Posted on 10/03/2001 11:35:13 AM PDT by BamaG
LAffaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.
By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.
ear Readers, Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review not the other way around. This is what happened. In the wake of her invade-and-Christianize-them column, Coulter wrote a long, rambling rant of a response to her critics that was barely coherent. She's a smart and funny person, but this was Ann at her worst emoting rather than thinking, and badly needing editing and some self-censorship, or what is commonly referred to as "judgment." But this was not the point. It was NEVER the point. The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought. Ann didn't fail as a person as all her critics on the Left say she failed as WRITER, which for us is almost as bad. Rich wrote her another e-mail, engaging her on this point, and asking her in more diplomatic terms to approach the whole controversy not as a PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit on Geraldo, but as a careful writer. No response. Instead, she apparently proceeded to run around town bad-mouthing NR and its employees. Then she showed up on TV and, in an attempt to ingratiate herself with fellow martyr Bill Maher, said we were "censoring" her. By this point, it was clear she wasn't interested in continuing the relationship. What publication on earth would continue a relationship with a writer who would refuse to discuss her work with her editors? What publication would continue to publish a writer who attacked it on TV? What publication would continue to publish a writer who lied about it on TV and to a Washington Post reporter? And, finally, what CONSERVATIVE publication would continue to publish a writer who doesn't even know the meaning of the word "censorship"? So let me be clear: We did not "fire" Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty. What's Ann's take on all this? Well, she told the Washington Post yesterday that she loves it, because she's gotten lots of great publicity. That pretty much sums Ann up. On the Sean Hannity show yesterday, however, apparently embarrassed by her admission to the Post, she actually tried to deny that she has sought publicity in this whole matter. Well, then, Ann, why did you complain of being "censored" on national TV? Why did you brag to the Post about all the PR? Listening to Ann legalistically dodge around trying to explain all this would have made Bill Clinton blush. Ann also told the Post that we only paid her $5 a month for her work (would that it were so!). Either this is a deliberate lie, or Ann needs to call her accountant because someone's been skimming her checks. Many readers have asked, why did we run the original column in which Ann declared we should "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" if we didn't like it? Well, to be honest, it was a mistake. It stemmed from the fact this was a supposedly pre-edited syndicated column, coming in when NRO was operating with one phone line and in general chaos. Our bad. Now as far as Ann's charges go, I must say it's hard to defend against them, because they either constitute publicity-minded name-calling, like calling us "girly-boys" or they're so much absurd bombast. For example:
Paul Johnson has criticized Islam as an imperial religion. William F. Buckley himself has called, essentially, for a holy war. Rich Lowry wants to bring back the Shah, and I've written that Western Civilization has every right to wave the giant foam "We're Number 1!" finger as high as it wants. To be honest, even though there's a lot more that could be said, I have no desire to get any deeper into this because, like with a Fellini movie, the deeper you get, the less sense Ann makes. We're delighted that FrontPageMagazine has, with remarkable bravery, picked up Ann's column, presumably for only $5 a month. They'll be getting more than what they're paying for, I'm sure. Jonah Goldberg |
Oh, get off it already. If the photo of you that's repeatedly posted here is accurate (and I don't think I've seen you challenge it), then you're not exactly an Arnold Schwartznegger yourself.
I wish Ann had found a better way to express her opinion and had rationally explained why she felt that way. I wish National Review had found a way to resolve the issue and keep printing Ann. I wish Ann hadn't bad-mouthed National Review on TV and to the Washington Post. I wish that Jonah hadn't responded in an equivalent manner.
In short, I think I've had enough of this thread and all related threads. I'm only feeding an issue I would like to die.
Trying to go mainstream, are they? Good luck catching up -- the D's & R's have been running 'em for office for decades.
And failing miserably.
There are three camps of NR antogonists in this debate: the Coulterites, who in their devotion to Ann, fail to understand the importance of NR regarding conservative thought, the Offended Christians who think that implications of forced conversion are okay, and the Nuke 'Em crowd who don't understand that in order to protect our country's principles we have to fight a principled war.
NR is not a Christian magazine in the same manner that Free Republic is not a Christian board. There are many elements in both that support Christianity but the thrust of these entities is to further conservative principles.
Additionally, it may have not occurred to several of you that since the offices of NR are in Manhattan, they too were directly affected by the events of 9/11. You don't suppose that anyone at NR lost friends in the WTC?
Sometimes it appears that Freepers and other conservatives are so taken with her blonde hair (the claims that she is a great beauty are hilarious) that they are completely oblivious to the mean streak a mile wide that runs down her back.
Good riddance to Ann Coulter.
She knows better than to whine about her first amendment rights. This is not a first amendment issue.
Writers do get edited. Like Maher, Ann's rights are still fully in tact. Coulter and Maher are as free to say anything that they would like to say as they ever were. Certain parties may no longer pay them to say it. Tough toenails.
Thats the one!!!! I'm not even sure I agree with anything she says, because she is so obnoxious I can't listen to her!!! ;o)
Thanks for the "correction" on her last name. Funny how people knew who I was talking about anyway LOL!!
Nobody -- repeat nobody -- ever sugested the impossible, a 'forced conversion.'
And of course that was not what Jonah Goldberg objected to. He objected to Christianity. On that point, he is wrong and Ann is right.
As to Buckley being a Christian. I haven't read the book to which you refer, but his allegiance through the years has always been to the RCC not to Jesus Christ. He may have become wiser as he became older. I certainly hope so.
And that line would be -- the line between paganism and Christ.
I want to be on her side of that line. You certainly don't object to being on the side of Truth, do you?
I am until William Buckley Jr. steps in and does the right thing and throws these 2 fools right out the door. Goldy can always ban people for his mommy.
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.