Ann Coulter Visits NYU to Deliver Predictable Stand-Up Routine [VIDEO: apparently no "broken jaw"]

Hello, everyone. I should really be studying for finals right now, so unfortunately I’m probably not going to have time for an in-depth discussion of every point in the article. But since RonDog was kind enough to invite me here to defend myself, I thought I should clarify a few points.

First off, I’ve got to correct RonDog at one point—you guys aren’t the first real conservatives I’ve ever talked to. Shockingly, I wasn’t raised on a hippie commune/liberal indoctrination center in the mountains near San Francisco. One of my closest friends is a lifelong Republican, and if I were opposed to having my views challenged in a good faith debate, then I wouldn’t be here right now.

The problem with Ann Coulter, as I tried to explain in my post on NYU Local, is that she’s not a good faith debater. She’s completely disinterested in having a dialogue with people she disagrees with (the last time she spoke in New York City, according to her, was in 1997), and instead prefers to just insult them.

Here’s the problem with that: In this past election, Barack Obama won by the largest popular vote margin for a non-incumbent in American history. So either the majority of Americans are stupid, insane, traitorous, or maybe, just maybe, reasonable, intelligent people had reasonable, intelligent reasons for voting for Obama. That doesn’t make them RIGHT, but it does make the issues that defined this election the sort of thing that reasonable people can disagree on. And if the Republicans are going to win in 2012 or 2016, it’s going to be because they brought some of those reasonable people back into the fold with reasonable arguments; NOT by saying that Democrats love terrorists and hate Jews, or nonsense like that.

So my problem with Ann Coulter is really that she’s bad for the Republican Party, which in turn is bad for the country. I may be a liberal Democrat, but that doesn’t mean I want a one-party system. Someone’s got to keep the party in power honest, and police their mistakes and excesses. Not only that, but we really do need a good faith, public exchange of ideas about how to face the major problems America will face over the next eight years. People like Coulter on the right, just like the Code Pink folks on the left, drag that exchange of ideas into the mud and turn it into a frenzied shouting match.

Thank you for accepting my challenge, Ned!

We understand about the importance of studying for finals, though -- so THIS DISCUSSION can wait -- for a while.

In my experience on this forum, the BEST way to have a mutually profitable result from this kind of endeavor is to start with a BRAND NEW thread (when we are ready) and use a very CREATIVE thread title that tells the entire FR community what we are doing.

Something like:

LIVE thread: NYU reporter who blasted ANN COULTER is defending himself on Free Republic RIGHT NOW!

And then we HYPE that impending event, to get the maximum possible exposure -- both on FR, and at NYU.

But the MOST IMPORTANT part is, we set the tone for the debate RIGHT AWAY.
This is a PUBLIC forum, and while we are aggressively monitored, there can be some real BOZO comments posted here -- on BOTH sides.

Ideally, we can foster some VIGOROUS debate -- and maybe even establish some COMMON GROUND between us.

I'm all for PASSION and FIREWORKS -- but I don't want the folks on MY side making us look foolish, and I imagine that you don't either.
Eventually, we might even do a SERIES of these "confrontational" threads -- with 4-5 of the more articulate guys on each side carrying the BULK of the interactions -- but allowing anyone else to chime in with THEIR input, at any time.

For now, though, Ned -- you might want to just poke around a bit, on THIS thread, and perhaps on some of the NYU-related threads that have been posted here in the past -- or anywhere else the Spirit moves you -- and then just start posting replies to people, and see what happens.

If you like the way this forum works, I will help to co-ordinate the "main event" -- as soon as you are ready.

Here is a link to the video of Coulter's Appearance on Cavuto yesterday December 11, 2008.

I'll see if I can do a thread later, I'm leaving an hour ago (LOL) for Florida via Sacramento, CA and NV, AZ, TX, LA, MS, and AL...IIRC.

: >)

I'll get back to this thread ASAP also.

You. da. Man. :o)

See also, from crooksandliars.com:

Ann Coulter just can't resist making up wild and crazy crapola
By David Neiwert Friday Dec 12, 2008 6:45am

Download | Play Download | Play
Unfortunately, it seems those stories about Ann Coulter having her jaw wired shut were groundless indeed. She was on Neil Cavuto's Fox News show today, pitching her new book and weighing in on how the Blagojevich scandal taints Obama, yadda yadda yadda. But of course, in addition to the yadda, she brought the usual dose of wingnut bats--t crazy along (captured in the above edited version of the interview): theorizing that "Daily Kos has more to fear from [Obama] than I do" and that Patrick Fitzgerald filed the complaint so that Obama couldn't fire him. Right.
But my favorite moment was this:

Coulter: Oh, third point. I just want to mention -- Liberals, hysterical with me throughout the campaign for calling him B. Hussein Obama, we found out yesterday, that's what he likes to be called.
Cavuto: What are you saying in this --
Coulter: He's changed his -- now that he's president --
Cavuto: Yeah, but when he's inaugurated -- remember it was a thing with Jimmy Carter, you know, whether they were gonna call him James Earl Carter --
Coulter: Yeah, but as president, he wants to be known as Barack - Hussein - Obama.
Cavuto: How do you know that?
Coulter: He announced it yesterday!
Cavuto: Where did he announce it?
Coulter: [pause] I don't know! Wherever he announces things! Where does he announce anything?

Of course, there was no such announcement. If you go to the Obama transition website, you'll find no such announcements, either among the press releases or on the blog. It didn't come up in his momentary discussions with the press yesterday, or any of his press conferences at any time.
The only time the matter of his middle name has come up has been when he was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune, and he said this:

Q: Do you anticipate being sworn in as Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama?
O: I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.

"Crazy liar" only begins to describe Ann Coulter. But then, you knew that.

And from latimesblogs.latimes.com:

Unwired Ann Coulter is glad newspapers are dying!
[YouTube video from NYU] Ann Coulter: "Hallelujah" Print is Dead!
Outspoken right-wing mouthpiece Ann Coulter's jaw has -- unfortunately -- been unwired.
Ann Coulter's wired shut! We're sooo sad ...
And she's now able to open her big mouth to promote her new book "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans."
Asked about how she feels about newspapers and magazines going down the tubes, Coulter said she's happy: "I greet every newspaper going bankrupt with joy."
She thinks it's fabulous because it means free-market capitalism is working and that because the people want fewer newspapers and magazines, so shall there be fewer newspapers and magazines. Amen.
Do you agree with Ann?
Or do you think that people have simply changed the manner in which they get their information and that the print media are not fast enough to keep up with information disseminated on the Internet?
She also thinks that the New York Times and Newsweek magazine have compromised national security.
Can we rewire her jaw? Please?

Here is the comment that I just submitted to the L.A. Times blog:

You wrote: "Unwired Ann Coulter is glad newspapers are dying!"
More precisely, it would seem Ann is glad [INCOMPETENT, BIASED and LAZY] newspapers [like the L.A. Times] are dying!
Don't they still teach FACT CHECKING in Journalism 101?
Even the rabidly anti-Coulter "Crooks and Liars" website understands that they were scammed by the totally unsubstantiated "Ann Coulter broke her jaw, and had to have it wired shut" rumor -- promoted by the L.A. Times blog.
THEY wrote yesterday: "Unfortunately, it seems those stories about Ann Coulter having her jaw wired shut were groundless indeed."
The "wired shut" rumor broke on 11/25, and Ann was seen "unwired" addressing NYU 12/10 and Cavuto 12/11.
Just how fast can you recover from a broken jaw that had to be wired shut? Did you call any DOCTORS to find out?
And, if you're not going to CALL anybody to verify the tripe that you post, could you at least spend a few minutes on GOOGLE?
On amazon.com (or AnnCoulter.com) you would have discovered that Ann is currently promoting her NEW book "Guilty" -- now due out 1/6/09 -- not her PREVIOUS book "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," which has been out in hardback since 2007, and in paperback since August.
Ron
PS - I agree with Ann: If newspapers continue to print (and post online) such incompetent "journalism" -- R.I.P.

On amazon.com (or AnnCoulter.com) you would have discovered that Ann is currently promoting her NEW book "Guilty" -- now due out 1/6/09
From www.anncoulter.com:

December 9, 2008, 2:33 AM

Coming JANUARY 6 (NEW DATE!) . . . - GUILTY: Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America

NOTE THE NEW PUBLICATION DATE!

Set your watches to see how long it takes liberals to come up with a new conspiracy theory about the changed publication date. (It was a decision of the publisher's marketers.)

As I have posted elsewhere, from amazon.com:

The NEW "release date" is now:
JANUARY 6, 2009.

Actually, while the IMAGE above is from amazon.com, they still have on their website the OLD release date, December 30, 2008.

The only time the matter of his middle name has come up has been when he was interviewed by the Chicago Tribune, and he said this:

Q: Do you anticipate being sworn in as Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama?
O: I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.

From www.politico.com:

Swearing in: 'Barack Hussein Obama'
By: Mike Allen
December 10, 2008 12:17 PM EST

President-elect Barack Obama says he plans to use all three of his names when he takes the oath of office in January, giving voice to a name that was was rarely used during the campaign except by critics.

In his first post-election newspaper interview, with reporters from the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, Obama was asked: “Do you anticipate being sworn in as Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama?"

He replied: “I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.”

In fact, all presidents have not used their middle names when taking the oath of office. Jimmy Carter famously went as “Jimmy Carter.” Ronald Wilson Reagan took the oath as simply “Ronald Reagan.”

Harry Truman, of course, didn’t have a middle name — just an initial that didn’t stand for anything — and was sworn in as “Harry S. Truman.” (We've gotten a lot of e-mail about the period after the 'S.' Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum says Truman put a period in his signature and posts a photo to prove it.)

Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford took the oath using their middle initials.

The last three presidents have used their middle names: George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush. So did Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Lyndon Baines Johnson, in the hasty ceremony aboard Air Force One, went nameless — prompted to say only, “I do solemnly swear.”

The insertion of the name is a tradition not specified in the U.S. Constitution, which directs about the president in Article II: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Obama’s middle name was largely taboo during the campaign, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) apologized when it was used by Bill Cunningham, a talk-radio host who was introducing McCain at a rally in Cincinnati.

The Associated Press reported at the time, “Asked whether the use of Obama's middle name — the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — is proper, McCain said: ‘No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.’”

Here is a transcript of Obama’s interview with the two newspapers, which have a joint Washington bureau as Tribune Co.

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

And from latimesblogs.latimes.com...
Here is ANOTHER comment posted at that blog;

This article is the perfect example of why newspapers are dying. The reporter gets the facts wrong.
At the lecture (I was there), Coulter said the report that her jaw was wired shut was totally wrong.
It was her mother that was sick.
Also, "Guilty" is the name of her new book, not "If Democrats Had Any Brains..."

Posted by: Lisa D | December 13, 2008 at 05:33 AM

ping to my #71 - It would appear that YOU GUYS were right.

Sorry.

Thanks for the ping.


Swearing in: 'Barack Hussein Obama' By: Mike Allen December 10, 2008 12:17 PM EST
President-elect Barack Obama says he plans to use all three of his names when he takes the oath of office in January, giving voice to a name that was was rarely used during the campaign except by critics. In his first post-election newspaper interview, with reporters from the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, Obama was asked: “Do you anticipate being sworn in as Barack Obama or Barack Hussein Obama?" He replied: “I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.” In fact, all presidents have not used their middle names when taking the oath of office. Jimmy Carter famously went as “Jimmy Carter.” Ronald Wilson Reagan took the oath as simply “Ronald Reagan.” Harry Truman, of course, didn’t have a middle name — just an initial that didn’t stand for anything — and was sworn in as “Harry S. Truman.” (We've gotten a lot of e-mail about the period after the 'S.' Despite the urban myth to the contrary, the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum says Truman put a period in his signature and posts a photo to prove it.) Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford took the oath using their middle initials. The last three presidents have used their middle names: George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton and George Walker Bush. So did Franklin Delano Roosevelt and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Lyndon Baines Johnson, in the hasty ceremony aboard Air Force One, went nameless — prompted to say only, “I do solemnly swear.” The insertion of the name is a tradition not specified in the U.S. Constitution, which directs about the president in Article II: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’” Obama’s middle name was largely taboo during the campaign, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) apologized when it was used by Bill Cunningham, a talk-radio host who was introducing McCain at a rally in Cincinnati. The Associated Press reported at the time, “Asked whether the use of Obama's middle name — the same as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein — is proper, McCain said: ‘No, it is not. Any comment that is disparaging of either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is totally inappropriate.’” Here is a transcript of Obama’s interview with the two newspapers, which have a joint Washington bureau as Tribune Co.
© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC