You seem to be doing what Ann describes in the interview with Couric.
The only thing lame about the Q and A was Katie's misrepresentational questions and repeating the liberal lies such as Ann being fired:
Katie 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?
Ann 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 described in my book, which is the constant mischaracterizations...
Ann didn't write in the National Review...they had the option to run the syndicated column or not.
Ann was talking about the fanatics celebrating the Twin Towers terrorizm.
Katie Couric: 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.
Another lame attempt by Couric to paint Ann with the liberal spin that she was fired from a job. She wasn't fired.
Katie Couric: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?
Ann Coulter: Point one and point two [We should invade their countries, kill their leaders] by the end of the week had become official government policy.
As for converting them to Christianity, 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 that Christianity.
Coulter's use of the word hobby seems to mainly be used to show how offhandedly and without conscience many mid-easterners can justify killing innocent people. She obviously wasn't referring to Christianity as a hobby as shown by her last few words.
I can't understand how conservatives can call Ann's answer "lame" while ignoring the obvious attempts by one of the most popular liberal TV personalities to trip her up.
Let's go to the videotape transcript:
Katie 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?
The crux of Couric's question was NOT the circumstances of the parting of the ways with National Review, it was whether Coulter really thought conversion of Muslims should be the goal of the United States. Ann chose to tackle the first -- and relatively unimportant -- part of the question, and IMHO, her eventual answer indicates she did that because she didn't have a believable way to defend her statement.
This didn't stop you from making a valiant effort to do just that.
Katie Couric, asking the question for the third time: What do you think is the best way to battle terrorism?
Ann Coulter: ...As for converting them to Christianity, 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 that Christianity.
Syncro:Coulter's use of the word hobby seems to mainly be used to show how offhandedly and without conscience many mid-easterners can justify killing innocent people. She obviously wasn't referring to Christianity as a hobby as shown by her last few words.
Nice try. This is exactly the sort of thing I meant when, in an earlier post, I wrote about the mental gymnastics necessary to suggest her initial statement shouldn't have been taken at face value.
Even if one accepts your explanation in her defense, it surely doesn't display any understanding of how ingrained Islam is the countries that produce and deploy terrorists. Killing infidels is not a "hobby" for those who participate in that practice, it's a mission from Allah. In some circles, those who kill themselves in the process of killing innocent civilians are elevated to a martyr status unheard of in the United States; our heroes are those who die in the process of fighting the enemy in battle, and there is no added religious significance added to their sacrifice by the nation.
If one is to believe that your dissection of that sentence is accurate, Ann looks less frivolous as she does ignorant. I think Ann is a very smart woman, and is just too impulsive for her own -- and conservatives' -- good.
If Ann didn't mean to use the word "hobby," she should have used another word. If what Ann really meant by "convert them to Christianity" was the offering of peaceful alternatives to a faith system rooted in the idea the faithful should slaughter non-believers, that's what she should have said. If she had in mind MacArthur's approach to easing Japan's loss of their quasi-demigod Hirohito, that's what she should have said. She didn't, she didn't, and she didn't.
On the issue of whether she was "fired" or not: It appears that she wasn't "fired" in the Trumpian sense, but for people who agree on conservative essentials, the separation of Coulter and National Review editors couldn't have been nastier if she had been escorted from the executive offices.
As for Couric: Yeah, she's a liberal. That's not news. And in this instance, it makes no difference. Her question suggesting that Ann was "fired" was inaccurate, but it certainly wasn't a "trap" or a "set-up." Again, the crux of Katie's question was not her parting with National Review, but whether she still stood by her 'invade, execute, and convert' remark. And all Ann had to do was answer the question.