Posted on 07/23/2002 8:45:11 AM PDT by TLBSHOW
Coulter's 'Slander' a lazy mix of errors, invective
Coulter's 'Slander' a lazy mix of errors, invective In her book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right ,
the hyperventilating conservative pundit Ann Coulter states that one of the "unbending rules of the universe" is that "It is horrendous to attack a woman for her looks."
Yet in the very next paragraph, Coulter writes, "A blind man in America would think the ugliest women ever . . . are Paula Jones, Linda Tripp, and Katherine Harris. This from the party of Bella Abzug."
Now that's impressive. With a two-paragraph spread, Coulter just might have set the record for hypocritical invective.
And Coulter must think Rush Limbaugh is "horrendous," seeing as how Limbaugh has mocked the looks of Hillary and Chelsea Clinton and Sally Jessy Raphael, among others.
Speaking of Limbaugh, Coulter tells her readers, "Locating some minor accuracy by Rush Limbaugh ... turned out to be more difficult than I imagined ..." and goes on to speculate about the "off chance that anyone ever ... locate[s] some minor inaccuracy ..." in Limbaugh's work.
full story please see barf alerted source......
Does he have a #1 best seller on the NYT list? Or is he just a book reviewer for Chicago's 2nd place newspaper?
Wow. Talk about your lazy errors. It's quite clear that she is saying that a blind man in America would think these women are ugly BECAUSE LIBERALS HAVE ATTACKED THEM ON THEIR LOOKS. Ann didn't say that they were ugly. Sheesh.
Ah, but someone who hasn't read the book will not realize that " ... " is about what Liberals are saying, (although that part about Bella Abzug really IS a hypocritical thing for Coulter to say, but it was funny).
"Coulter demonstrates sloppy bias when she writes, "When ABC was considering scrapping Ted Koppel's 'Nightline' in early 2002 because of its low ratings.....Of course, the primary reason ABC considered dropping "Nightline" wasn't ratings--it was the chance to hire David Letterman.
And why did they need Letterman....ratings perhaps?????? Ok, example two of Coulter's 'errors':
"....[Jesse] Jackson's son also got his own television show--while actually serving in Congress...... Wrong again. True, it was once announced that Jackson would be getting a weekly show on Channel 2, but the program never came close to getting on the air.
It is amazing how the author tries to nit pick to find these 'errors'. Jackson Jr. was given a show it just never panned out. Imagine the uproar if someone like Fox News offered Newt Gingrich a TV show? The media would still be crying bloody murder and using it for an example of Fox News bias, whether it ever aired are not.
Here's a great example of how totally clueless this paid liberal bimbo is:
Chicago Sun-Times
March 25, 1999 RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
March 25, 1999
BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Hillary Rodham Clinton's supporters point to Robert F. Kennedy as shining proof that an outsider with a household name can move to New York state on a moment's notice and still be elected to the United States Senate.
It's too easy, but I'll say it anyway: Hillary, you're no Bobby Kennedy.
(Ah, that felt good.)
Until now I've resisted jumping into the will-she-or-won't-she debate about Clinton's political ambitions, mainly because I figured the frenzy was largely the creation of a Washington press corps suffering from Monica withdrawal syndrome and desperately seeking another big story. Hillary for senator? Sounded more like wishful thinking--fodder for the topic-starved cable shows--than a solid possibility.
But the first lady is refusing to issue the outright denial that would make the story go away. This week Clinton acknowledged making "lots of calls" to friends and associates to get their input, and she was quoted in USA Today as saying she will "continue speaking out on behalf of the issues that I've spent more than 25 years working on. Any way I can continue to do that, I intend to. But the form that will take I really can't predict at this time." So apparently she really is flirting with the idea of running for the Senate, presumably against Rudy Giuliani.
How stupid.
Forget, at least for now, about whether Clinton would make a good senator. I'm sure she'd be all right--better than some, not as effective as others, certainly not the worst we've ever seen. (What, she couldn't top Carol Moseley-Braun's legacy?) It just seems as if it would be an incredible blunder, from a political, personal and practical point of view.
First there's the matter of the campaign itself, which would have the New York City tabloids salivating like Rottweilers eyeing a pork chop. The media-loathing Clinton would be subjected to daily headlines and stories about her husband, her daughter, her friends, her hair, her clothes, her calves, her campaign finances, her health care debacle, her own sexual history, you name it. You think the New York Post would be gentle with her? Puh-lease. If they've got a photo of Hillary chomping a hot dog with her mouth open on a bad hair day, it gets played on the front page. Big.
That's just one element of the media factor. In order to get her message out and compete with the camera-loving Giuliani, the often snippy first lady would have to submit to interviews with TV stations from Syracuse to Albany to Buffalo, and she'd have to do radio segments with the inexplicably powerful Don Imus and the deservedly influential Howard Stern. If she didn't, she'd get buried. Hillary could barely maintain a cheery facade with Matt Lauer and Steve Kroft; how's she going to grit her way through the local stuff and the radio goofing she no doubt believes is beneath her dignity?
Running for senator also means Clinton wouldn't have time to write the book that could erode a hefty portion of the family's legal bills. Even if she did find the time and the ghostwriter to churn out an autobiography, how forthcoming is she going to be if she's eyeing the Senate? And if it's not going to be a revealing, intimate work, the advance will disappear.
A campaign also means Hillary will have to at least temporarily eschew the $100,000 speaking fees, the lucrative corporate board memberships, the law firm partnership and the many other financial opportunities that would undoubtedly be awaiting the most fascinating first lady since Jacqueline Kennedy. You can't fly to Japan and accept a $1 million speaking fee--not if you're in the middle of a campaign.
As for the race itself, the risk isn't worth the reward. Right now, Clinton is enjoying unprecedented public favor, and as a former first lady her stock would only rise.
That would all change with a campaign.
If Hillary wins, she's the junior senator from New York. She gets a windowless office and a smallish staff, and she'll have to suck up to Senate veterans who barely got the time of day from her when she lived in the White House. When she visits her former residence, she'll have to wait in reception lines to say hello to the new first lady, be it Mrs. Gore or Mrs. Bush or Mrs. Underdog. That'll kill her.
If she loses--and I think she would--her social, professional and financial clout would be diminished.
The media want to see a Clinton-Giuliani race because it would make for great copy. Democrats want to see Clinton run because they think she's the best hope of keeping that Senate seat. Bubba probably would favor it because he owes Hillary big-time and this will be a chance for him to blabber about how his wife is the greatest thing since the invention of the intern.
My question is, why in the world would Hillary want to do it?
Richard Roeper (rroeper@suntimes.com) appears Tuesdays at 7:55 a.m. and Wednesdays at 8:30 a.m. on WFLD-TV's "Fox Thing in the Morning."
"Running for senator also means Clinton wouldn't have time to write the book that could erode a hefty portion of the family's legal bills. Even if she did find the time and the ghostwriter to churn out an autobiography, how forthcoming is she going to be if she's eyeing the Senate? And if it's not going to be a revealing, intimate work, the advance will disappear."
===========================
Is that a hoot, or what!!!
Coulter reminds me of the little girl in "Hey Arnold!" who shouts in Arnold's face that she hates him--though she secretly loves him.
Maybe that's how Ann feels about liberals. Maybe deep down, she's got a crush on us. It's kinda cute.
Maybe deep down inside, there's some wishful thinking on the part of a media critic who cites "Hey Arnold" as a literary reference.
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.