Ann Coulter vs. Michael Moore

Newsmax ^ | 16 June 2006 | Humberto Fontova

[ChessExpert]

“As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo's valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army."

From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American and his Band of Brothers as wimps and crybabies "with a yellow stripe down their backs."

Maybe I'm biased, but nothing – absolutely nothing – Ann Coulter has said about Murtha, Kerry or McClellan strikes me as remotely comparable in vileness, cowardice and rank stupidity as Michael Moore's blanket calumny against some of the bravest men of the 20th century.”

[sageb1]

Here is something else Ramsey said:

the Seattle Times Opinion blog "I understand that it is an important matter to you, because the book mentions your name. The closest I ever got to your position was having one of my book reviews turned around backwards by Ann Coulter in Treason--essentially she said the Seattle Times had denied that Judith Coplon had been a Soviet spy, when my review had said the opposite--and Coulter mentioned my name only in an endnote, not in the main text. Still I was sore about it. In an email I asked her to do what Michelle Malkin has volunteered to do, which is to make a small change in later editions. Coulter did not reply, and did not make any change in the paperback edition, which came out well after my email to her. So think I understand your feelings on this."

Posted by Bruce Ramsey at May 15, 2005 11:09 AM

[JTN]

All Coulter said was: "In 2002, the Seattle Times described the case against accused spy Judith Coplon as "entirely circumstantial." That is a true sentence.

Yes, it is. Of course, following this sentence up by describing the article in question as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." is lying, but don't let that bother you.

[Sam Hill]

Are you really that out of it you think you've proved something?

Coulter's sentence about the Seattle Times is true.

She then went on to sum up the previous 17 pages of argumentation.

Your ability to differentiate fact from fantasy is displayed in your thinking that she is talking about a reviewer that nobody has ever heard of for the last two paragraphs of that chapter.

Indeed, your claim that the Coplon case was "entirely circumstantial" shows your utter confusion. She had the frigging Soviet cables in her purse.

She was convicted. The conviction was overturned on a technicality. The FBI had searched her purse without "probable cause."

Go back to Soros and tell him to give you better quotes. And more dope!

[labette]

Last time we checked, the title of the thread was Ann Coulter vs. Michael Moore.

Perhaps you should buy some more bubblegum?

[ChessExpert]

Taking two words by a conservative writer from a favorable review of a book that exposes a communist spy out of context in order to portray them as "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." doesn't qualify as a lie in your world?

Maybe this author is conservative, or maybe not. But let’s get to the claim "Liberal refusal to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union..." I’ve heard liberals who vote Democrat deny that the Ethel & Julius Rosenberg were communist. I’ve not only read of references to “Uncle Joe” Stalin, I’ve heard it sincerely said. There is plenty more. Are there liberals who refuse to accept any evidence that any person ever spied for the Soviet Union? Probably so.

The Humberto article is good. Your “personal favorite” “Coulter lie” is wearisome and not very convincing.

[saminfl]

If you can get off your pompous high horse, maybe you could reread post #25. I think poster hits the nail on the head. Some of you guys just refuse to admit you are wrong.

[netmilsmom]

Got that from this site, huh?

http://blog.stopanncoulter.com/

I had to go and get my copy of Treason to look up Mr. Ramsey and the comments. Coulter is slamming the review and clairifying the facts....

Book Review
'Spy Who Seduced America' tells true tale of espionage
By Bruce Ramsey
Seattle Times editorial writer

Judith Coplon, 27, was arrested on the streets of New York on March 4, 1949. She was an analyst in the Department of Justice's Foreign Agents Registration Section. With her was Valentin Gubitschev, of the Soviet mission to the United Nations. In Coplon's purse were sensitive government documents.
What was going on? Love, she said. Spying, the government said.
Thus began two of the sensational trials of the Cold War — trials of a woman the press called a cutie pie, a Mata Hari and the girl next door. This book is about those trials. At its conclusion it is about facts, but along the way, it is mainly about arguments, because the case offered by the government was entirely circumstantial.
Coplon did have a right to have the documents in her purse. She had not passed them to the Russian; the government said she had intended to do it.

Well golly gee whiz, it does kind of look like Bruce Ramsey is saying she is innocent. I would have read it that way too. Maybe he didn't intend it, but it sure does look that way.

Maybe he is offended that Coulter doesn't know him. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

Where is the lie again???

[i_dont_chat]

JTN, may I ask you a question?

When Bruce Ramsey reviewed the book, did he say that the government's case again Coplon was "entirely circumstantial?"

In his own words, he admitted as much, although he agreed that Coplon was a spy. You must agree that he DID say the evidence was circumstantial. Ann said there was nothing circumstantial about the evidence.

I believe Ann's reading comprehension is very good. Mr. Ramsey claimed the evidence was circumstancial, and Ann took exception to it.

She calls 'em like she see 'em. I don't think she is a liar.

That's why we love her so much. Ann doesn't let STAND off-hand remarks which are not true. She pointed out that Mr. Ramsey was WRONG insinuating there was no evidence of spying.

Now do you understand?

[DJ Taylor]

"It would be nice if we could just send Coulter and Moore off to some island where they can be alone with each other."

Oh God, what an ugly thought.

[netmilsmom]

>>no replies<<

He had to do a Google search for an Ann Coulter hate site that he could post.

[BillyBoy]

>> And the lie Coulter told was??? <<

To paraphrase Ann's rant: ROBERTS IS ANOTHER SOUTER I TELL YOU!! HE'S A STEALTH LIBERAL AND BUSH KNOWS IT!!! BUSH ONLY NOMINATED ROBERTS BECAUSE HE HATES CONSERATIVES!!!

How's that for starters?

Here are some exact Coulter quotes that have been proven false, BTW:

* "Want an great example of liberal bias? Katie Couric once called Ronald Reagan 'an airhead.' while hosting the Today show" [No such incident ever occured. Coulter later retracted this statement in a later edition of her book]

* "Canada needs us. They'd better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them Canada used to be our good ally because they did everything we wanted them to do, specifically sending their people to fight our wars. Canada sent troops to Vietnam." [False]

* "New York Times columnist Frank Rich, in the wake of 9/11, wrote a column that demanded that Attorney General John Ashcroft "stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists." [Completely made up by Coulter. Rich did no such thing.]

* "The Confederacy had nothing to do with race. It stands for a romantic image of a chivalric, honor-based culture that was driven down by the brute force of crass Yankee capitalism, which was better at manufacturing weapons than using them, and that shortly thereafter gave us the Grant administration and the Gilded Age." [bear in mind Ann Coulter is allegedly a lifelong resident "of Connecicut" and is other speeches claims she's proud of the GOP for ending slavery. Yet her she claims the civil war had nothing to do with race conditions. Another time she suggested the enamicipation proclaimation should be repealed. Make up your mind, Ann.]

* "Jeffords supported Clinton's tax hike, and opposed the younger Bush's tax cut." [Wrong and wrong. He voted against Clinton's tax hike (as did all Republicans), and he voted for Bush's tax cut right before switching parties.]

* Coulter has stated that women are "not as bright" as men" and "have no capacity to understand how money is earned"

Ann Coulter fans and Michael Moore fans both suffer from personality cult worship so much that they will overlook any idiotic false thing their hero spews since they agree with the "message". The Coulterheads and Moore-ons may be idelogical opposites but they are flip sides of the same coin.

[ChessExpert]

I'm sorry. I can't see any moral equivalence between Moore's rhetoric and Ann's.

Bravo! Claims of moral equivalence between Moore and Coulter are as mistaken as the claims of moral equivalence between the (former) Soviet Union and America. Those claims were oft made, but utterly false.

[JTN]

Your ability to differentiate fact from fantasy is displayed in your thinking that she is talking about a reviewer that nobody has ever heard of for the last two paragraphs of that chapter.

Her footnote says that this is exactly what she was talking about.

Indeed, your claim that the Coplon case was "entirely circumstantial" shows your utter confusion. She had the frigging Soviet cables in her purse.

She had documents in her purse, and since they were on her and not the Russian, these would be circumstantial evidence. For security reasons, the cables were not used (I think we covered this; in fact, I know we did), and therefore, the legal case presented against Coplon was... what would be the best way to put this... entirely circumstantial? Acknowledging this fact does not automatically lead to denying that Coplon was in fact spying for the Soviets, which Ramsey did not (quote from the book review -- "Coplon was a spy."), so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Let me put it very simply. Bruce Ramsey stated in his book review that the evidence that Judith Coplon was a spy is very strong. Ann Coulter claimed that Ramsey said the exact opposite of this. What Ann Coulter said was not true. Therefore, what Ann Coulter said was a lie. Got it now?

[labette]

I figure at least one of them would be disgusted by such a suggestion.

[Past Your Eyes]

Ain't that the truth. Lucky I grew up with a father who taught me how to think critically.

[Tanniker Smith]

Ann Coulter vs. Michael Moore

Pistols at ten paces???

PLease??

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I suspect JTN is a liberal druggie.

[wizardoz]

Pistols at ten paces???

Not fair. Look at the difference in target sizes.

[Sam Hill]

Katie Couric got into a spat this morning (Wednesday, June 26) on Today with author Ann Coulter who accurately quoted Couric as having opened Today one morning back in 1999: “Good morning. The Gipper was an airhead. That's one of the conclusions of a new biography of Ronald Reagan that's drawing a tremendous amount of interest and fire today, Monday, September the 27th, 1999."

     Couric took umbrage at how Coulter, author of the new book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, had suggested that “I'm a Ronald Reagan basher" when, Couric maintained, she was very tough on the author of the “airhead” characterization, Edmund Morris. Couric demanded: "You used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan. And I'm just curious why you took it so out of context?"

     Couric failed to note that she didn’t interview Morris until two days after she opened with the “airhead” insult. That aired on Monday, September 27, 1999. Morris didn’t appear on Today until Wednesday, September 29. For a full rundown of the interview: http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990930.asp#3

Of course, Couric’s bias came in choosing that most derisive characterization as the one to herald at the top of the show, especially when she dropped the word Morris had preceded it with: “apparent.” And, as Coulter explained, Morris wrote that he soon realized that Reagan was far from an airhead.      When Coulter contended that Today had trumpeted the “airhead” charge on three different mornings, Couric countered: "No it was just one day and we'll get the transcripts for you.”

Katie Couric argued with Ann Coulter for suggesting bias in Couric opening Today by trumpeting how an author called Reagan "an airhead"

     In fact, as reported in the September 29, 1999 CyberAlert, Today opened with the “airhead” terminology on two different mornings. First, Couric used it on Monday, September 27, 1999 as quoted at the top of this item. Second, here’s how Matt Lauer began the broadcast the next day: “Good morning. For the first time President Bush is responding to the controversial new biography of Ronald Reagan. And in particular the author's assertion that Reagan was a great President but an airhead."
     George H.W. Bush: "And it's brutal and grossly unfair and untrue.”
     Lauer: “And Mr. Bush has more to say today, Tuesday, September 28th, 1999.”

     MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens took down the exchange from today’s Today, June 26, which Today did not air until the 9:30am half hour, a very unusual time for a serious subject. Today followed Coulter with a segment on cooking fish.

     Couric set up the interview: "She's been called everything from a 'pundit-extraordinaire,' to 'a right-wing tele-bimbo,' but one thing Ann Coulter has not been called is understated. In her latest book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, the controversial author takes on big media, big government and most of all liberals. Ann Coulter, good morning nice to see you."

     After asking Coulter "What are some of the big liberal lies that are out there in your estimation?", Couric got to herself: "I think I do have to bring up a section of the book where you talk specifically about me and this is not where you call me the 'Eva Braun of liberalism,' which I'll ask you about."
     Coulter: "Affable."
     Couric: "'The affable,' oh thanks that makes me feel so much better. But you talk about the, the media bias against Ronald Reagan and you use a quote in open from the Today show where we say, 'An airhead, Ronald Reagan is an airhead.' And we're quoting Edmund Morris. But frankly in the book you make it sound as if I was saying that rather than Edmund Morris. And I guess one of your problems is with, even using that, is that he said he was an, 'apparent airhead,' and we failed to say, 'apparent airhead.' And during the course of the interview with Edmund Morris I really conducted an extremely challenging interview with him because he did eviscerate Ronald Reagan in his book. It was a very, very unflattering portrayal. The Reagans were very unhappy with it, conservatives were very unhappy with it. Afterwards Edmund Morris was unhappy with the interview and Nancy Reagan called to thank me for my line of questioning. So I'm just wondering how that jibes with your contention that somehow I'm a Ronald Reagan basher?"
     Coulter: "Well I didn't call you a 'Ronald Reagan basher,' I said, which is true that the Today show-"
     Couric: "Well you used me as an example of liberal bias against Ronald Reagan. And I'm just curious why you took it so out of context?"
     Coulter: "Well I don't think I did, you're taking it out of context."
     Couric: "No, I'm not."
     Coulter: "What I said was, which is true, that the Today show opened, I believe it was three days in a row, with the announcement: 'Ronald Reagan was an airhead, that's the conclusion of this new book by Edmund Morris.' When Edmund Morris came on for that interview with you he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his points-"
     Couric: "Well we should also point out-"
     Coulter: "His entire book was contradicting that. So when the author himself and George Bush, the Vice President was interviewed about this, all say that, that was a grossly unfair characterization..."
     Couric as both talk over each other: "Right and-"
     Coulter: "...well then whose characterization was it?"
     Couric: "And that's in, that's-"
     Coulter: "It wasn't Edmund Morris's he certainly denies it."
     Couric: "Well actually he backpedaled considerably. If you had read the book by Edmund Morris-"
     Coulter: "I did."
     Couric: "...you would have seen that he was extremely critical of Ronald Reagan in the book."
     Coulter: "No, I didn't like the book but he didn't call him an airhead. The Today show called him an airhead."
     Couric: "He called him, 'an apparent airhead,' he did call him, 'an apparent airhead,' I have the quote right here if you would like me to read it?"
     Coulter: "No, I've, I've read the quote and it's in my book."
     Couric: "He said that, 'Young Kim Timmons-'"
     Coulter: "I don't think we are going to resolve this."
     Couric: "'...she of the blue-eyes and enchanting grace played occasional hooky from the White House speechwriting department to help me build a chronology and I was about hire a full-time assistant. Yet the magic of Geneva had faded. Dutch remained a mystery to me and worse still, dare I entertain such heresy in the hushed and reverent precincts of his office, an apparent airhead.' So these are Edmund Morris's words. But-"
     Coulter: "But was also in his words, though, when he came on your show was that, that was a grossly unfair characterization and then that was at the beginning of the book, he said he described him as 'an apparent airhead' on a very first meeting and that the entire course of the rest of his book was contradicting that. So for the Today show to be opening three days in a row, 'Ronald Reagan was an airhead,' I'm sorry that's dishonest."
     Couric: "It, it, it was one day. And also just for your information it was one day."
     Coulter correctly pointed out: "No, you said it one day, Matt Lauer said it another day."
     Couric falsely claimed: "No it was just one day and we'll get the transcripts for you. But anyway he also said, Edmund Morris, 'Beyond amazement I was distressed by the relentless banality not to say incoherence of the President's reprise in interviews.' So he did make these, he didn't really switch in the book. But we don't want to get too mired in this."
     Coulter: "Yes, by the way my book is not, not only solely not about this quote it is not solely about the Today show."

     But there’s certainly enough material so it could have been.

     If you pick up Coulter’s book, which is published by Crown, you’ll see quite a few familiar quotes which were, like the Couric and Lauer quotes above, first exposed in MRC publications, mainly CyberAlerts and Notable Quotables.

     Coulter’s acknowledgments page offers this credit:
“Novenas should be said to Brent Bozell and the Media Research Center, who have been on the case long before I was.”

     To see the book’s cover or to order it online:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400046610/qid=1025037811/
sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0178689-4179105

     Today has posted an excerpt from her book: http://msnbc.com/news/763069.asp?cp1=1

     [Web Update: NBC’s Today used the "airhead" term four times to describe Ronald Reagan. As Mickey Kaus noted in a July 8 "Kausfiles" posting on Slate.com, via a Nexis search he found the term employed "two days, three times (plus once on Later Today)." Today opened with it twice, as CyberAlert documented, but also employed the term two other times that week. Kaus explained: "Couric said it on Sept. 27, 1999. The next day, as charged, Lauer opened the show by talking about ‘the author's assertion that Reagan was a great President but an airhead.’ NBC's Jamie Gangel repeated the ‘airhead’ charge without the ‘apparent’ later that day in a Today interview with ex-President George H.W. Bush. The winner: Coulter on points. She was closer to the truth than Couric, who picked this particular fact fight and was wrong." For the Kaus piece: http://slate.msn.com/?id=2067592]