L’Affaire Coulter

National Review Online ^ | 10/3/01 | Jonah Goldberg

[BamaG]

This, of course will change no one's mind. Those who worship at the alter of Ann will continue to make "girly boy" comments and refuse to acknowledge that the National Review even had the right to drop her. I will continue to subscribe, as I have done for years.

[duvausa]

Me too

[BurkeanCyclist]

I was just about to post this. Glad I did one last search, because now you can take the heat for pointing out that there are two sides to this squalid little issue.

[sendtoscott]

btt

[Constitution Day]

This sounds like a catfight to me. But I'll still subscribe.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Of course NR had the right to drop her. So what? Go Ann!!

[The Other Harry]

[lady lawyer]

I wish they'd stop tearing each other apart in public. The attempts at self-justification on both sides just make them look small.

[ken5050]

I'm surprised that JG didn't blame the column on PMS.....

[Jim Robinson]

These people should not be airing their lace panties in public.

[NittanyLion]

I agree with you - Coulter seems to be acting very odd lately. I understand that this is an emotional time for all, and hopefully she'll regain her senses soon.

[Right Wing Professor]

Ditto. But if Jonah wanted to get beyond the 'girlyman' monicker, he should have edited out the cattiness in this column. It's, well, unmanly.

[Notforprophet]

"Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty."

This line is particularly low, and IMHO a cheap shot. What's the matter Jonah, did Ann hurt your feelings?

Notforprophet

[11th Commandment]

I think NRO should have picked-up the phone and called her. Solving issue via email is sloppy business practice.

[francisandbeans]

actually, this did change my mind. Jonah laid it our pretty well here, without resorting to name calling, and I believe that Ann is not of sound mind with lingering thoughts of Barbara Olson.

[white rose]

I'm usually a big fan of Ann's work, and I have no particular fondness for National Review (sorry, Jonah, but "girly-boys" is almost too apt.) However, that "Bring back the Crusades" column was embarrassing, and, from what I've heard, her behavior ever since has been yet more embarrassing. I understand how overemotional she is about 9/11--who isn't?--but Goldberg's right, her feelings are overriding her good sense on this one.

[habs4ever]

So, she blew it.NR will carry on, and I will continue to enjoy the wide variety of writers they have.It's all very petty.

[stylin_geek]

Methinks this whole affair smacks of publicity for both sides. Nothing like a knock-down, drag out brawl to bring attention to both sides.

As for Jonah Goldberg, to claim the article was not edited is amusing. Does this mean it was formatted and uploaded to the NR site by Ann Coulter without aid of someone at NR?

Yes, I would give all my writers the access codes and tools to upload to my site. /sarcasm off

I will continue to read both NR and Frontpage. Heck, liberal publications are talking about the battle, which means perhaps some people who only pay attention to mainstream lefty lib news will find out there is another side to the news.

[IowaHawk]

These people should not be airing their lace panties in public

Yeah, but can't we make an exception for Ann?

[Justin Raimondo]

Goldberg: Oh, we've published PLENTY of anti-Arab, anti-Islamic, kill-everyone screeds, but Ann's was too ... honest.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Worse than Goldberg is David Horowitz, who "hired" Coulter as soon as she got the boot from NRO. His explanation was that her "invade their countries, and convert them to Christianity" was "tongue-in-cheek." Yeah, right. At least Coulter has the, uh, cojones to say what she really believes -- as stupid as it is.