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.
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 |
I think we all (including Ann and NRO especially) would be much better off if NONE of this had ever been shown. Ann started the public war, then upped the ante, and NRO called her bluff. If they both just shut up and cool off maybe they could reconcile (if they want to, they ARE both on the same side). But tomorrow, Ann will probably fire her salvo, and the escalation will continue. IT IS STUPID. IT IS DESTRUCTIVE. AND THEY SHOULD GROW UP. But is it really important in the grand scheme of things?
If Tom Daschle and George W. Bush can hug and mean it, then why in the world can't Ann and NRO bury the hatchet? Why did she start this public Hatfield-McCoy bit?
Rob writes: "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."
I don't see her final paragraph in "Detainment is Not Enough" as asinine [STUPID, FOOLISH], rather as apt.
Can we take seriously the administration's courting of Iran as a partner in our coalition against terrorism?
That, to me, is asinine, as is our insistence on dealing with Yassir Arafat--a terrorist.
Further evidence of madness is Hillary's comparison of her critics with Osama bin Laden--when she smooched Suha after Suha's blood libel, when she was Arafat's pom pom girl, when she concealed a 50K donation from the Hezbollah front American Muslim Council by instead listing "American Museum Council".
Powell has great clout--Rush Limbaugh to the contrary notwithstanding--and while he does not Run the Show, he is a force to be reckoned with. Indeed, would Bush have been elected without him?
So, I don't see Ann Coulter having a problem discerning between a hawk and a handsaw.
As a sidelight, I revisited that tiny mention of Barbara Olson in National Review and would think someone would write a suitable memorial--for her incisive exposures of the regime which still haunts us--but, like T. S. Eliot, I do not hope.
Now, if there's a tortured soul self-immolating from substance abuse and self-absorption, that would be Bill Maher, and, yes, to him I say, "You go, ghoul."
I am done talking about this Ann Coulter distraction (unless stunning new developments), so have at me. I have said everything I think about this issue already. Additional posts are just repetition.
I like Ann Coulter's writing, but not everything she writes-- she is a great Conservative voice (normally).
I like NR and NRO (but I always read Ann Coulter on townhall anyway) as well, but not everything they publish. Without them, would there be a solid Conservative Movement in America? (I think some other Conservative voice would have filled their place, but NR was there so none was needed).
Looking forward to your Fonda book when published, can I get it autographed? Sorry I never found a transcript of her latest remarks. They were buried pretty deep it appears. FReegards, RobFromGa
No Rob you and the other so called conservatives look like fools just like National Review does.
Here is a great quote from PhilDragoo
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.
Read it over and over and all you other necrotic folks should too. The new day has dawned.
There's is one agenda and one agenda only with most of you anti-Coulter libertarian freakoids. It's D-R-U-G-S.
There are arguments to be made for both sides but you see Good and Evil. I've stated my thoughts and my logic behind them. (I hope the word 'behind' doesn't get you too excited to think straight as thoughts of AC obviously do). See you in the important threads.
This is not a sitcom or a romance novel. She is more Ally McBeal than political pundit.
BUT - Never, I mean NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER refer to me as a Democrat!!! I am pro business, pro life, anti-feminist, anti-Environmental whackos, anti Big Government, AND - I know how to fill out a butterly ballot. Quite simply, I wouldn't qualify as a Dem.
There's really no need for your snottiness.
BTW, please note that I did not ask for an explantion of what "government censorship" is; I already know what that means. I'm looking for a simple, direct, unambiguous explanaion of what you believe that "censorship" itself means, devoid of any government context. Thanks in advance, etc.
When a newspaper chooses not to run a column, it's not censorship -- it's editorial judgment. Only the government can censor. Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that you have the right to have your columns published. How in the world can Ann Coulter claim she was censored just because National Review dropped her as a columnist? She certainly hasn't been silenced -- Frontpage.org picked her right up, and she still has a syndicated column.
And if her relationship with NRO was of any value to her, she wouldn't have badmouthed them to Bill Maher and the Washington Post.
Fair enough, but don't you think Jonah Goldberg and Rich Lowry might feel the same way about her insulting them to PI and the Washington Post?
Undoubtably. And perhaps even justifiably. She is hurt and lashing out, and there will be a time when she regrets it. But NR lit the fuse. And, as I stated before, I think they knew exactly what they were doing when they printed her emotional article.
LOL!
That's basically what I was saying, I suppose I didn't express myself clearly enough. While I think it's pretty sloppy and unprofessional of NRO to publish a column and then afterwards disown it ("Hey, you think we read stuff before we put it on our website?!") Coulter's behavior goes even beyond that. Although I usually like her, she's always had an unpleasant tendency to get really, really ugly towards anyone who dares disagree with her, however mildly (dare I say it? She rather reminds me of Hillary in that respect.) In this case, she's letting this tendency take over, and I think some time soon she'll regret it. I hope so, anyway. She's basically too talented to go around like a spoiled schoolgirl having a hissy fit because Principal gave her detention.
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.