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 |
I will read Coulter if she's with the National Review or not. In fact, I think she's too good for the National Review.
Mommy can't write either. Her web site is a joke. I know her son can ban people for Mom when he is fired. I can not wait for Buckley to say something.
Thank you kindly for pointing out the context of her comment. Apparently there are quite a few Americans 'round these parts who forget we have actually practiced this on the *gubmint* level.
Laura Ingraham is my personal favorite on that list. I listen to her radio program when I get the chance. Always thought she sounded more intelligent than Coulter...and looks better too.
Nice, well thought post.
If memory serves, I believe he did some production work on a PBS-CPB something or other. Seem to recall he also worked on some MOC's staff at one point. But this is hazy -- will stand to be corrected, no prob.
I don't know about that. I think it serves the liberals' purpose to have dopey wingnuts like Coutler and the Reverends Falwell and Robertson quoted in the left wing media. Just look at how much press these three have received since September 11. Why? They make conservatives look small-minded, hateful, bigoted and bloodthirsty.
LOL! That's what I think too every time I see one of here "babe" pics posted here.
Since 98 the tables have turned on the liberals because of Ann and others that are now using the lefts tatics back in their faces. Sorry if you don't like this new way but it is the future if we want to win the war with liberal commies.
I think David is teaching this to freepers in the next week or so. Get on board the left is on the run........
Everyone to the left of you is not a "commie." Everyone to the right of the Democrats is not a "Nazi."
No. They DON'T pay attention - that's the point and you've missed it. She doesn't make cogent arguments - she uses attitude and a sharp tongue to wear down her opponents, but that certainly doesn't help the conservative cause.
Smart ... I must respectfully disagree ... AC's arguments are sometimes goofy (because of her immaturity, I believe) but they are more often extraordinarily cogent ... even when they are cogent they are sometimes open to disagreement on prudential grounds (the immaturity thing) ... a cogent argument does not have to be the "correct" argument ... and liberals DO take her seriously, if only for the specious reason that she has attitude ... yet most of the time she is delightful for her egotistical style and her wonderful conservative arguments ... the real prob here, I fear, is that conservatives have been unfairly whacked so hard in the media, that we are hyper-sensitive to anything which is out of the ordinary, even if it favors us
Bulls#it.
Thanks for playing.
Heaven forbid this skinny blond lie to that rag.
For that, she must pay & pay she will by the likes of this RINO publication?
Actually, you said it best:
"I wish they'd stop tearing each other apart in public. The attempts at self-justification on both sides just make them look small."
Conservatism & cannabalism are synonomous, one & the same.
Disgusting.
Well, you're pretty much lacking in the first and overly blessed in the second. Looks like you and Ann have a lot in common by your admission.
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.