Good...keep them coming.
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.
Good...keep them coming.
Ann, baby....you keep it up.
My, my--what an indictment of Coulter. A college newspaper dropped her column. What enlightened readers we have at State College. I hope they enjoy their stead diet of pseudo-intellectual liberal dribble. Coulter tells it like it is. She has nothing in common with the leftist set and that is great with me. I hear they're looking for a cub report at the Daily Blab. I'm sure you're just the writer they're looking for.
You hit the nail on the head.
Someone give that waif a burger.
The Clinton's brought war to politics in America by misappropriating power, and it became fashionable. The Liberals have already declared war and Ann is defending the ideals of a society under siege.
To paraphrase a great quote from another generation, "And they came for the gypsies, then it was the Jews, then it was the... and when they came for me there was no body left" - so, I am assuming that you are on this type list and of the same mindset as all those individuals who failed to stand together and then allowed a society such as Germany’s between the 1932 and 1945 to be purged of VOCIAL dissent, while the VOCIAL dissent that was distasteful from a government or political party which you inherently feared was destroying everything good and decent - for Germany those people who held that power was the National Socialist Party....
At least Ann is allowed to speak out with a dry wit, an ironic sense of both humor and duty, and with truth’s exposure mired in the lines so eloquently blunt.
Brian, that is precisely the point! Ann Coulter tells the truth in a direct style. Those opposing her can't stand the truth or can't stomach her style. Both are really her enemies.
Ann is carrying the conservative fight directly back into the liberal enemy's camp. And it's about time somebody did it. We conservatives have too long hid behind politeness as a shield for not refuting liberals' outrageous behavior and lies.
Ann's arena is not a social gathering, it's a philosophical battleground. Until we understand this, and act on it, liberals will always have the advantage. Thank goodness we now have the Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs speaking up.
Brian, I'm glad you shared your opinions on this. You are doing your bit. And so are Ann & Rush.
Just like Rush Limbaugh did?? Oh, that's right; Rush is still heard all over the country.
I don't see much difference between the things Ann Coulter writes and the things Rush says and does on his program. They are both entertaining and are very effective at making their point.
My wife is just about to finish 'Slander' and loves it. I cannot wait to read it myself. It seems to me some people cannot deal with an outspoken, conservative woman who happens to be an outstanding writer.
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.