Defying Ann Coulter

http://www.intellectualconservative.com ^ | Thursday, 19 September 2002 | Brian S. Wise

[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.

[DainBramage]

What exactly did she say about the Kennedy clan that wasn't based in fact Brian? You need to start writing a little more frankly, like she does, not the other way around

America is tired of condoning the filth we have for leaders as role models. She is speaking the truth, and in your heart you know it, you just don't have the guts to say it in print.

[cactusSharp]

you go Ann.......when they write like this,
you are doing your God given responsibility

[RAY]

Probably on about 10% of the public understands and put in the right perspective Ann Coulter's statements. The politically correct crowd will never like her statements.

[BrianS.Wise]

I said that: "(and there's nothing but truth in it)"

[VRW Conspirator]

...Those who appreciate Coulter (I am one) cannot help but...

heh-heh

[jraven]

She's way off the deep end and, it's true, using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals. So she pleases those who agree with her but if anyone is wavering she turns them off. I would think liberals would WANT to have her appear since she loses converts to conservatism who are not into the same kind of demonization that liberals do to conservatives. Her credibility goes down each day. I read and enjoyed her book -- but I think it has been downhill from there. What if someone a liberal columnist had jokingly said he only wished McVeigh could have blown up Fox News instead or the Weekly Standard instead. It's ironic because Slander is a great title and, for a lot of it, a great book -- but it's the pot calling the kettle black. She uses the same tactics as those she critizes. And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc. The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing. You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.

[martin_fierro]

bares mentioning

Hey, Mr. Intellectual: Check your spelling.

[BrianS.Wise]

OH NO! Dammit!

[Dan De Quille]

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.

Boy, have you got that right. We need a few more Ann Coulters.

[DainBramage]

You also said this:

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

And its not true. Her message is spreading far and wide and striking a chord in hearts like your and mine all across America. It's just that Trent Lott, and the rest of our limp wristed Repub leaders have never stood up like this and spoken the truth, so the liberal editors are trying to call it a foul, when in reality ...it is reality.

I don't mean to come off harsh towards you personally, as I realize that she is in the financial position to risk it all, and you might not be. I know she is wrong sometimes, but never a detriment to our cause.

[BrianS.Wise]

Thanks, Dan.

[BrianS.Wise]

No harshness detected. The idea is for the columns to be read and reacted to.

[sport]

Some people just can't handle the truth.

[joesbucks]

Couldn't have been better said. Ann is to conservatives what Begala and Carvile are to liberals in terms of public appearance. They are red meat people......and truly are just mirrors of each other.

[joesbucks]

Brain....good article. If you took Ann's name off and put a liberals in, you'd be getting applause from the same folks who are now jeering.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.

[TLBSHOW]

Ann would not be Ann if she took your advise.

[narby]

I saw the interview on O'Reilly with the editor of this paper. I don't believe a word he says.

He claims that his paper has gotten thousands of message about their cancelling Coulters column, and the vast majority were in favor of it.

People don't take the trouble to send a newspaper a message unless they're mad. There's no way that many people took up the trouble to send a congratulatory message to the paper. Unless it was orchestrated by DU, in which case, the editor's point is invalid.

What I'd like to know is how many e-mails, and what do they say now? After this has been brought out by O'Reilly.

I personally think there's an effort to rid the world of Coulter, as they attempted to do to Rush, after she trashed the NYTimes so well in her book.

[dark_lord]

I think Ann is useful. You are correct in that the conservative position has been too...intellectual, too restrained, too polite in many respects. To get the liberal media to notice, we need a few Ann's - the conservative answer to Carville the ugly snapping turtle.

It is too bad we don't have 2 or three others just like Ann - over the top and in their face. It gets read, and the fact is, it is an ideological battle here. Which I think you recognize.

[independentmind]

She's way off the deep end and, it's true, using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals. So she pleases those who agree with her but if anyone is wavering she turns them off. I would think liberals would WANT to have her appear since she loses converts to conservatism who are not into the same kind of demonization that liberals do to conservatives.

Bravo. At last someone gets it. Why do you think that the mainstream press only features bellicose conservatives? Most conservative pundits appear to be caricatures of the real thing.

She uses the same tactics as those she critizes. And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc. The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing. You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.

Yes , but she looks sooo goood in all of the glam shots which are plastered all over FR. I wonder what she was thinking when she posed for them.

[goldstategop]

Ann is better looking than Bella Abzug and the Hildabeast. What upsets our opposition is they don't have her.

[John Lenin]

I get it, Janet Reno as atrocius as she is, can say or do anything and the media lapdogs ignore it. Ann comes out and speaks the absolute truth about the Kennedys and she is labeled extremeist ?

[stlrocket]

I watched O'Reilley last night and his tepid interview of this "editor" from this small college town in PA. The guy was a wimp who showed the classic traits of many so called Republican Conservative - a Backbone of Jello!

He was mostly afraid of "offending" a reader with "harsh" words and Anne is "mean".

O'Reilley is now and always will be a Socialist who has found a niche because he is willing to actually speak out on a few select issues that Conservatives want.

O'Reilly is: Anti SUV - a border line "green," Anti death penalty, For the minimum Wage increase, and many other "Socialist" issues.

He also totally missed the fact that the editor used as part of his justification the fact that he received 6,000 e-mail supporting his act, 90% of which agreed with him. (THERE ARE NOT 6,000 PEOPLE IN COLLEGE STATION, PA. THAT GET HIS PAPER!) O'Reilley is not smart enough to know that the DU sent over 5,000 of those e-mails!

He also does not like Anne Coulter - you could tell by his questions and attitude.

ANNE COULTER - LOOKING GREAT

[gcruse]

...will not face its opposition (liberalism) in the
same manner in which it is continuously treated.

Take a bow, Trent Lott.  How I miss Newt.

It also bares mentioning, though it should seem obvious,

Heh.  A wagon bears a load.  Something bears mentioning.

Anyone who openly defies or opposes Ann Coulter is her enemy

Tell me about it.  Ask her about the misbegotten War on Drugs sometime.

[bobsatwork]

"...using the SAME demonization tactics she decries in liberals..."
No, she doesn't use "the same" tactics. You know this if you actually read her book. She uses invective when it fits the actions of her subjects / targets (EG: Whitman acted stupid when patted down a Black man for the cameras - Coulter calls her a birdbrain for it). Also, she has no complaint about name calling when it is in the realm of punditry (you can call her anything you want). What she decries is invective used by leaders, and the mainstream media, unrelated to any action of the subject (EG: Being called racist for wanting a tax cut).

[onedoug]

She uses the same tactics as those she critizes.

Except she sustains them by substance.

[alpowolf]

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

Interesting that "speaking frankly" has become such a crime in this country.

[M. Peach]

Nice article Brian - I hear what you're saying. She's the Howard Stern of conservatism, however she will appeal to a certain audience. I quite frankly enjoy reading her intellectual and shocking criticism, and I think there certainly is a place for her in the media.

I think she is necessary because sometimes liberals need to be shocked with the unvarnished truth to realize how irrational some of their logic can be.

[TLBSHOW]

Bill is a girly boy!

[BrianS.Wise]

Thanks.

[M. Peach]

By the way, where is the source and reference to "Ann of a thousand lays?"

[BrianS.Wise]

Yes I do recognize it, and am glad you do, as well.

[TLBSHOW]

We need more Anns not watered down rats!

[LasVegasMac]

Coulter’s thought pattern doesn’t always translate well to those not as vehement in their objections..

They translate just fine.

Why is it that the DemoRats have been ranting / raving / telling bald ass lies - really cranked up about 1992 - and the Republicans do nothing to counter the crap. It's a brilliant and effective tactic by the DemoRats - tell a lie often enough and ....you know the rest.

I, for one, am glad someone from the conservative side has the ba..umm..intestinal fortitude to call a spade a spade and give it to ‘em like they give it to Republicans every chance they get.

Ann is not at the gutter level – not even close. She just has a penchant for pointing out the fact that most DemoRats are.

Thank you, Ann.

LVM intestinal

[BrianS.Wise]

Point made; I didn't write about Janet Reno's various odd quotes because, well, I don't care about her, as a topic of discussion or otherwise.

[BrianS.Wise]

Yes, the spelling's been pointed out; I know, I know, and re-read the column twice before sending it out ...

[marron]

I understand the complaint that she is guilty of what she complains about... but I also reject it.

The difference is that she makes no bones about being an opinion columnist.

The people she, and I, complain about are people in the straight medoa purporting to be objective.

I don't like Begala, or Carville, for example, but they make no pretense of being objective. They are openly in the opinion game. They are soulless liars, and Ann is pretty factual, but nevertheless you get my point.

Our complaint is with the news organizations who are not supposed to be partisan, but are. And Katy Couric and the other announcers who are pretend to be non-partisan, but launch vicious attacks on conservatives.

[BrianS.Wise]

Thanks; glad you enjoyed it.

[BrianS.Wise]

I have it saved to my hard drive in four or five parts; if you want to send me your e-mail address, I'll send it yo you.

[BrianS.Wise]

All of that is valid, which is why the column points out both positives and negatives of Coulter's writing.

[habs4ever]

A little of her goes a long way.

[Rockitz]

Unfortunately, conservatism has relied a bit too much on the back-handed complimentary, tongue-in-cheek, jesting style of character assasination for treating those on the Left and only intellectual conervatives understand what was really being said. Ann is more direct and mainstream America understands exactly what she's saying. While it may cause conservatives to bite their tongues and offend their sense of dignity, I'm afraid I'll have to agree that it's necessary to call a spade a spade because, let's face it, mainstream America does not have the IQ points that conservatives do. Maybe it's because Ann's all woman that it's hard to watch sometimes. To that I say, YOU GO GIRL!

[marron]

And anyway, I am so tired of the Kennedy's ripping into Repubs, who are afraid to answer back to America's royalty.

And I am tired of Repubs complimenting the Kennedys, and trying to gain legitimacy by quoting JFK.

I am tired of people going on about all the good the Kennedys have done for the country, and everyone just knods their heads approvingly. Gee.

What Ann said about them is true, needs to be said, and is only the half of it. JFK's war time record, his private life, his betrayal of the Tibetans, and the Cubans, and the VietNamese, and his family's dalliances with NAZIs and Mafiosos, and so on down the line could fill a movie that will never be made.

[BrianS.Wise]

I agree, on all points.

[brat]

"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."

Although she occasionally could soften her rhetoric with equal effect, I agree that it's past time we learned how to communicate on a street level.

I applaud her for that...she makes a great role model for kids faced with the malevolent drivel constantly spewed from the mouths of trusted mentors like teachers and professors.

This move is also mirrored in todays Christian Youth Movement. They don't lie down and take it anymore. They stand up for their rights and are winning battles because of it. No more sheep led to the slaughter.

[gcruse]

I learned years ago that I could not proof read my
own stuff until the instant at which it is impossible
to make any corrections. Then the mistake shine out
like searchlights. It is an amazing transformation.

[BrianS.Wise]

And a maddening one ...

[A CA Guy]

Ann has no worries. She says what many think, so she will always have an audiance. But unlike Democrats, Ann's audiance has MONEY to pay for her books and other intellectual property.

[marron]

By the way, good column. Is this your habit, to vet your columns here?

[BrianS.Wise]

Have been giving a lot of thought to writing a book about what the new Right would look like if, five years from now, it consisted of more Ann Coulters than not ... maybe next year.