Posted on 01/06/2004 1:06:49 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Al Franken is a nasty liberal with a notorious reputation for his “you’re a doo doo head” style of ravaging name-calling and derogatory attacks. He devotes the second chapter of his book to deriding Ann Coulter and the very title calling her a nutcase pretty much attests to the viciousness and shamelessness of this pompous leftwing mutt. It validates Coulter’s point she made in her book about liberals never having to learn to debate beyond a six-year-old level.
Franken: I know. You think the chapter is a little harsh. But, believe me, in Coulter’s case, “nutcase” is more than justified. I should know. You see, Ann and I are friends.
I personally wasn’t aware of that myself until I read it in the New York Observer. They did a profile of Coulter when her bile-filled, relentlessly ugly best-seller Slander topped The New York Times list. And for some reason-I guess to establish her bona fides as just a lovable gal about town-she told the writer from the Observer that she was “friendly with” Al Franken.
I found that odd. I have met Ann Coulter once. At a Saturday Night Live party. When she introduced herself to me, I made what in retrospect was a terrible mistake. Instead of saying, “Ann Coulter! You’re a horrible person. Ooooh, I just hate you!” or something along those lines-instead, I was cordial. For maybe a minute or two.
That is the sum total of my personal interaction with Ann Coulter. And yet, to her, it was enough to include me on a very short list of people she’s “friendly with.” Pathetic, to be sure, but no more dishonest than every other word that comes out of this woman.
Coulter: FRANKEN'S VERY FIRST CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I TOLD A REPORTER FROM THE OBSERVER THAT I WAS "FRIENDLY" WITH FRANKEN, WHEN IN FACT, WE ARE NOT "FRIENDLY."
Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as I barely know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop -- the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I've ever heard of.
I don't hear about this "lie" so much anymore.
Fact Finder: Let’s get this straight. Ann Coulter never said she was “friendly” with Franken and he used something obviously untrue, stupid mistake by a reporter, and then blasts away at her for being a nutcase. In his Author’s Note he hypocritically remarked that his detractors might call him names and so forth while we find him wildly savaging Coulter. I guess this is what he meant by being decent.
Franken: Coulter, for those of you lucky enough to not have been exposed to her, is the reigning diva of the hysterical right. Or rather the hysterical diva of the reigning right. Coulter has appeared on shows like ABC’s This Week, Good Morning America, Hardball, Larry King Live, and The Today Show, to complain, among other things, that conservatives don’t get on TV enough. Her books, like her TV appearances, consist of nonstop rabid frothing. Her first, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, put her on the radar as an up-and-coming liar.
Coulter: “FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T GET ON TV ENOUGH.”
Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be a hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book Slander -- which Franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb -- would have been a good place to make that point if I wanted to make it. Slander contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What I say is: "Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans are 'from the right' polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth."
By the way, I also say: "The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage is seemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." Franken's absurd description of my point proves it.
I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.”
Fact Finder: Franken sticks to his name-calling. Mr. Decency, proclaims in such an imaginative manner that Coulter is a hysterical diva/reigning diva and up-and-coming liar. The basis for his accusation that she was a liar was based solely on such sturdy facts as stating the name of her book on Clinton. He tosses in this red herring argument that she says conservatives aren’t on television enough, which you can see she quickly refuted with ease because she never made it. Now do you understand what Coulter means when she says liberals have made debate insufferable? Franken lied!
Franken: Her next book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, argues that liberals use lies and shrill accusations to debate political discourse in America. It’s fascinating exercise in dishonesty, hypocrisy, and irony of the unintentional sort.
Let’s get right to some examples. And there are examples and examples and examples. Take the dramatic conclusion of Slander. After 206 pages of accusing liberals of, among other awful things, being elitist snobs, she trots out her crowning piece of evidence: proof of The New York Times’s disregard and contempt for what real Americans care about.
The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation’s fastest growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dumbly blinking at the last sentence.) It took The New York Times two days to deem Earnhardt’s death sufficiently important to mention it on the first page. Demonstrating the left’s renowned populist touch, the article began, “His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart.” The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!
ME: Yeah.
EVAN: I heard about that. Is there something wrong with her?
Yes, there is. Particularly considering that when going after the book publishing industry, Coulter complains that “liberal jeremiads make it to print without the most cursory fact-checking.” (Which reminds me, I really should be fact-checking this thing as I go along.)
Coulter: Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Evan Thomas's father -- without saying that he was Evan's grandfather. This was one of about five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander -- and cited one million times by liberals as a "LIE." Confusing "father" with "grandfather" is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and Evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.
I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.
Fact Finder: Franken takes Coulter to task for not having argued conservative causes in her book! The book was about liberal lies. Gee, the topic of the book would a big indicator as to why she doesn’t do that, but then again how can you expect a guy who starts off patting himself on the back for being Mr. Decency and then starts a chapter off calling her a nutcase to understand that.
Now, let’s review the attacks Franken has leveled at her book and what he has provided to corroborate it. He said Slander was “bile-filled,” “relentlessly ugly,” it is full of “dishonesty, hypocrisy, and irony of the unintentional sort,” and all that in addition to being “filled with distortions, factual errors, and vicious invective-slander, if you will-bolstered by the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler diaries.” He provided the slight substantive error corrected quickly after correction of her book about an article on Earnhardt appearing in the Times, which hordes of liberal ankle-biters before seized upon as a “lie.” That’s it. He’s going down a list of negative adjective and checking twice.
Evan Thomas’ grandfather was a six-time social candidate for President. Yet, as Coulter points out, another of the few slight errors quickly corrected after publication. It didn’t stop Franken from deceivingly avoiding the relation and that is dishonest. My goodness. He is going to use these two so-called examples to rail against her book and make all of these awful accusations! Five little errors corrected after publication, beaten like a dead horse by a many liberal, and here we have Franken reliving this liberal orgasm by calling it “the shoddiest research this side of the Hitler diaries.” Its like someone builds a space ship with a few small glitches corrected shortly production only to have some crazed lunatic regurgitate and revisit those glitches as to discount the entire working space ship. We haven’t seen this sort of delusion since Hitler was alive and in power.
Franken: Where did Ann Coulter come from? Well, she’s a lawyer, one of the “elves” who helped Paula Jones go after Bill Clinton. That’s a feather in her cap. She was born in 1961. Or 1963. Depending on whether you believe her old Connecticut driver’s license (1961) or her newer D.C. driver’s license (1963). (The Washington Post looked into this.) Ann claims the D.C. license is correct, which means that when she registered to vote she was sixteen. (The Post checked with the New Canaan, Connecticut, registrar’s office.) That, of course, would be voter fraud.
Either way, she lied on at least one of her driver’s licenses, a government I.D., which is a violation of federal law under the Patriot Act. I believe she could be locked up indefinitely for that without being allowed to talk to a lawyer or a judge. Or Paula Zahn.
Fact Finder: Frankenstein has picked up on the leftwing tabloid slander, which uncovered this shocking conspiracy by Ann Coulter to fool the world into thinking she’s two years younger! Sound the alarms and alert the New York Times! Then he reasons, like his other fellow lefties, that Ann Coulter should be sent to a gulag or a perhaps a PC concentration camp.
Now, I dared to track down the Washington Post story and found an egg throwing liberal’s motive being that big, mean Coulter beats up on poor, defenseless liberal media types for just “writing.” If he actually bothered to read Slander, before uncovering this vast Coulter wing conspiracy to make herself two years younger, he would have found that she raised legitimate points about the Washington Post for derogatory attacks on Falwell followers (uneducated and poor according to the Post), vicious attacks on Katherine Harris for not supporting Gore’s coup (lengthy attack basically calling her ugly? Katherine Harris, ugly? Far better looking than thunder thigh Hillary Clinton, Big Foot Janet Reno, or Molly “I got hit by the ugly stick” Ivins), or Shales editorial blasting Goldberg for disclosing the liberal media bias (he had “thought provoking,” that’ll be the day, analysis like calling Goldberg a windbag and a hack).
The main point I have to make is that Ann Coulter looks like she’s still in her twenties for crying out loud! Frankenstein and his team of monkeys parroted the Washington Post line, berating Ann Coulter over the, she’s 40 and not 38. Nah, nah! Okay, who stole their tin foil hats? I demand they return them!
Franken:Ann Coulter doesn't have 780 footnotes in Slander. She has zero footnotes. None. Not one footnote. She does have thirty-five pages of endnotes. Footnotes are an easy to reference. They're at the bootom, or the "foot," of the page.
Coulter: FRANKEN HYSTERICALLY ACCUSES ME OF "LYING" FOR CALLING MY "ENDNOTES," "FOOTNOTES" IN INTERVIEWS ON MY BOOK.
Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes," not "footnotes." Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post and the rest of the universe -- all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as "FOOTNOTES." Also God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech."
World Net Daily columnist, Vox Day, called Franken out and offered him “Fight Club rules,” but it remains to be seen if the sissy will take him up on the offer.
| Rank | Location | Receipts | Donors/Avg | Freepers/Avg | Monthlies | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 34 | Louisiana | 120.00 |
2 |
60.00 |
178 |
0.67 |
38.00 |
5 |
Thanks for donating to Free Republic!
Move your locale up the leaderboard!
I am surprised that Franken has such poor understanding of common words.
I agree, pretty lucid stuff. Maybe he went to bootcamp? My first postings were caveman stuff.
Now as far as Franken, he obviously is just being a good liberal. We all know that he is nothing but a blow hard, but unfortunately it's people like him that the libs in the press (and Press is another one) love to allow on their show.... They (the media) will never learn, and maybe that's a good thing. Eventually, the house of cards they are trying to build will come crashing down, if it's not happening already.
Has Ann explained the discrepancy in birth dates?
Get her, Ann!
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.
