Coulter's Foes Launch Hate-Filled Attacks

Following my interview with HUMAN EVENTS Legal Affairs Correspondent Ann Coulter and review of her new book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, I’ve received a slew of e-mails from fans and foes.

Many of those writing the negative e-mails are outraged that a conservative would ask a conservative author questions from a conservative’s perspective for a conservative newspaper. One person writes, “You are so unfair and unbalanced!” Well, there goes my shot as a Fox News anchor. But lest you think he might have any intellectual points to make, the rest of the e-mail refers to me and Coulter in a sexual manner. In fact, several e-mails included this kind of rhetoric. I would quote them, but to make it decent it would look like Morse code.

Another person writes, “So how does it feel to interview Hitler reborn first-hand? I think I would need about 20 showers just to feel normal again after being in the presence of such a pathetic excuse for a human being.” I was actually surprised that it took more than 12 hours since the interview was published to get the first Hitler comparison. The comparison of [insert Republican’s name] to Hitler is as hack as “I just flew in and, boy, are my arms tired.”

Then came the e-mails from those claiming to be conservatives or Republicans who had an instant conversion because “this time she’s gone too far.” As Coulter recently pointed out on Your World with Neil Cavuto, these phonies say that every time she writes a new book. One guy from San Diego stated in an e-mail to me that he “supported Bush after 9/11.” Yeah, so did Rosie O’Donnell. He also wrote that he is a “gun-owning, meat-loving, fishing, entrepreneur” and a “moderate.” Inexplicably, his proof is that he listens to Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett and would vote for Rudy Guiliani (moderate Republican), Chuck Hagel (Republican) and Mark Warner (Democrat). One must have a dart and a map of the U.S. to come up with this list. He writes, “I am surprised that you would softball-interview someone who is as blatantly hateful as Ann Coulter. … She gets paid to promote anger, hatred, and division. … The kind of bile Ms. Coulter is spewing is decidely [sic] very mid-90's. Using loaded words against a political opponent (you know, ‘Godless, traitorous,’ etc.) reads like a page from Gingrich's 1990 GOPAC memo. Very tiresome.”

Hmm, it seems like anyone who is holding on to a grudge against Newt Gingrich from 1990 might have been drinking the Kool-Aid for a little longer than he’s letting on. Unfortunately, I can’t recall the existence of this phantom memo because I was only 12-years-old at the time.

Another curious claim in this e-mail, as well as several others, is that Coulter makes outrageous statements just to sell books. Then these same people say she doesn’t represent most conservatives. Yet, Godless still becomes No. 1 on Amazon.com and will undoubtedly be a New York Times bestseller. And by the way, those mystery “mass purchases” by Richard Scaife (I received those e-mails, too) don’t count toward the bestseller lists.

It’s a typical ploy by liberals to claim to be Bush voters or moderates or Republicans in order to project a false sense of credibility. It’s like when they use an anti-war veteran or group of pro-Kerry widows from New Jersey to advance their unpopular agenda. Liberals call the War on Terrorism President Bush’s personal vendetta on behalf of his father. How is this any different from making the case against the President based on someone else’s personal tragedy or vendetta? Not to mention giving these people carte blanche to make outrageous claims and condemn anyone for questioning their motives. Someone should really write a book about this phenomenon!

Another “lifelong Republican” says that I have gone too far. He writes, “I have always been a fan of your previous writings. Your latest ‘interview’ with Ann Coulter has left me shocked and dismayed. … You have lost all integrity in my mind. Your inability to question her regarding this outlandish rubbish is disgraceful.” I guess he missed my review of Coulter’s last book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).

The e-mails I enjoyed the most were those that said I was worse than Coulter herself. One guy wrote, “As a sycophantic piece of s***, your review of Coulter's latest piece of s*** is exceeded only by it.” Another writes, “[Y]ou revealed yourself to be just as vicious as Ann Coulter -- and that's saying a lot.” I plan on adding this to my résumé.

So, for those of you keeping score, conservatives cannot write about people they agree or disagree with because it makes them “hucksters” or Hitler. Instead, we should be writing about issues we don’t care about and people with no political relevance. Fortunately, HUMAN EVENTS has no need for articles on Brad and Angelina and their new baby, so keep those emails coming!

Doesn't anyone get it!?

The title of misses the point altogether.

Instead of "Coulter's Foes Launch Hate-Filled Attacks"

it should read.

"Coordinated effort by left political machine to keep dupe base away separated from Coulter's thoughts and opinions gaining momentum"

This is about leaders on the left actively promoting groupthink dysfunction under the cover of ad copy writers for the DNC in the MSM posing as "credentialed journalists".

Below is a list of these dysfunctions. To me they describes the foundation of the lefts strategy to control the opinion and loyalty of its members.

Eight symptoms of Groupthink:

Type I: Overestimations of the group's power and morality

1. "An illusion of invulnerability shared by most members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks (Janis, 1982)."

2. "An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions (Janis, 1982)."

Type II: Closed-mindedness

3. "Collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions (Janis, 1982)."

4. "Stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose (Janis, 1982)."

Type III: Pressure toward uniformity

5. "Self-censorship of deviation from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimize to himself the importance of his doubts and counterarguments (Janis, 1982)."

6. "A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviation, augmented by the false assumptions that silence means consent) (Janis, 1982)."

7. "Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members (Janis, 1982)."

8. "The emergence, of self-appointed mindguards members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions (Janis, 1982)."

The leadership on the left probably have stone templates with these 8 "commandments" on display in their offices. I'm sure Murtha does.

That gives me an idea...

the lefts Eight Commandments

I
Thou shalt create an illusion of invulnerability shared by most members to foster excessive optimism and encourage extreme risks taking

II
Thou shall not allow any member to question the group's inherent morality, instead members shall be encouraged to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions

III
Thou shalt promote collective efforts to rationalize in order to discount warnings, or other information that might lead members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their assumptions

IV
Thou shalt reinforce stereotyped views of enemy leaders as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purpose

V
Thou shalt self-censor any deviation from the apparent group consensus, inclining each member to minimize the importance of their doubts and counterarguments

VI
Thou shalt create and maintain a shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgement conforming to the majority view

VII
Thou shalt apply direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members

VIII
Thou shalt appoint mindguards to protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions

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.