Posted on 08/22/2010 3:29:07 PM PDT by RobinMasters
WASHINGTON – Conservative pundit Ann Coulter intensified her attacks on WND last night on Fox News Channel's "Red Eye" show, accusing those at the largest independent news site who dropped her from the "Taking America Back National Conference" in Miami of being "fake Christians."
Coulter claimed she was never actually booked for the event, repeated her resentment over publishing her e-mail explanations to WND Editor Joseph Farah for appearing at GOProud's Homocon event and lashed out at WND for "pushing the birther thing," which she said is not supported by any conservatives.
"These are fake Christians trying to get publicity," said Coulter.
Previously, Coulter called Farah a "publicity whore" and a "swine" for WND's decision to drop her upon learning of her plan to speak to the homosexual Republican group.
In response, Farah issued the following statement: "Coulter called me a 'publicity whore' for my decision. But look who is on television talking about this – throwing mud, name-calling, smearing not only me but my entire staff. I will not engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks that have made Coulter so famous and that are making her even more of a media darling in this age of reckless anger and character assassination for the sake of entertainment. Every day, since we made this decision at WND, I thank God for giving me the clarity of mind and discernment to make the right choice."
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Ignoring the Constitution will destroy our country. To knowingly allow something that is unconstitutional to continue will destroy our country. Obama IS destroying our country.
Sure its the truth, prove it to the point the mainstream population will support it. You cannot, therefor you will be branded a kook and nothing else you say will matter.
It’s not an issue I want to push, for the reasons you mention. But I’m glad others are willing to do it. I don’t want to see the issue die away.
Republican candidates, meanwhile, shouldn’t use it and don’t need it.
“Republican candidates, meanwhile, shouldn’t use it and don’t need it.”
I totally agree
Well of course you agree. Because I was agreeing with YOU!
:)
But as far as AC goes, she didn’t need to mention it at all, except in response to questions, then all she had to say was “Sure he was born in the USA. Are you saying he was born somewhere else?”
She didn’t have to go out of her way to attack birthers. She could have just left it alone.
But I think she’s fallen into the cocktail party syndrome, wherein popular conservative celebs want to be well-liked at liberal cocktail parties.
I believe that’s really what’s happening with our erstwhile friend Ann Coulter.
“Republican candidates, meanwhile, shouldn’t use it and don’t need it.”
Thats what most other folks have been doing.
Agreed. It’s seductive, and very few can resist it.
It will be interesting to see how those who are defending Ann with regard to this situation will react if she is supportive of GOProud at Homocon. What then?
Uncalled for from such a long time FReeper as yourself. It’s that sort of response one might expect from some childish Leftist at either of those sites you mention.
Read most of the rest of the posts at that thread, and you will find many agree with me.
AHA!!!
That's why the murdering muslims hate the Jews.
Coulter is self-destructing, and she should NOT be encouraged to do so. If you want to 'befriend' her...she needs to be advised to apologize immediately and withdraw from the homo deal.
A mercenary excuse (hey its just a gig for $) is not viable.
um, whatever. I’m not a mind-reader, never have been, not psychic, so I’m sorry I missed the ever-so-obvious fact that “Con” could only refer to “con”-servative, despite its use in so very many other, less complimentary words.
And as for not rushing to judgment, it is, I’m afraid, you who are confused. It is not you and your opinion which was the rush to judgment I wanted to avoid, but I did not want to impugn the credibility of Farah without facts to back it up; your opinion was not in my crosshairs, at all, but you were, and you remain, obstinate in your refusal to defend your position with facts. You may be OK with that, but as a Christian, I believe I have an obligation to not spread defamatory opinions that have no factual basis. Gossip is a sin, and I try to avoid it, not because I feel so important, but because I’m trying to avoid a sin against my brother.
Probably we’re done. Nice chatting with you. Bye.
I think I did read your post thoughtfully. I just disagree with your conclusions. Hopefully that’s still allowed.
First, publicity can have many motives, so I’m willing to take Farah at face value when he says the big deal was the messaging. Her appearance before a group that is dedicated to undermining conservative values can be read, and will be read, by many as an endorsement, whether it really is or not. To then give her a leadership role in a conference specifically designed to give the opposite message could lead to a more confused and less powerful message. She created the problem. Farah had to address it. That means he had to explain it, publically, especially because he wanted to be fair in distinguishing between her role as a generally conservative commentator and her potential role as a thought leader for a focused “conservative values” group. Sort of like the accountant you would hire to keep the books straight versus the executive you would hire to give the company its sense of direction. Farah, and many of us, pictured Coulter in the visionary role, but this episode with Homocon has, for many of us, diminished our view of her judgment as a conservative leader.
I’ve seen this in other, less high-profile settings. A professor in law school who had many wonderful qualities, but who was off-mission in some key areas, was let go, just for being off-mission. Coulter’s “sentence” was much lighter by comparison.
Second, I never said she was gay. Nor has anybody doing serious analysis of the situation said that. My original reaction to your comment was triggered by you calling Farah’s decision “censorship.” You chose that word, not me. And my response was, and remains, that it is not censorship for Farah to have the freedom to choose whoever he wants to put out a strong message of conservative values. He’s a private entity, and he has a constitutional right to freely associate with whomsoever he desires. If he had a monopoly on Internet speech, that would be different, and private but quasi-monopolistic entities like Google do present a more difficult problem. But anybody can set up a news website (or a conservative values conference) and spew whatever they like, with whomever they like. That’s not censorship. That’s just freedom doing its thing.
Responding to your post #60, and this one in which you bring up the topic of Coulter.
My discussion was about Yellow Journalism, and credibility of WND, not Ann Coulter in which I want to now emphasize that I am not the creator of the sarcasm commonly used to describe WND as “World Nut Daily”. I am in good company on the matter about that alleged “news” source.
Your opinion is noted.
If our choice in November is between Romney and Obama, sick puppies are the least of it.
Exactly right.
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.