of showing it) cuz even if you are a Lousy Marine, it isn’t an easy job. I would never say that the Jersey Girls only wished their husbands were killed earlier so that they were more photogenic for their interviews, and “commission” appearances, and I would just say Mike Berg is a Lunatic. Nor would I say that Cindy thanks every day that Casey is dead.
The reason I would never say those things is because I can’t, _I_ can’t believe they are true. I CAN say that without a doubt, everyone of them love where they are now, and the only reason they got there (or in teddies case, STAYED there) is because of tragedy.
Thats why what Ann wrote was wrong.
She’s brilliant, but she is WAY too much a viper. We don’t need vipers, we need calm genius to express itself. She has the gifts, unfortunately, she enjoys this, since she isn’t the one paying the price. It’s a shame.
Comment by Wickedpinto — 06.10.06 @ 1:32 am
LaShawn Barber also posts a link to a recent HuffPost piece by Kristen Breitweiser (one of the Jersey Girls). The first paragraph of said piece reminds the reader of her husbands untimely death. The remainder is a baldly partisan attack on Rudolph Giuliani.
Pingback by Verum Serum — 06.10.06 @ 2:21 am
Ann Coulter, Marketing Genius - La Shawn Barber
See also: Coulter Does NYT a Favor; Reviews Own Book - Ann Coulter in Human Events
Trackback by The Seven Realms — 06.10.06 @ 10:38 am
La Shawn Barber has the best analysis of Coultershock, updating the original post with the help of some of her commenters: Ann says one thing liberals and some conservatives don’t like, and suddenly her photo’s plastered on front pages, her name is uttered on cable news shows all day long, and the blogosphere is buzzing off the…“blogometer†or whatever you’d call it.
Pingback by Reality and Sanity — 06.10.06 @ 7:18 pm
We have partisan hacks in the UK too. They too sell lies, half-truths and partisan propaganda to make money. The faux ‘moral’ stance is rarely if ever backed up by a retraction of the hurtful lies peddled, once exposed. We call it the ‘gutterpress’, and one doesn’t have to be a marketing genius to sell garbage to hungry gossips.
It’s all (just) money in the bank. Michael Moore too.
Comment by JohnD — 06.11.06 @ 8:34 am
Ann Coulter, Blackfive, & Michael Yon on Pundit Review
Wow. Where to start? What a week, eh? Our guys, along with the ING, killed al-Zarqaqi! HOOAH! On the same day, PM al-Maliki finished filling his cabinet. Now to see what time will bring.
Trackback by DoD Daily News — 06.11.06 @ 7:22 pm
This is a shame. Ann Coulter systematically destroyed the liberal’s precious Jersey Girls
Liberals can’t debate her. All they can do is throw cream pies at her AND MISS AT THAT!!LOL
Comment by Tyrone — 06.12.06 @ 12:28 am
Hazel, #86, my recollection was they didn’t care if it was true or not (the village attack) because they thought the mere fact of his service was contrary enough to what they felt the New School stood for.
But how about the protest over McCain’s commencement address at New School as another example? Or Condi’s speech to Boston College?
Comment by Greg — 06.12.06 @ 1:00 pm
I wonder….
if those 9/11 widows were backing Bush on this Iraq war and made pro-conservatve republican statements, would Ann coulter have said written this book? Nah…
ann coulter, marketing genius…
a hypocrite, but a marketing genius.
Comment by lukeNC — 06.12.06 @ 4:09 pm
Matt Drudge Interviews Ann Coulter (mp3)
Matt Drudge’s Sunday evening broadcast is recorded in real time and presented in beautiful low-fidelity mp3 format — perfect for those of us who cannot stay up until 1 AM on a school night.
LISTEN TO THE ARCHIVES:
» 9:30 segment (on WABC only) …
Trackback by pretend pundit — 06.12.06 @ 4:48 pm
“if those 9/11 widows were backing Bush on this Iraq war and made pro-conservatve republican statements, would Ann coulter have said written this book? Nah…
ann coulter, marketing genius…”
Ann Coulter has made her fortune whoring 9/11. End of story.
Surely she’s as much a genius as anyone standing on a street corner and shouting:
“Fags are gay”
“Conservatives are Evil”
“Liberals are Godless”
If you think you hate homosexuals, you’ll put a penny in the hat when he confirms how evil they really are. If you hate Conservatives…you’ll put a penny in his hat when he exposes how bad they really are…
Thing is, she is (fiscally) smart enough and mean enough to generalize, exploit, fabricate and strengthen the fear and hatred that gripped America on that day.
Albert Einstein was a genius.
Coulter is just paid to tell lies, half lies, and jingle some jingo.
It’s funny that people hate her so much when she is so transparent, anyone with half a heart or a quarter of a brain could see through her, or Michael Moore. Unless…
Comment by JohnD — 06.12.06 @ 5:10 pm
Ann Coulter’s “Godless” Makes the Liberals’ Heads Spin With Obfuscation! (Audio)
Ann Coulter’s new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is about how Liberalism has literally become a state enforced form of faith. Coulter says this herself in her own review of her book. (She did her own review because she knew Liberal le…
Trackback by Independent Conservative — 06.12.06 @ 7:06 pm
#97 JohnD: How long did it take you to read the booK?
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.13.06 @ 12:03 pm
#97 JohnD: How long did it take you to read the booK?”
The same amount of time it took me to read Fahrenheit 9/11.
Zip. Nada. Nothing. They don’t get my money. They don’t even get the shine off my shinola.
Gutterscum making cash from suffering.
Comment by JohnD — 06.13.06 @ 2:23 pm
Apologies Heliotrope, that statement of mine didn’t really illustrate what I’m talking about.
Assuming you didn’t read comment 97, or didn’t get where I was coming from, simply put: I detest liars intensely.
People who lie, slander, feed a propaganda machine and slander for profit make me want to literally throw up.
Add some nationalistic propaganda and generalized bigotry, and you might see how I wouldn’t want to line their pockets or spend all my time fact-checking someone who whores out lies, hypocrisy and partisan propaganda. Who’s worse? The hooker or the client?
A (small) demonstration of the hypocritical iniquity of someone like Coulter:
Coulter: “Only conservative women have their looks held up to ridicule because only liberals would be so malevolent.” (From the book ‘Slander’)
So, yeah, I’m with Coulter, she’s in the face of those mean liberals! Only THEY would pick on a woman because of her physique. Only conservatibe women get ridiculed for their looks!!! Thank the Good Lord that Coulter is a loving Christian and would never stoop so low.
But what’s this:
Coulter: “The only sort of authority Cindy Sheehan has is the uncanny ability to demonstrate, by example, what body types should avoid wearing shorts in public.” Godless, Page 128.
Ooops. Do as she says, not as she does?
Where have we heard that before? Yes, liberals!!
Keep on putting pennies in those hats folks..the End Of The World Is Nigh. No really.
Comment by JohnD — 06.13.06 @ 4:20 pm
#101 JohnD: “hypocritical iniquity.” What a concept. Have you checked out the result of latching that modifier with that noun?
I suppose that certain combinations of vitriol seem powerful, but careless usage of corrosives, even words, can backfire.
Your invective is perhaps intended to be an approximation of your assessment of Coulter’s writing style, but it does not seem to be intuitive enough to be equal to her plain. Just an observation.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.13.06 @ 11:48 pm
Yes Heliotrope. Way tear down my point, by attacking my poor grammar.
Pure class. You win.
Comment by JohnD — 06.14.06 @ 2:54 am
#103 JohnD: Your grammar is not the question. Perhaps if you consulted a dictionary, you would find that linking “hypothetical” and “iniquity” is to stand the English language on its head. (Something akin to saying stomach soothing nausea.)
I will ask though just what your beef with Ann Coulter is after you call her an exploiter, fabricator, a whorer, gutterscum, a slanderer, a Chauvinist and a hypocrite. Surely it can not be her use of language.
You distill it all down to her being a liar, which you detest intensely, yet you demonstrate no lie told. I remain confused.
Comment by Heliotrope — 06.14.06 @ 10:15 pm
Sorry Heliotrope, I didn’t type ‘hypothetical’ I typed ‘hypocritical’. But ‘hypocritical iniquity’ is a bad way to write, m’kay! ‘The iniquity and hypocrisy of Coulter’ would have been better.
I hope that clears the point, and please accept my apologies for poor writing skills.
“just what your beef with Ann Coulter is after you call her an exploiter, fabricator, a whorer, gutterscum, a slanderer, a Chauvinist and a hypocrite.”
Yes, I have a beef with those ‘qualities’.
The promulgation of a fallacy that there are two types of people in the world:
Type A (me) = wholly good
Type B (them) = wholly bad)
That is the most dangerous and disgraceful lie to be spread amongst people of the world.
Only the very worst among us would embrace such nonsense and then spread the same for cash. I cannot admire that. No matter how much money it makes.
Consider this statement:
‘the only group of people who make broad generalizations are the (insert broad political affiliation)’
I’ve seen it so often in the so-called blogosphere, yet it is nothing more than a PERECT demonstration of the ’self-destroying argument’.
No matter how much people defend Coulter, Moore et al…I can see how the defense is desperate, a refusal to face the reality or a glee to revel in the lies. They are cheap hacks getting rich by carefully manipulating and harvesting the basest human emotions to the most profitable effect.
Clever - yes - in the way someone realises that a coconut falls from a tree if they repeatedly bang their head against it.
Comment by JohnD — 06.15.06 @ 4:27 am
“You distill it all down to her being a liar, which you detest intensely, yet you demonstrate no lie told. I remain confused.”
No, I do not distill it, I do not like any of the qualities, roughly equally.
As for examples, any supporters do not like to believe that their heroes lie. I don’t get enough coconuts by banging my head against that tree
I note you didn’t defend the hypocrisy she exhibited by attacking another woman’s physique, while claiming that only a ‘liberal’ would do that. Does that make Ann (by her own definition) a, what? A liberal or a liar? Answer me that Heliotrope? Or shall I remain as confused as you claim to be?
Oooh, look what I typed,’liberal’ & ‘liar!’
Quick, meme-alert, alliteration bonus,
print me SOME MONEY!
Hint:
Google: Coulter, lies.
Google: Liberal, lies.
Google: Right-wing, lies.
Waste of time.
Comment by JohnD — 06.15.06 @ 4:46 am
“Barber-Shtick“, “skirmishers“, hmmm. I’ve got dibs on LBC stock
Ciao
Comment by Andy — 06.15.06 @ 3:04 pm
Ann Coulter and Conservative Cat
I know, I know. People think she’s been too harsh. Meanwhile, she has been asked to commit suicide and called just about every name there is to call someone.
Trackback by Blue Star Chronicles — 06.15.06 @ 8:05 pm