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 please. Give me a break. Coulter's absurd call "invade their countries and Christianize them" was an insult to thinking people everywhere. She was not putting forward a serious suggestion. She was publicly expressing her justifiable anger in a very foolish way. Once she made the error there was only one way to handle it--RETRACTION. Instead she poured salt on the wound and made more of an ass of herself by insulting her employer and tooting her own horn. Good riddance to her--NRO was completely justified to can her.
1. I don't think Jonah's story about the original column is as fishy as some are making it out to be. It was not a piece commissioned by NRO; they were automatically posting her syndicated column. A syndicated column would not ordinarily be edited.
2. I wish Jonah had not dug the knife in so often - IMO he had one or two jabs coming to him but he's overdone it - but he doesn't sound so much malicious as fed up. Ms C has acted a bit off the wall about this, and it is entirely possible that the public behavior is the tip of an iceberg.
3. Ann Coulter is a sharp lawyer and her writing is a good blunt instrument. Her best columns are legal briefs with an attitude. She was at her best on Clinton, and on Elian. I have posted her column on Elian and "parents' rights" to several different threads.
But frankly, off the legal beat she doesn't show much sign of having a lot more than a set of attitudes to work with. I think she has been showing signs of running out of material she's good with ever since Clinton left office. She has seemed to try to make up for this lack of ideas by ratcheting up the in-your-face political incorrectness. And there have also been times even before 9-11 when I have thought, "I hope Ann is, you know, all right."
4. The idea that "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" meant "send lots of missionaries" is about the lamest weaseling I have ever heard. Three actions strung together in a row, two obviously to be accomplished by armed force, and somehow the reader is supposed to know to insert a band of missionaries with shining faces singing "The Old Rugged Cross" between the second clause and the third? Get real.
I can't take seriously people who say "At least Ann isn't bowing before PC." Sure she is - she has invented a totally bogus and Clintonian exegesis of her column to get off the hook of having advocated forced religious coercion on a mass scale.
5. A lot of the people abusing Jonah on these threads already hated him for not being a pro-drug libertarian, or a Paleo, or a Neo-Confed. If it wasn't this, it would be something else. I hope Ann doesn't go looking to that crowd for friends now. She's better than that, and deserves better.
I think Horowitz, who is old enough to know better, has disgraced himself by his own violations of Reagan's law - he could have welcomed Ann without taking shots at NRO - but I'd rather Ann hang out with his lot than with some of the alternatives.
6. Jonah can write thoughtful, even philosophical columns, but a lot of his NRO stuff, especially, is lazy. He needs to grow up and lose the Gen-X shtick - it may have served a purpose, for him and for NRO, at one time, but it won't do now. The Clinton Era is over - he's a grown-up now, married to the AG-US's chief speechwriter - there's a war on - time for something new.
7. I do think that this is some of the heritage of the Clinton Era. Hating Clinton doesn't mean the decade he defined didn't rub off. We have this whole group of younger conservative writers who have spent most of their professional life in Clinton-Era journalistic slash and burn. They are too young to remember the struggle with Communism, that is, the last time our national life had such high stakes. Time to take stock, kids, and think about where we are and what's happening out there.
That said, Jonah has done a bang-up job getting online some of the best commentary around. I give him only a B for his writing but an A as an editor. Sorry, but I've just learned more about what's going on from David Pryce-Jones and Daniel Pipes and the like than I have from Ann.
Lack of ideas indeed. Coulter has been overrated as a conservative pundit. In fact, IMHO, Goldberg is twice the writer she is. Her flaxen hair has flummoxed too many easily flattered conservatives who can't believe a half-way attractive blonde (the claims that she is a great beauty are hilarious) might share their world view.
True ... but they are not Ann. Ann is a character ... immature and impetuous, but she is a character ... steely Laura Ingraham is precious and valuable ... Ann is blatantly egotistical and lacks good judgment sometimes ... who the Hell cares? ... I, for one, am amused by a brilliant conservative who is needy and mostly defends her (our) positions with arduous persuasion ... most of all, she gives liberals the medicine they deserve, and they do take it seriously
It's a big world out there. I remember the days when the right wasnt big enough to field a baseball team. Now we can fight each other. That is a sign of progress. These are two brilliant baby conservatives duking it out ... no prob ... it is a good thing ... they will both mature and enrich us
And Goldberg's idiotic call to invade Africa and civilize them was what? His breath-taking hypocrisy on this issue is Trixie-level.
Well, maybe it's, uh, you know, that time of the month? (I grew up with a sister, ya know)
Goldberg as usual too prissy by half. Recall Biden to Ritter, "Now, I don't want to sound flip here--" Of course you don't, Joe Combover.
The extant piece begins as in the days of Dan Ackroyd, "Jane, insolent slut--"
I have Ann Coulter's The Case Against Bill Clinton here on the shelf, all marked up with highlighter and expletives, and recall clearly that hers was the rare, clear voice (remember Grace Slick's phantom mother saying), "You cannot do that thing."
And my copy of National Review on the table, today I had the moment to get to its FREAKING POSTAGE-STAMP-SIZED COUGH about the death of Barbara Olson.
If I/we had not JUST renewed National Review it would not have been renewed--it's too tedious, relieved only by the occasional scuffed diamond of William F. Buckley, and the rest is OBVIOUS to anyone with a mind.
Now, Barbara Olson (her Hell to Pay is here, too, also all marked up) NAILED as did no one else our future Stephen King NIGHTMARE Hitlery for her sealed Wellesley thesis that paean to Saul Alinsky radical counseling tell any lie for power--and we've ordered her Final Days and it's not that great a leap to think Hitlery didn't arrange with her "American Museum Council" donors to do Barbara just as a favor.
David Horowitz has kicked the sleeping elephant and tried to instill the Art of War (which Democrats=Communists know to the bone).
That he offers a forum for the passionate (albeit offensive to button-down minds) Ann Coulter suits me.
As for Dow Corning silicone breast implants for the too-thin Ann Coulter, I can neither confirm nor deny that report, but then, that's the policy, and we're sticking to it.
I've heard the story of Jonah's mother "Trixie" or something, and Free Republic, and it isn't pretty < rimshot >.
The blonde I-look-like-I-just-got-out-of-bed look is one of the most unprofessional "do's" on ANY woman commentator on television today.
I miss Barbara Olsen. Bright, witty, charming and always a lady.
Hardly -- leftists are praying to their dashboard Plastic Marxes that the right gets publicly tagged by her drama-queen tantrum.
How embarassing -- copying the shopworn tactics of the two major parties like that.
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.