L’Affaire Coulter

National Review Online ^ | 10/3/01 | Jonah Goldberg

[BamaG]

L’Affaire Coulter
Goodbye to all that.

By Jonah Goldberg, NRO Editor
October 3, 2001 2:20 p.m.

ear Readers,

As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

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."

Running this "piece" would have been an embarrassment to Ann, and to NRO. Rich Lowry pointed this out to her in an e-mail (I was returning from my honeymoon). She wrote back an angry response, defending herself from the charge that she hates Muslims and wants to convert them at gunpoint.

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:

• Ann — a self-described "constitutional lawyer" — volunteered on Politically Incorrect that our "censoring" of her column was tantamount to "repealing the First Amendment." Apparently, in Ann's mind, she constitutes the thin blonde line between freedom and tyranny, and so any editorial decision she dislikes must be a travesty.
• She sniffed to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz that "Every once in awhile they'll [National Review] throw one of their people to the wolves to get good press in left-wing publications." I take personal offense to this charge. She's accusing us of betraying a friend for publicity, when in fact it was the other way around.
• And, lastly, this "Joan of Arc battling the forces of political correctness" act doesn't wash. In the same 20 days in which Ann says — over and over and over again — that NR has succumbed to "PC hysteria," we've run pieces celebrating every PC shibboleth and bogeyman.

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.

The only difference between what we've run and what Ann considers so bravely iconoclastic on her part, is that we've run articles that accord persuasion higher value than shock value. It's true: Ann is fearless, in person and in her writing. But fearlessness isn't an excuse for crappy writing or crappier behavior.

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

[TLBSHOW]

"Trixie"

I heard she hates TLBSHOW too. In fact I have a thread where it is true somewhere here. LOL

I bet my last dollar she had something to do with it. Like Son you better not apologize to Ann or no more money from Mommy.

Ok Mom

[RobFromGa]

NRO had no choice in this matter, but Ann will be fine. Once she snaps out of her current lack of lucidity, she will once again find logic and clarity which have been her hallmarks.

She is an extremely talented writer, one of my favorites, but IMHO she has lost it at the present. Her current rants are anathema to her normal legalistic, correct writings. They are 90% great, but 10% over the top.

I just hope that someone close to her will help her through this (grief-induced?) time. Right now, she is talking sloppily. And it doesn't fit her at all.

[RobFromGa]

These people should not be airing their lace panties in public.

How right you are sir. It will make reconciliation all that much more difficult as I said last night on another AC thread.

BTW, thanks for all you do for Freedom. FReegards, RobFromGa

[RobFromGa]

Are you really Ann Coulter in Drag? You are so irrational on this issue that inquiring minds want to know. And, you are wrong, just like Ann is.

[Darheel]

'...presumably for only $5 a month'.
I'm ashamed at Jonah's remarks, it shows some pretty bad manners. The way they handled this whole thing with Ann(who just happens to be correct in her analysis) has made me rethink my support for Lowrey and Goldberg, who previously had my utmost respect. When the time comes, and it is coming, for America to wake up to the grave dangers of radical Islam, Ann will be vindicated and the others will be embarrassed, again.

[RobFromGa]

I go out of my way to stick up for my employees.

Did any of your employees ever go on National TV and to major newspaper and call you a girly-man? If they did, and you stuck up for them still, you are a better man than 99.9% of the people on this board who are defending AC's behavior.

[TLBSHOW]

Here was what I wanted from Goldy and I said it last night somewhere. Was an apology for what he did. At least something. If not for the FReepers here that protested NR and what he read at this site himself he would not of written anything. In fact he comfirms this when he starts right off with this.

Dear Readers,
As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Some may say who cares like yourself, but people in the battle for the right know this was a needless battle. Only with David coming to the rescue and NR's Goldy speech of foolishness here did we come out ahead.

[Howlin]

Why is Coulter anymore overemotional than the rest of us and/or other writers?

She has thrown the proverbial conniption, IMO.

[Howlin]

I love the way you talk about these people like they're all your best friends.

Face it, Coulter is unraveling.

[TLBSHOW]

I don't think she is. Read her new story she is not letting up.

[CarolAnn]

"I will continue to subscribe, as I have done for years."

GOOD HEAVENS, ME TOO! I love my National Review.

[Howlin]

She is falling apart. Why, I do not know, but she is rude and crude on TV all the time -- and WAY before this stupid article.

[RobFromGa]

Some may say who cares like yourself

I NEVER said "who cares". I have said repeatedly that Ann is WRONG on this one.

This is and has been about INSUBORDINATION, not Censorship and the contents about "converting them to Christianity" had very little to do with NRO's decision to stop printing her work (she was not really fired). I agree that this should have been handled privately, but Ann fired the first PUBLIC shot at the WP and on Maher's PI show. SHE TOOK IT PUBLIC, NOT NRO. This does make a difference to me at least.

I will continue to read Ms. Coulter's work but I don't expect her to have anything particularly illuminating to say about our present War-- she is not a military expert and she is not connected to our country's leadership. So, her best topics are on the back burner for now.

[PhilDragoo]

Someone said there's more than is shown, and may well be.

We had dinner with "Trixie" here last summer and all was friendly.

Later, on her forum, I refered to Hillary as "Senator F---ing J-- B------" and was banned for a "racist remark".

The exchange of emails would not convince Captain Queeg that [s]he was the one who ate the strawberries.

For you see, she accused me of calling Joe Lieberman that epithet, when such was not the case.

Most will remember it was Hillary accused (credibly, I thought) of calling an early campaign manager of the traitor-rapist that nasty tag.

"Trixie" went so far as to use the full spelling in Short Cuts, and market a line of coffee mugs with "FJB" imprinted.

So, when unjustly barred for an offense I hadn't commited, and when no amount of rational pleading would budge She Who Must Be Obeyed, I opted out of the Animal Farm.

I find the interplay here on Free Republic to be passionate, informed and basically self-policing.

There is in Catty Ed, the author of this one-man Roman Senate acupuncture session, the hypocritic hairball that would gag a maggot.

If there's room in the print edition for The Misanthrope, there's room online for Ann Coulter--unless, of course, there's already one prima donna installed; in which case, head out to Horowitzville.

I have his Radical Son and Politics of Bad Faith and friends came back from another of his weekends in Denver--he's a stimulant to the necrotic corpse of Republicanism, or conservatism, as you prefer.

And, God, those people can debate a single hair into a thousand strands. The overintellectualization alone should have killed the left two centuries ago.

Free elections, free speech, free markets--and harpoon the hero of Chappaquiddick. A serviceable platform succinctly put.

But throwing people over the side for calling the officers girly-boys--

Do you not recall the ferocity with which William F. Buckley stood up to remove his jacket, offering to pound Gore Vidal into a lump of Silly Putty? Girlyman? He called him a bleeping faggot, if memory serves.

Give us some sinew, and not only slapping faces with lace panties--

Disclaimer: Of course, Ann Coulter may etcetera etcetera.

[RobFromGa]

Why should I believe you?

The first PUBLIC statements were Ann's, not NRO's. She crossed a line that I understand as both a hirer and a hiree and she paid the price.

She will be fine without the extra $5 per month (ridiculous or sarcastic? who can tell these days!) It is likely TLBSHOW would pay her a large multiple of that for slightly used personal belongings. Certainly many other normally rational FReepers would do the same.

[TLBSHOW]

GOOD HEAVENS, ME TOO! I love my National Review.

I like my Marlboro too but its not good for me.

[RobFromGa]

I don't think she is. Read her new story she is not letting up.

She is continuing to unravel. At the end, she makes some totally asinine statements about how Powell is going to admit Bin Laden into the coalition, as if Powell is in charge.

She has lost it for the moment and I hope she gets help and support from her close friends.

Egging her on (GO ANN GO, DESTROY YOURSELF, YOU ARE RIGHT, YOU CAN DO NO WRONG) is precisely the wrong thing at this point-- she is doing herself and her career great damage IMHO.

I think those of us that are urging her to show restraint are her real fans, not those just piling more fuel on the bonfire, like you TLBSHOW. Just my 1 cent.

[jeffo]

If what you say is true, then why hasn't Ann apologized for or said that she regretted her remarks? Instead, she goes on national tv (on Bill Maher's show, of all outlets!) to diss National Review. I think Jonah did the right thing, and I am disappointed that Ann is claiming censorship -- as a Constitutional lawyer, she certainly knows what the real meaning of censorship is.

She feels betrayed and abandoned by people she trusted, and highly emotional people tend to go off like a roman candle when that happens...