Posted on 10/29/2004 11:02:14 PM PDT by publius1
'How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)': All Their Fault By LIESL SCHILLINGER
Published: October 31, 2004
LISTEN, I'm as open-minded as any liberal -- as all liberals. We have to be that way: it says so in Webster's dictionary, where, among other things, the word ''liberal'' describes someone who ''displays tolerance of others' views.'' So I'm happy to let Ann Coulter talk. She stands before me as I write this. Smug, boxy and impassive, she wears one of her trademark microminis. I recall what my high school English teacher back in Oklahoma used to say about essays -- they should be ''like a miniskirt: long enough to cover the subject, short enough to be interesting.'' Coulter's subject must be brief indeed.
I press the button at her waist, and she begins to spout: ''Liberals can't just come out and say they want to take more of our money, kill babies and discriminate on the basis of race.'' I press again: ''Why not go to war just for oil? We need oil.'' Again: ''At the risk of giving away the ending: it's all the liberals' fault.'' Again: ''At least when right-wingers rant there's a point.'' Oh really? I begin to quiz her on this last bit of whimsy, but she doesn't appear to hear me. This isn't surprising because the Coulter who is speechifying at this particular liberal is the Special Edition Ann Coulter Barbie-type doll, loaded with recorded sound bites of conservative vitriol from the venomous vixen herself. The doll is incapable of listening -- just like the woman who inspired her. But there's one difference between the flesh woman and the vinyl one: unlike the toy, the real Ann Coulter doesn't come with the useful advisory: ''Warning: Choking Hazard.''
Coulter's latest grab bag, ''How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must),'' which reiterates and expands upon the insights contained in her doll, in her partisan tirades on television and in her previous books, ''Treason,'' ''Slander'' and ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' is a collection of her published and unpublished fulminations. It reaches as far back as 1991 (a justly rejected rant on feminist legal theory, written for National Review, that begins with her recollection of a snuff film), but concentrates on the more recent work from her syndicated columns. There's the one from last November that jeered at Democrats for asking President Bush for an exit strategy and discounted American war deaths in Iraq on the grounds that the murder toll in Washington in 2002 was higher. And, from this year, her stomach-churning attacks on Max Cleland, the former Georgia senator, mocking him for his 1968 grenade accident in Vietnam, which left him a triple amputee. The cracks are plastered in with assorted cultural musings. (Pondering examples of the ''slutty-girl genre'' like ''Sex and the City,'' she wrote in 2000: ''This is not how women talk. This is how some men might talk -- if women would let them.'' This from the woman who, 60 pages on, describes Americans who question George W. Bush's National Guard service as ''jock-sniffers for war veterans.'')
One of the book's few demonstrations of nuance is a chapter that defends the honor of the Confederate flag, pointing out that liberal-minded Union soldiers praised the valor of their opponents in the South and mentioning that Winston Churchill called the Civil War the ''last war fought between gentlemen.'' But even this chapter is soiled with a gratuitous smear of American blacks who, by wearing kinte cloth and choosing to call themselves African-Americans, Coulter says, ''express pride in their slave-trading ancestors'' back in Africa.
Still, the book affords some unexpected pleasures for nonconservatives -- like discovering how many of its statements you can actually agree with. On the Democratic Party, for example: ''Democrats will vote their consciences even if it hurts them politically and all Republicans ever do is call people names.'' On President Bush, ''the religious-right nut currently occupying the White House'': he ''said he was a 'reformer with results' -- LIAR!'' On civil liberties: ''We must not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms.'' And the Iraq War: ''I'm saddened, saddened, that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war.''
Of course, in all these passages, Coulter means to deride liberal attitudes, both real (two of those quotations are from Tom Daschle and John Edwards) and invented. But hey, for Coulter, that's as close to fair dialogue as a liberal is likely to get. To paraphrase what her side has said of John Kerry, she might as well debate herself. Coulter is the only opponent she's prepared to hear out; indeed, she writes early in the book that she doesn't really want to talk to liberals since ''in most cases I don't even like them.'' Well, in the words of mean girls everywhere: the feeling is mutual.
As a token liberal, I'm uniquely qualified to take on this token conservative because -- What do you know? Madame Alexander used to make a ''Liesl'' doll (still available in collectors' circles), named for the eldest daughter of an Austrian family that fled their country when it was annexed by a corrupt, power-drunk dictator. Perhaps the two dolls can square off. Disadvantage: only the Coulter doll can speak. Advantage: neither doll has to listen.
Liesl Schillinger is an arts editor at The New Yorker and a regular contributor to the Book Review.
BTTT
The term for this "review" is "catty."
Of course, this is exactly what today's "liberals" do NOT do. Even their name is a lie.
Got me. Pretty bad review when all you can really say is you don't like the author. Oh well. I'll bet she wishes she could sell as many books as Ann Coulter!
And probably not as pretty...
I prefer the term "beotchy".
Ok now girls why don't we just take a deep breath, thats right, and try to think of nice things, yes, a bird chirping, you are lying on a beach, feel the sun's warmth, ga ga ga PUKE!
Most conservative books don't even get reviewed by the New York Times.
I can see quite a bit of jealousy in the reviewer. Probably wondering why she is two bit book reviewer and Ann Coulter is praised and adored by conservatives. Also very intent on Ann's clothing. That seems a bit strange in a book review.
The critic really had her feelings hurt by the book. This review will sell books though, even libs will want to read it.
This review is the normal hit piece on Coulter. The liberals, especially this liberal, call her names and take statements out of context. Frankly, it would not shock me to find out that this liberal did not read Ms. Coulter's book. I have. publius1 is correct, just another liberal without facts demonstrating that they are (allegedly) smarter than we are. They are wrong of course, but sometimes it is better to let the liberals talk, because they get in trouble that way.
Or hard working, and judging from the hits on looks, not as good looking either.
I'm reading the book now - it is a riot. And highly accurate.
I don't like talking to "liberals" (leftists - they really stand for anti-liberalsim)either - glad someon ehad the courage and common sense to point it out.
Diva's Husband
I thought Ann Coulter related posts ALWAYS came with pictures? Cough up! LOL
No - - there's really nothing to understand except that Ann clearly hit a nerve. This rambling "review" is nothing more than the typical liberal's response to Ann - - a fit of childish pouting and delusional indignation. That the former "paper of record" actually published this review is another clear indication of just how far the New York Times has slid. It's pathetic.
Regards,
LH
'"I don't like you either, except that I'm not as bright or witty?"'
I've gotta find a pic of this Liesl - and of course, someone has to get the coulter pic...
She's a babe who probably wears microminis too. But like Ann, she's a partisan with her own leanings. These are a pair of pretty girls who will never meet.
"LISTEN, I'm as open-minded as any liberal -- as all liberals"
Gawd! I saw this first off and I'm still gagging. Didn't even bother to read the whole thing....what tripe.
And launches into a withering critcism of Ann's book. When it comes to conservative ideas, let's just say liberals - including liberal media babes like Liesl... aren't as open-minded as they claim they are.
Girl fights were so much more exciting in high school.
WHAT? The New York Slimes really reviewed a conservative book????
The world must be ending!!!!
I'd love to see these two reprise the famous Miller's beer mudfight commercial. When two beautiful women start wrestling... well you'll have to think about who's going to end up on top! ;-)
You happy yet?
Regards,
LH
Webster never met Lawrence O'Donnell.
She's probably fat and homely.
The DUers can now put pics of lovely Liesl instead of having to content themselves with Helen Thomas. They've been sooo jealous of us until now!
I'm guessing that nobody really cares how long or short her mini skirt is, either.
Take a look at post #19. I feel sorry she's NOT on our side...
Eff 'em, if they can't take a joke.
Well, she's not fat.
They may meet physically at some point, but never intellectually. Ann is more intelligent and has a rapier wit. This woman has delusions of adequacy.
Does she really sound like one of her wind-up dolls? I do think though that Liesl is stretching the caricature a tad too far. Ann's sarcasm tends to get lost on the other side.
Agreed.
All I got from this "review" is that the chick is jealous of our beloved Ann.
What a whiner!
not bad looking?
woof woof woof!
LIESL SCHILLINGER
Being better looking than Helen Thomas isn't saying much.
It is not intended to "make sense." For example:
"like a miniskirt: long enough to cover the subject, short enough to be interesting." Coulter's subject must be brief indeed.
On the face of it, I guess this is supposed to be Dorothy-Parker-devastating, but when you actually read it, what it says is either: Her subject must be REALLY interesting, or how one talk's to a liberal must not require much coverage. In either case, not what the liberal author intended, certainly. But it sounded good to people who read English as nothing so much as a short burst of words that briefly flare the emotions without ever reaching the brain. It's sub-cortical, so don't try to "get it."
Or how about this:
To paraphrase what her side has said of John Kerry, she might as well debate herself.
Notice the subtle and completely nonsensical shift between what "her side" (which wrote no book) has said, and the author herself has said. And what do we make of what we, or she--it's not really clear--have had to say? Why nothing at all. The sentence is content free. We (or she) are just debating ourselves. (But of course we are my dear! We can't debate with people who don't understand argument, fallacy, implication, conclusion and all that goes with it.)
The macro view is very tiresome, but the micro view isn't any better. Here's just one example:
As a token liberal, I'm uniquely qualified to take on this token conservative ...
Now the word "token" in this context means, existing only for the sake of display, in an otherwise sterile or indifferent environment, at least in places where English is understood. So, what do we make of Liesl's sentence? Apparently she is a person hired by various New York magazines, but only because of a shortage of liberals there. And Ann Coulter evidently is somebody's "token" conservative, although, since she's self-employed it's difficult to know whose. Of course, again, this isn't what the author intends, because the word "token" doesn't really have any meaning as used here. (Perhaps she's paid by the word.)
But never mind. In the wacky world of the liberal reviewer, words aren't really supposed to mean things. The "essential truth" of her review is that correct conduct is to despise Ann Coulter. All Times and New Yorker readers intuitively grasp this and that is all the semi-literate denizens of the New York underworld are capable of anymore.
For those who aren't even capable of that, perhaps a nice picture could be provided, with suitably doctored shading.
i suggest we all freep this nutcase. have a good time.
Indeed. She's a shrill, unfunny, opportunistic hack basically living off the naughty thrill some conservatives have at having their "own" raving lunatic to counter the hordes of them on the Left.
Any two sentences of a writer like Steyn or PJ O' Rourke are both more entertaining and more valuable than Coulter.
I will disagree with you on one point....
I think she's profoundly ugly. Mishapen and out of proportion, needs to be locked inside a Krispy Kreme store for a month till she puts on about 25 lbs. I do have this anti-long hair fetish on women that biases me a bit.
But Someone like Laura Bush is about 10 times more attractive and Laura Bush at the same age Coulter is now would be about 50 times more attractive.
Schillinger can't write well and isn't funny, only bitter, and in that is identical to another New York Times bleater, Maureen Dowd.
Paragraph One is a thud of a rimshot, the tired old miniskirt simile. Extra points for reading the subtext of tut-tutting over the brevity of Coulter's miniskirts. The Times, having rammed homosexuality and abortion down our throats, will now police up the nation's hemlines thank you very much.
Paragraph Two demonstrates Liesl the namesake of the snooty doll doesn't know her Chatty Cathy from her Barbie.
Paragraph Three contains the standard leftist gasp how dare you mock Max--a red herring/strawman device: Cleland didn't lose any limbs in combat; he had a bad habit of dropping live grenades which caught up with him. It may be added that he aided and abetted the forged documents used by Dan Rather, amother leftist bomb thrower hoist on his own petard.
In Paragraph Four Liesl waves the nuance flag, intoning that that girl can't nuance like us liberals do whop whop.
In Paragraph Six Liesl bleats some acid reflux about "prepared to hear out"--oh, to be sure, like James Carville, Chris Matthews and Laurence O'Donnell, hmm?
Ann Coulter uses sarcasm and exaggeration to depict the strident fools on the left.
Schillinger uses huffy smarminess and bad writing to prove Coulter's point: liberalism is a mental disease.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.