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 |
David Brock in a skirt?? I thought we were done discussing the Condit mess.
Mommy's little boy, Jonah...having a hissy fit
I don't think she has ever stated that she "hates" Muslims, this was one helluva a cheap shot to write this. It is also very dangerous to write it because there are as we all know by now many Muslim extremists and this could be bad for Ann.
I know two Christian apologetists (sp) that are both nationally renowned and both have gotten many, many death threats for speaking the truth of Islam, not just in the wake of 9-11, but way before this. One has a full time armed body guard because the threats have been getting more intense over the last few years.
Your 15 minutes are up.
Signed Fame
These being said, the NR as champion of censorship and crass stupidity? Why am I not surprised?
I no longer follow Goldberg's literary exploits - he 'used' to be witty and talented. Say NR and I can almost smell stale farts.
I did cringe a tad at the "turn them into Christians" comment mainly because it was followed by "kill their leaders" (which we are all in favor of..) but it left the "turn them into Christians" comment with an at gunpoint visual.
That said, I have a lot of trust in Ann. Is she emotional? Yeah. So? So am I. That's part of what I like about her.
Would this be easier for all of us if Ann would just apologize or something? Perhaps, but I will not be the one calling for it. I think she was misunderstood, but, in fairness, I can see why she was misunderstood on that one column only. It didn't work the way she intended it to. But I think NRO is overreacting. I did see her say she was censored. She said that about JWR too. For that matter, Human Events dropped that part of the column (I read that one first on NRO, though it's usually the other way around). Human Events didn't reference her on the front page for that column like they normally do. The next publication was back to normal.
Get over it everyone.
I will absolutely subscribe to Horowitz's Insight Mag. now.
Especially Jonah. Now if Ann wants to make a private showing...
This is "over the top" for many of the cowards around here.
As Ann pointed out on Hannity and Colmes last night, she meant what she said, and she felt it was no different than what McArthur did in Japan and Korea after WWII.
Those Christians who quake at the idea of "preaching the Gospel" to our enemies need to do some soul-searching on their committment to Christianity.
And anyone equating WFB's "Holy War" column to Ann's is on crack.
Worse than Goldberg is David Horowitz, who "hired" Coulter as soon as she got the boot from NRO. His explanation was that her "invade their countries, and convert them to Christianity" was "tongue-in-cheek." Yeah, right. At least Coulter has the, uh, cojones to say what she really believes -- as stupid as it is.
Justin, I've admired some of your work in the past, but your attempts to play all the ends against the middle are unworthy of you. What good is courage if it's courage in a bad cause? And if it's merely the courage to say what one believes, well, at this point that's still not legally actionable, is it? Finally, if David Horowitz honestly believes what he said and Coulter hasn't contradicted him, what fault can you find with him, other than an opportunism that seems to have no moral weight whatsoever?
Now, before I give anyone the wrong idea, let me say at once that I think Coulter has been shafted. Granted that her subsequent behavior wasn't admirable. Neither has NRO's. Jonah Goldberg acts as if he was somehow maneuvered into printing the "invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity" column -- a column that, for all its unsuppressed anger, hits the nail on the head, which I'll return to in a moment. The numerous clever ad hominem attacks on Coulter that he splices onto his "explanation" are merely icing on the cake.
99% of the animus and embarrassment that's been raised against the abovementioned Coulter column has been directed at the "convert them to Christianity" suggestion, as if Coulter had suggested conversion by the sword a la Islam. What if she had said "inundate them with Christian missionaries," instead? The meaning would have been the same; would the howls of outrage have been less? Yet this is indeed the only way to put an end to the assaults by Islamic radicals against the United States: we must persuade those who can be persuaded to exchange their vicious jihadist-terrorist ethic for the Golden Rule ethic of the West, which finds its roots in classical Judaism and was continued and enhanced by Christianity. Those who cannot be persuaded must be jailed or killed. There are no alternatives.
But good heavens! To mention Christianity favorably in a syndicated column! That must be a First Amendment violation. I mean, Coulter's actually positing that her religion is superior to that of a band of Third World savages who believe that ramming airliners into office towers will get them into a horny adolescent's vision of Heaven! What's the matter with her? Hasn't she been adequately steeped in the tenets of moral equivalence?
Somewhere on my shelves I have a volume called "The Politically Correct Dictionary," in which the word "evil" is declared stricken from the acceptable lexicon and the substitute "morally different" approved for use in its place. Alongside that is a picture of Pol Pot, "a morally different individual." Maybe that paragraph and that picture needs to be shown around. Or maybe we've been so brainwashed about the equivalence of all cultures and belief systems that there's no point; it would just draw puzzled shrugs. In that case, Ann Coulter, who renders the world a far greater service than it knows, is in for a rough ride.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
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.