Replies

Exactly!! Ann's remarks were not to be taken at sheer face value, and if the National Review can't understand the symbolic nature of Ann's words, then they are too stupid to be allowed to host her column! They also need to take into consideration the fact that Ann lost a very near and dear friend on 9/11 -- Barbara Olson (BKO, here). Ann was highly upset, and rightly so. I think she showed incredible reserve that soon after the attacks. Ann's column is a political editorial. That means she has every right to express her personal beliefs! The moronic NR could have issued a disclaimer, if they were so concerned about being "PC weenies." They did not have to "fire" her. At any rate, I'm with Ann; I don't want to be associated with people like that either! Hypocrites!! Write on, Ann!! Write on!!

Coulter's schtick is being outrageous. She got too outrageous for NRO. They dropped her column.

That's it. It's the quintessential No Big Deal. It's not even necessary (or wise, in my opinion) to take sides.

But Coulter has decided that publicly attacking NRO will get her publicity and money. That's fine. I've lost some respect for her, but I'm certainly not going to throw a hissy fit and suggest that we should all boycott her. In fact, I'll keep reading her column myself.

They also need to take into consideration the fact that Ann lost a very near and dear friend on 9/11 -- Barbara Olson (BKO, here). Ann was highly upset, and rightly so.

Many people have pointed out poor Ann's loss here. Strangely enough, Ted Olson (Barbara's husband) probably felt the loss at least as deeply as poor Ann, but I have not heard or seen him express his sorrow with similar brilliantly shrieking "hyperbole."