Ann Coulter: America's fiery, blond commentatrix [MARK STEYN on ANN COULTER!]

www.macleans.ca ^ | June 21, 2006 | Mark Steyn

[Victoria Delsoul]

Bumpity bump.

Hey Ron,

I just talked to Saber on the phone. He said he saw you last Wednesday at NBC studios.

He said hi.

[Victoria Delsoul]

The media folks are obviously completely freaked out by her, which is a good thing in my mind.

And I loooooove it! LOL.

[ChessExpert]

Here’s another CoulterQuote from the book that people can get upset about. Don’t miss the double-entedre:

“When our troops came under a bloody attack in Somalia in 1993, President Clinton ordered a humiliating retreat - on the advice of John Murtha. ... perhaps out of force of habit, Clinton pulled out before finishing.”

Let me guess: Oh, how offensive! I’m shocked! Ann’s writing is counterproductive. Blah, blah, blah. Some won’t pass up the opportunity to be moderate and priggish all at the same time.

My advice is to read the book. I think it’s great: wise, witty, and courageous.

[RonDog]

I just talked to Saber on the phone. He said he saw you last Wednesday at NBC studios.

LOL! You bet!

He wasn't even on my "super secret" COMMANDO list for that FReep...

...he just showed up at EXACTLY the right time, and EXACTLY the right place to be able to join us.

Great minds think alike!

We recognized each other from an OFFLINE meeting -- a few years ago, at a Michelle Malkin booksigning.

So what are you doing talking to someone from the Dark Side, anyway?

[Victoria Delsoul]

As far as I am concerned, he ain't dead - he's alive and well - you know what they say about cats, lol.

Hey, I gotta run. I need to finish stuff for tomorrow's class.

Nighty night, Ron. :-)

[RonDog]

:o)

[finnigan2]

MacLeans likes to think of itself as Canada's answer to Time magazine - right down to the layout and left wing slant on politics. They hired Steyn because he's the best word-smith in the business, but they gave him the role of doing book reviews where I guess they thought they could get his writing ability without putting up with any of his right wing crap.
Well, guess what. Steyn has turned his book reviews into a thinly disguised political commentary column and MacLeans must be pulling their hair out.
As Humphrey Bogart once said about negotiating with movie moguls; "it's important that you have f--- you, money."
Steyn has lots of f--- you money and he's letting MacLeans know.
I give Steyn about six months before they fire him.

[DCPatriot]

I wish he had the energy to be a radio or cable host.

[King Prout]

You have the right to be wrong, so carry on.

I also have the right to be factually correct, as I am in this case and intend to remain.

to you and all the other idolatrous Ann-droids out there:

How about you concretely define the number of examples of error found in chapters 8-11 you require, and what degree of refutation you desire for each, that will coerce you to admit that Ann Coulter, on this topic, does indeed consistently display bogus citations, factual and analytic error, and ludicrously false/distorted presentations throughout her diatribe against evolutionary science?

ADDITIONALLY:
How about you pledge your honor and word here and now to abide by your stated requirements (once you pony them up) and swear to publicly admit that you are in error and Ann is, on science, a talentless hack?

[Jerez2]

Wow. I am in awe. What a great pair to have on OUR side.
BTTT!
Again!!!!!

[TexasBeth]

I sure don't, but she does have some wonderful art on her page.

[pissant]

Ann bitch slapped Hillary into next week. That one stung.

[pissant]

My wife wants to read the book now, since I was constantly laughing out loud while reading it.

[pissant]

And he tweaks his priggish buddy, Hugh Hewitt, with this article. Which I think well deserved (though I Like Hugh)

[AnnaZ]

Definitely let her read it. And then hand over all the other ones. This woman is a bestseller for good reason.

Slander at times almost made me cry (the left is truly cruel), but then I'd be howling at her denunciations of their behavior. Coulter is brilliant.

[proudpapa]

ROFLMAO:

When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi winds up pushing up daisy cutters...

[soccermom]

LOL! Uhhhhhh.... Did you read the last paragraph of his editorial? For all his blather which, incidentally is no different from what all those in "the Coult" have been saying, he finally admits my point. The "strategerie" never worked in the first place! Got it????? The voters never have fallen for the "victim" stunt. He noted Ann is inadvertently doing Democrats a favor. The American people were onto them all the time. Ann didn't "expose" anything. It seems that is what I was saying!
As for Steyn's claim that no one else was pointing this out before Ann, I suppose I dreamed up the exchange between O'Reilly and Letterman. O'Reilly was able to call Sheehan for what she was, without attacking her and he didn't back down from Letterman when Letterman tried the "how dare you say that" tactic. Also, as I mentioned in the other thread, Rush Limbaugh was a pioneer in exposing this "strategerie" with the Ron Brown Funeral video clip.

[youngjim]

For all his blather which, incidentally is no different from what all those in "the Coult" have been saying, he finally admits my point. The "strategerie" never worked in the first place! Got it????? The voters never have fallen for the "victim" stunt. He noted Ann is inadvertently doing Democrats a favor. The American people were onto them all the time. Ann didn't "expose" anything. It seems that is what I was saying! --soccermom

So, on balance, hooray for Miss Coulter. If I were to go all sanctimonious and priggish, I might add that, in rendering their "human shield" strategy more problematic, she may be doing Democrats a favour. --Mark Steyn

Well, we can all agree here that you are indeed a sanctimonious prig.

[pgyanke]

How about you concretely define the number of examples of error found in chapters 8-11 you require, and what degree of refutation you desire for each, that will coerce you to admit that Ann Coulter, on this topic, does indeed consistently display bogus citations, factual and analytic error, and ludicrously false/distorted presentations throughout her diatribe against evolutionary science?

I looked and looked but couldn't see anything concrete yet in all of your protestations about Ann... this one included.

Here's a hint: rather than dancing around telling us how much smarter you are than Ann Coulter, why don't you actually cite something... just one thing! I've been waiting all through this thread for you to get specific and nothing so far has been more specific than she "consistently display[s] bogus citations" [NAME ONE], she commits "factual and analytic error" [NAME ONE], and provides a "ludicrously false/distorted presentation" [DUH... IT'S HER BOOK. GO WRITE YOUR OWN IF YOU WANT TO PRESENT ALL SIDES OF EVERY ARGUMENT. OTHERWISE, SHOW WHERE SHE'S FALSE.].

So. Put up or shut up... pick something she is wrong about and show us just how wrong she is. I'll check back from time to time to see about your progress...

[jellybean]

not that any Ann-droids...

Love it!! Thanks!