Posted on 09/19/2002 5:08:10 PM PDT by BrianS.Wise
Every once in awhile, someone says “no” to Ann Coulter, and a light-duty controversy ensues; typically you’ll see debate whenever some odd person or organization has the nerve to refuse a prominent woman’s desires, demands and / or opinions (e.g. the recent controversy over female memberships at Augusta National), but things are always different when Ann Coulter is the woman in question. The newest controversy began with a column, “Battered Republican Syndrome,” in which she fired off the following salvo:
“This [the Kennedy family badmouthing the Bush family out of turn] is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as ‘Camelot.’ Why would anyone want such people as ‘good friends’?” (Well then! Let it be said here that some of debate’s most unbelievable battles have been drawn around the bodies of the Kennedy boys; the most savagely your author has ever been handled in a debate was the night it came from the conservative podium, “Am I supposed to respect them [JFK and RFK] because they each used Marilyn Monroe as a spittoon?”)
The Centre Daily Times, a State College, Pennsylvania newspaper, took that as the last straw and dropped Coulter’s column from its pages, having previously informed its readers that the column was on probation (as it were) due to the frankness of her views and the manner in which they were conveyed. On The O’Reilly Factor, Times editor Bob Unger went to reasonable lengths to say 1) that his paper is basically a moderate paper in a largely Right-wing town, 2) that Coulter is a hater of Democrats, liberals, environmentalists and “most Muslims,” and that, 3) a majority of mail sent to his paper plainly stated they were okay with the column’s removal because people are “tired of hate.” Safe to say no vote was needed on whether or not people are tired of hate.
In defense of Ann Coulter: she is an asset to a movement (conservatism) that is, generally speaking, much too plaintive and soft spoken for its own good, that refuses to recognize the rest of the world has modernized while it hasn’t, that will not face its opposition (liberalism) in the same manner in which it is continuously treated. Coulter’s tendency is to respond to liberalism as it has responded to conservatism over the years, with open contempt. In terms of tone, she has said nothing here of the Kennedy’s that hasn’t been said of President Bush’s family, by the Left, with the accusations changed to retain relevance.
It also bares mentioning, though it should seem obvious, that Coulter gets as good as she gives; the difference between “Battered Republican Syndrome” and Thor Helsa’s old “Ann of a Thousand Lays” column for salon.com (in which it is suggested Coulter injects herself with her own urine to stay thin) is that Helsa’s piece is considered high comedy by its primary audience, while Coulter’s blasts are considered hate speech. (One cannot help but wonder if this is because Coulter’s work is actually being read by enough people to register an impact. How many bestsellers has Thor Helsa had?)
Now to the other side: The more often someone is dumped, the less likely it becomes the person being dumped is simply misunderstood (cf. Coulter’s previous problems with National Review Online). A certain act can play itself out in a column distributed, say, to Internet-only audiences, but when it comes to newspaper syndication, one should probably exercise a little more decorum. (Your author wouldn’t, for example, refer to Marilyn Monroe’s being used as a spittoon had this column been written for the Wall Street Journal.)
Those who appreciate Coulter (I am one) cannot help but wonder whether or not she consistently stacks the deck against herself because she enjoys the challenge (“I Stand Alone Against the World”) or because she is a keener public relations maven than originally suspected. No matter the overall truth of the Kennedy statement (and there’s nothing but truth in it), Coulter’s thought pattern doesn’t always translate well to those not as vehement in their objections, especially over breakfast.
Anyone who openly defies or opposes Ann Coulter is her enemy; whether or not this is inherently healthy as a personal philosophy can be debated (though one suspects not), even if on a base level people appreciate protectionism of one’s allies and beliefs. Problem is, the more managing editors she alienates, the less likely it is Coulter will be taken seriously, and the damage done then is not only to her reputation, but to conservatism in general, which her fans hope she comes to consider.
Yep.
I don't get the feeling so much that she's been a voice crying in the wilderness, ahead of her time and suffering for her beliefs, as that she's been a very fortunate person, seeing her opportunities and taking them. It's not so much that her judgement and discernment are to be valued as that there was a niche in the opinion market to be filled and she rather shrewdly occupied it.
Yep again.
Pretty shrewd yourself, x!
Ya know, Cote, I think if you were to read Slander your opinion might change. *S*
Teddy Kennedy drove off a bridge and killed a woman passenger, and liberals still consider him a viable presidential candidate even today. George W. Bush was stopped for drunk driving because a cop noticed he was . . . driving too slow. And you know what liberals made of that.
I hardly think one can argue that Coulter and liberals use the SAME demonization tactics.
If liberals have any examples of the Bush family committing rape or sexual harrassment, do let us know. I'm serious, don't cover it up. Do let us know. We wouldn't want a pervert like that in the Oval Office, after all. Or should I say, another pervert like that.
I happened by your comments.....
The thing about Coulter is she writes predominantly from emotion and from the gut.What you say here is essentially true but without notation leaves the wrong impression.
Your statement infers that Coulter is a simply a slugger, or more specifically, a gutter fighter without finesse....that she does not have a quick and excellent mind which she employs to connect people to reality without fuzz and window dressing.
In an age replete with yellow journalism, editorialized news, and the puffery of well coiffed news anchors, Ms Coulter has been ability to deliver quick, accurate,and "on her feet" presentations of fact.
Yes, she writes with "emotion" but it is woven tightly to fact which seems a rarity and a refreshing change. That she delivers her facts from the "gut" is quite true, yet it seems that she wants to convey information , to express information...rather than "impress" the people, as most of our more renowned conservative writers seem to find necessary.
Oh? She just had a best selling book on the NY times best seller list for weeks. I would say more than 10% understand where she is coming from.
BS.
LOL, I have no crush on her since I'm a female too; I admire her greatly and will forever give her the same loyalty she gives me and mine.
She is one of only a few who have had the guts to stand up to the left's demonizing of Christians. Many so-called righties have caved to the pressure. That's probably what I am MOST thankful to her for. She is fearless.
...Fact can't be debated, only our perception, opinion is questionable...
...That's a fact,,,IMO...
...I could be wrong...
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.