Ann Coulter discusses her latest book, "Slander" Today Show Couric Transcript

She's been called everything from a "pundit extraordinaire" to a "right-wing tele-bimbo." But one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is understated. In her latest book, "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right," the controversial author takes on big media, big government, and, most of all, liberals.

Ms. ANN COULTER ("Slander"): Nice to see you. COURIC: So your--your main thesis, Ann, is that liberals really misrepresent conservatives and the conservative movement, isn't that accurate?

Ms. COULTER: Yes, a little bit more than that, and that is that political debate with liberals is basically impossible in America today because liberals are calling names while conservatives are trying to make arguments. And when every one of your arguments is characterized as an attempt to bring back slavery or resegregate lunch counters, it's a little hard to have any sort of productive debate. I mean, I have no problem with invective, obviously, but the name of my book isn't "Invective," it's "Slander," and I think there ought to be a point to the invective.

COURIC: What are some of big liberal lies that are out there, in your estimation?

Ms. COULTER: I would say it's really all the same lie, which is conservatives are either stupid or scarily weird, and therefore you don't have to deal with their ideas. Just set them aside. This is a crazy person, it's a Nazi, someone who wants to engage in racism, sexism, homophobia. So don't listen to that person's idea. Take a quote out of context and dismiss that idea. The idea that Ronald Reagan was stupid, which I document at great length in my book. I mean, that is a stunning, stunning fact. The man, the bumbling old guy who won the Cold War, the way he was demeaned and attacked as being stupid. Meanwhile, when he was going into his second term, he was--suddenly there was this spate of special interest articles on senility and senility, growing senility and how old Ronald Reagan is, encroaching senility. Meanwhile, half of the Supreme Court justices were older than he was, and I didn't notice any of the liberal media asking that Justice Thurgood Marshall or Justice Brennan or Justice Black--Blackmun resign, though they were deciding life-and-death issues from the Supreme Court.

COURIC: I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me. And this is not where you call me the "Eva Braun of liberalism," which I'll ask you about...

COURIC: The affable, thanks. That makes me feel so much better. But you talk about the media bias against Ronald Reagan, and you use a quote, an open, from the TODAY show where we say an airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead, and we're quoting Edmund Morris, but frankly, in the book, you make is sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmund Morris. And I guess one of your problems is with--even using that, is that he said he was an apparent airhead and we failed to say apparent airhead. And during the course of the interview with Edmund Morris, I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book. It was a very, very unflattering portrayal. The Reagans were very unhappy with it. Conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards, Edmund--Edmund Morris was unhappy with the interview, and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for my line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jives with your contention that somehow, I'm a Ronald Reagan basher?

Ms. COULTER: Well, I didn't call you a Ronald Reagan basher. I said--which is true, that the TODAY show...

COURIC: Well, you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan, and I'm just curious why you took it so out of context.

Ms. COULTER: What I said, which is true, is that the TODAY show opened, I believe it was three days in a row, with the announcement Ronald Reagan was an airhead. That's the conclusion of this new book by Edmund Morris. When Edmund Morris came on for that interview with you, he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his points. And...

Ms. COULTER: ...his entire book was contradicting that. So when the author himself and George Bush, the vice president, was interviewed about this, all say that that was a grossly unfair characterization.

COURIC: Well, actually, he backpedaled considerably. If you had read the book by Edmund Morris...

COURIC: ...you would have seen that he was extremely critical of Ronald Reagan in the book.

Ms. COULTER: No, I didn't like the book, but he didn't call him an airhead. The TODAY show called him an airhead.

COURIC: He called him an apparent airhead. He did call him an apparent airhead. I have the quote right here if you'd like me to read it.

COURIC: ...and enchanting phrase, played occasional hooky from the White House speech writing department to help me build a chronology. And I was about to hire a full-time assistant, yet the magic of Geneva had faded. Dutch remained a mystery to me, and worse still, dare I entertain such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office, an apparent airhead." So these are Edmund Morris' words. But...

Ms. COULTER: And what was also in his words, though, when he came on your show, was that was a grossly unfair characterization and that that was at the beginning of the book. He said he described him as an apparent airhead on a very first meeting and that--and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that. So for the TODAY show to be opening three days in a row, Ronald Reagan was an airhead, I'm sorry, that's dishonest.

COURIC: No, it was just one day, and we'll get the transcripts for you. But anyway, he also said, Edmund Morris, "beyond amazement, I was distressed by the relentless banality, not to say incoherence of the president's replies and interviews." So he did make these--and he didn't really switch in the book, but we don't want to get too mired this.

Ms. COULTER: And yes. By the way, my book is not--not only solely not about this quote, it is not solely about the TODAY show. And it's...

COURIC: Well, let's just talk about the religious right. Actually, since I'm conducting this interview, one of the things you say is the religious right is misrepresented by the liberal media, that it isn't some organization that has club members and that it's used too sort of freely by liberals in the media. What do you mean by that? Can you elaborate, because I think that's an interesting point.

Ms. COULTER: Well, it's--it's more than the religious right is misrepresented. It's the idea that this is this Orwellian, and totemic symbol for people to hate. And when you try to figure out what the religious right is, it ultimately comes down either to one man, Pat Robertson, or anyone who believes in a higher being and wants his taxes cut, as The New York Times apparently describes the religious right. I mean, I've gone searching through transcripts and--and newspaper articles to figure out exactly what they're talking about. It seems to be anyone who wants his taxes cut and wants to eliminate the National Endowment of the Arts. Well, so you're either talking about, you know, half of America or one man. And--and still, this is used as an example to frighten Americans. It's--it's--the religious right is presumed to be self-evidently fanatical, intolerant, as, for example, the quote that has so captured the imaginations of gossip columnists, my calling you "the affable Eva Braun of morning TV." You--they can't put everything in context, but the context of that was a speech in which you blamed the dragging death of James Byrd on--on the intolerance created by evangelical Christians, which is just an astonishing statement.

COURIC: Actually, I didn't, but I'll have to get the exact transcript to quote you.

Ms. COULTER: Well, as luck would have it, all these quotes are in my book. That is in the footnote, the full quote.

COURIC: OK. We'll--we'll look at that, but I think the--the real problem you had was with the Matthew Shepard interview, and again, I don't want to do a tit-for-tat here because there are a lot of broader issues in your book that I want to talk to you about. One is that you take Walter Cronkite to task for criticizing Jerry Falwell for the remarks he said after September 11th. You write about what Falwell said, saying "Falwell, it seemed, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty." In fact, here is what Falwell actually said, something he incidently later apologized for. He said, "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say you helped make this happen." Do you agree with Jerry Falwell and shouldn't you have focused, perhaps, some of your attention on those remarks rather than on Walter Cronkite's, you know, distaste for what Jerry Falwell said?

Ms. COULTER: Not after September 11th. I did find quite astonishing that after September 11th, liberals seemed to be in overdrive watching out for the statements of Christians. I mean, what Jerry Falwell said there, whether you agree with it or not, is really fairly standard Jerry Falwell Christian doctrine. Yes, he's against abortion, he's against homosexuality, as is...

COURIC: But to blame them for the events of September 11th, you didn't find that a little disconcerting?

Ms. COULTER: No, what--no, what he said was that the Almighty had stopped protecting America because America was no longer asking for God's help. This is straight Christian doctrine and even if it had been some sort of peculiar sects of Christianity as opposed to straight Christian doctrine, I think it's a little bit peculiar that everyone was jumping on the statements of a Christian minister after thousands of Americans were slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists.

COURIC: You were also fired, I guess, because you wrote in the National Review that we should--when it came to fighting terrorism, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Do you still believe that that's the best way to combat terrorism worldwide?

Ms. COULTER: Well, that's a somewhat dishonest quote. I was referring to the people in the previous sentence of that column, cheering and dancing in the streets right now. And, in fact, this--the way that was so widely misquoted is an example of what I describe in my book, which is the constant mischaracterization, switching a small word, taking out the word, apparent. It makes a big difference and these subtle differences that are then glossed over as if there's absolutely no difference, to try to portray conservatives as crazy people, as--as Nazis, slave owners...

Ms. COULTER: ...sexist, homophobic. How about dealing with our ideas? I mean, I've written two books now, I've written hundreds of columns, I've been on TV hundreds of times. The idea that someone can go out and find one quote that will suddenly, you know, portray me, 'Just dismiss her ideas. Read no more. Read no further. This person is crazy!' This is precisely what liberals do all the time.

COURIC: But obviously--but obviously, the National Review had a problem with these articles and some of the pieces you did because you were fired from that job. Can you elaborate or at least tell us what you exactly meant?

Ms. COULTER: Well, that--that also isn't quite true. I mean, I write a syndicated column. I write for Human Events. That's the newspaper that hires me. People buy a syndicated column, they drop the column. But a lot of people don't like me for a lot of different reasons, including...

Ms. COULTER: Well, point one--point one and point two, by the end of the week, had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I--I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean, perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like Christianity.

COURIC: Well, Ann Coulter, it's always interesting to talk to you, to say the least. The book is called "Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right." Thanks so much for coming by this morning.

COURIC: You can check out or read an excerpt of "Slander" on our Web site at today.msnbc.com.

Hey I know it is not breaking news.

Bump it down where it should be. But it deserves immediate notice.

Her book is excellent. The first chapter is a perfect description of the liberal argument and how it is not an argument they ever make, but name calling and ad hominum.

Some sign up for today person just posted a Mother Jones article on the Bushes (pulled already) and it fit what Coulter described to a tee. Lots of name calling and insults and innuendo but no argument or substance.

Slander is must reading for all Freepers.

Ann Coulter is a reactionary xenophobic, just like most of us :).

I've been thinking about the situation with the huge influx of ME people in the last 10 years and have come to the conclusion this was all done very intentionally, but not for anti-American reasons. Our heritage is rich with examples of first generation strife and anxiety going back to the first gen irish and italians who rioted like madmen during the early 1900's over the inequality of conscription laws (back then rich folks could pay some poor bastard to take their spot on the maginot line). Of course they were also introduced to hot lead and soon decided better of the rioting. These first gen'ers went ballistic because their allegiance was not to Amerika, it was to the homeland. And they were considered the great unwashed by the english and dutch who had already set up shop in the US.

Fast forward to today. We have a first gen of ME immigrants, with both feet solidly in the past. They pray their asses off, they are fundamentalists and they are pissed at the US for banging on their homelands. A lot of them endured the US sponsored Israeli ass kickings of 67 and 72 and 91. But guess who gets the last laugh? Freedom and America that's who. Because their KIDS are getting into the AMERICAN CULTURE as fast as they can. AND THEY ARE STICKING THEIR MIDDLE FINGER UP TO THEIR DUMB ARSE parents who think they can still control them with the Koran and arrange for their marriage, blah blah. This is one case where peer pressure is a good thing. Anything to get them rebelling against their parents and loving American style freedom.

I believe we are seeing the last gasp from these fundies who are paddling like mad (along with the Chinese) to keep the freedom genie in the bottle. Good luck suckers. Hang in there old school americans. I think the ME second and third gen's are going to be no different from the irish and italians who came before. That is, unless we fall for the terrorist trap and disenfranchise the moderates. Disclosure: Long America, short repressive fundamentalist luddites.

Well, point one--point one and point two, by the end of the week, had become official government policy. As for converting them to Christianity, I--I think it might be a good idea to get them on some sort of hobby other than slaughtering infidels. I mean, perhaps that's the Peace Corps, perhaps it's working for Planned Parenthood, but I've never seen the transforming effect of anything like Christianity.

What a great zinger!

This is where Ann fails to step up to the bar in the conclusion of her book. Having made that statement, she, like so many of us, refuses to see the elephant in the living room. And that is that we cannot live in the same society with those with this sort of mindset. The liberal worldview is that reason is no guide to action; that one cannot live by principle; that the truth does not matter, and that anything goes if it feels good.

Liberals are not our friends. Men of reason and good will can disagree, but for the most part, they are content to let reality be the final arbiter. Facts, reason, logic and a ruthless respect for the truth are the common currency of civilized individuals. The problem with liberals is that You can never simply shrug your shoulders and walk away if you happen to disagree. They'll clap a hand on your shoulder, spin you around and 'improve' your judgement with a gun in your face. Always remember that the arguments of the left usually devolve into who can justify the most mass murder and tyranny - because they all know that that's what it would take to realize their sick dreams of dominion over every sphere of human thought and endeavor.

At the end of the day, what's left is open warfare. Time to stop deceiving ourselves.

Here is my email to Today@nbc.com

Subject: I am (was) so sick of Katie's liberal-bleed-through at every opportunity... I left.

I am (was) so sick of Katie's liberal-bleed-through at every opportunity... I left. (I am only commenting based on the transcript, and yes, Unfortunately for you, I get a Neilson diary) Just ask CNN what happened when they didn't talk balance to their hosts and anchors. You know, like, we report and you decide... It is happening to NBC, and I am enjoying it.

the early 1900's over the inequality of conscription laws (back then rich folks could pay some poor bastard to take their spot on the maginot line).

It was the 1860's and it was the American Civil War, not WWI, not that it matters cosmically.

We have a first gen of ME immigrants, with both feet solidly in the past.

The 19 "ME"'s that slammed two Boeings into the WTC buildings were not immigrants, at least not immigrants in the context of the early 1900's. These men were brutal thugs with no intent to immigrate, but to immolate. If you can't tell the difference, your lack of perception is disappointing (as is your knowledge of history).

"Always remember that the arguments of the left usually devolve into who can justify the most mass murder and tyranny -..."

Man, you sure hit that nail square on the head with a big hammer. Not just that sentence quoted, but your whole post. As one of "Barry's Boy's, it is heartening to find this depth of understanding of the essential psychology of those that think left.

Regards, Buck.

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.