The Cornell Review: The "girly-boys" bring a Knife to a Conservative Gunfight with Ann Coulter

The Cornell Review ^ | October 4, 2001 | The Cornell Review

[Elle Bee]

The Cornell Review: No Shades of Gray Conservative Wrestlemania

By Joseph J. Sabia
Published 10/4/2001

ITHACA--Conservative political circles are abuzz with talk of the recent firing of Cornell alumna Ann Coulter '85 from National Review Online (NRO). Coulter and NRO editor Jonah Goldberg have traded vicious barbs since the dissolution of their relationship, with Coulter calling the NRO staff a bunch of "girly-boys" and Goldberg referring to Coulter as a "crappy writer". It certainly has been amusing to watch, especially for fans of both Goldberg and Coulter.

Allegedly, the incidents that precipitated Coulter's departure were her two most recent columns on the terrorist attacks. In the first, she said of the terrorists, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." In the second, she argued, "We should require passports to fly domestically. Passports can be forged, but they can also be checked with the home country in case of any suspicious-looking swarthy males."

These comments are clearly not outrageous. Why is there so much furor over wanting to convert terrorists to Christianity? Fundamentalist Christians do not plan mass murders in the name of Allah by slamming planes into skyscrapers. A growing number of Islamic Fundamentalists do. Additionally, as Coulter argued, exporting Christianity has been a policy of the United States government in the past as when General Douglas MacArthur called for the deployment of Christian missionaries to Korea.

Her second comment about "swarthy males" is certainly more controversial given that racial profiling is viewed as more heinous than pedophilia in most elite circles. Coulter would probably argue that the effort to curb terrorism is not aided if authorities are forced to stop as many white Jewish girls carrying Prada bags as suspicious-acting Arabs. Politically incorrect? You bet. But out of bounds? No way. Liberals are able to advocate racial profiling in admission to universities (via quotas), so why is it out of bounds for Coulter to make a similar argument?

"But Sabia," you say, "with racial profiling, a guy is targeted for questioning by the police because of his race. In affirmative action, a guy is targeted to help him get an education."

Tell that to the white guy who did not get into Cornell, Penn, or NYU because of a racial quota. I think that he is slightly more inconvenienced than an Arab who has to endure a few extra questions or has to take a later flight. The point is that Coulter's support of racial profiling is a legitimate political position in the times in which we live.

Jonah Goldberg is disingenuous when he states that Ann Coulter is a bad writer and what is more, he knows it. Agree or disagree with her views, Coulter is one of the most entertaining, thought-provoking conservative columnists today. That is why NRO hired her. That is why Goldberg's site promoted her recent articles by placing the "convert them to Christianity" line on the main page of their site, serving as a link to her article. They know that Coulter's opinions catch readers' attention.

So why was Coulter really fired? Goldberg has been all over the place on this one. First it was:

"We didn't feel we wanted to be associated with the comments expressed in those two columns. We got a lot of complaints from sponsors and a lot of complaints from readers left, right and center. We've decided for editorial reasons we think are sound that we're no longer going to run Ann Coulter's syndicated column."

Then it was:

"The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought…she failed as writer."

And finally it was:

"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?…She behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

The first two explanations offered by Goldberg were as goofy as most of his columns about his talking stomach. First he says that her opinions are making everyone mad and then he says that she cannot form a coherent opinion. In my experience, incoherent opinions tend not to generate too much anger. So these arguments are bunk.

The third explanation gets as close to the truth as we are going to get. From NRO's point of view, Coulter was a nightmare to have on staff because she's a jerk. Goldberg says that she was disloyal for going on Bill Maher's show and to the Washington Post to bash National Review. Fine, she's a disloyal jerk. And NRO has every right to fire her for that. This is America, after all.

Goldberg is correct in his assertion that Coulter's appearance on "Politically Incorrect" was terribly unbecoming. She accused NRO of "censoring" her and "repealing the First Amendment." It is very sad to see a brilliant Constitutional lawyer invoking the First Amendment as a simple rhetorical tool to gain sympathy and support. Coulter has no Constitutional right to be employed by NRO and she knows that.

At the heart of the divorce between NRO and Coulter is a battle of egos. Goldberg resents that Coulter is a mini-celebrity on the talk-show circuit (calling her a "PR-hungry, free-swinging pundit") while he gets few invites because he is a terminally tedious speaker. Coulter hates having to answer to a boss who dares criticize her judgment.

The marriage was destined to fail. The beauty is that we can still enjoy all of the egos--the "thin, short-skirted blonde" at Front Page Magazine and the "girly-boys" at NRO. And we can only pray that the nasty exchanges will continue.

.

Please

.

[Elle Bee]

Hmmmm

Not bad, but for the record, I don't believe the lovely and articulate Ms. Coulter badmouthed NRO, I believe she simply refrained from lying when asked a direct question.

Moreover, it would appear that she quite obviously never asserted that the first amendment had literally been repealed. She was referring to the hysteria over speech and said we are "repealing the 1st Amendment WITHOUT EVER HAVING TO PASS A LAW." Allowing the "girly boys" of NRO to tell manifest lies without correction must be enraging.

Here's the relevant portion of Politically Incorrect from 9/25/01:

Eric: But, Bill, I argue with you in the sense that people who wave the flag are not necessarily unaware of what it stands for.

Bill: Not necessarily, absolutely not.

Eric: I think most people who show the flag are very aware of what it stands for.

Ann: If I could get to the point Jerry and I are dying to get to. I mean, right now, they do seem to be forgetting part of what the flag stands for, and that is on this hysteria over speech. Whether it's Jerry Falwell giving straight Christian doctrine on the Christian broadcasting network or for you saying -- I have a loose-leaf binder on the things you should have gotten in trouble for saying on this show, and that's not it.

[ Laughter ]

And my column --

Paul: Now that you bring it up.

Ann: My column's been censored. I mean, without anyone noticing --

Bill: Your column has been censored?

Ann: Oh, absolutely, by "National Review," for using the phrase, "Swarthy males." I'm not making that up. I mean, this hysteria that no one's noticing --

Bill: It would apply to a lot of this panel.

Ann: People are afraid to say anything now. I mean, they're jumping on people. We're repealing the first amendment without a law.

Jerry: Everybody sitting up here tonight has a little voice in the back of his head saying, "Be careful." And you know what? I'm not used to that voice. And you're not used to that voice.

Bill: Certainly not up here.

Jerry: And if you keep listening to that voice, or you have to, then the Taliban won.

Bill: I have to take a break 'cause I got some now.

Bill: Jerry Nachman has a quote to end our show with.

Jerry: From Peter Arno who used to say, "Never attempt subtlety in an undeveloped nation." And I'm afraid, based on what I've seen happen to you and Ann, America may be coming an undeveloped nation.

Bill: All right.
Thank you, panel.
You were terrific.

[ Applause ]

.

[Elle Bee]

oops!

Please FREEP Cornell Here

.

[Ruth A.]

Her second comment about "swarthy males" is certainly more controversial given that racial profiling is viewed as more heinous than pedophilia in most elite circles.

This line deserves repetition.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

OK. BTTT

[Cautor]

Who would have ever heard of Goldberg except for his mamma. He and NRO can go to hell for all I care. I will continue to follow Ann's outstanding writing.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Coulter has it. She's a straight shooter, entertaining, and a sharp dresser. Goldberg is getting body-slammed. LOL. First he promotes her editorials, highlighting their most controversial elements, and then he turns on her. It reminds people of the cowardly boss in "Bewitched". "You're doing a great job... You're fired!" And Coulter is having a fun time while he is taking Tums. I love it.

As for the points of argument, racial profiling on planes, paying special attention to swarthy males is clearly a good idea. And "converting people to Christianity" is a rather vague statement. "How?" is the question she should have been asked. That was a springboard statement, well planned but not backed up by her girly-boy editor. If he had stood by her, they both would have gained. "How do you convert them?" "Through Christian charity and missionaries, of course." "Oh. Ok."

[Constitution Day]

Ping for your pet cause...

[Osinski]

Jonah Goldberg was obviously raised by Lucianne.

[Norwell]

"Girly-Boy"?? I don't know about that, but I'd certainly say that Richard Lowry certainly has the demeanor of a pussy. Now there is a guy who could have used four years in the service to toughen him up.

[TLBSHOW]

THIS JUST OUT FROM A COMMIE RAG! Hey goldie hope your happy. Girly-boy

[TLBSHOW]

Posted here BY TLBSHOW

Cornell Review Slams GOLDBERG

[TLBSHOW]

WHY ARE YOU FREEPING CORNELL? THEY ARE ON OUR SIDE!

[Wm Bach]

Jonah Goldberg was obviously raised by Lucianne.

He is a bit of a poof haired, momma's boy.

[driftless]

Both Coulter and Goldberg are talented conservative writers and thinkers who had a clash with two enormous egos. NR shouldn't have fired her, and Coulter shouldn't have whined about it on Maher's liberal spiderweb. Bad actions from both parties who should have known better.

[Mamzelle]

NRO, so unfailingly excellent, has lately featured a lot of tedious CATO choirboys delivering aca-speak. Coulter was a lively addition, will Derbyshire be the next casualty?

[mdwakeup]

You've got it right! There is absolutely nothing in the two "offensive" columns that is qualitatively worse than the stuff Coulter has written for years. There's got to be more to this story.

[Eagle Eye]

Ann: People are afraid to say anything now. I mean, they're jumping on people. We're repealing the first amendment without a law.

Not according to a good many freepers. Shouting people offstage, threatening sponsors, and protesting with the intent to stifle speech is good if the right political side uses those tactics. Sorry Ann, here in freeperland, First Amendment violations only occur when it is the federal government applying pressure. Silencing people through means of the market is good (threatening boycots, etc), and if you cannot understand that you shouldn't be in the pundit business.

Oh yeah, /sarcasm.

[Jim Scott]

Thanks for the 'Politically Incorrect' transcript which clarifies Ann's remarks regarding the First Admendment.

As a fan of intelligent, pithy writing with a nice touch of irony (and occasional hyperbole) I'll stay with Ann Coulter. Jonah Goldberg can go pound sand. Cheesy arguments from NR/Goldberg and obviously a clash of egos - which Ann has won. Go Ann!

[workerbee]

Jonah Goldberg is disingenuous when he states that Ann Coulter is a bad writer and what is more, he knows it.... So why was Coulter really fired? Goldberg has been all over the place on this one.

I guess I'm a victim of cultural brainwashing, but this whole thing reads like "wimpy boss has hots for strong female employee and is pissed she doesn't return the sentiment." I have this creepy supsicion that Jonah has snapshots of Ann tacked up all over his bedroom...

[AndyJackson]

No we are not all on the Coulter Side against the NR.

Goldberg was right on. "The problem with Ann's first column was its sloppiness of expression and thought…she failed as writer."

She did fail as a writer. Except for a couple of cute lines her article was incoherrent. I still can't figure it out, no matter how far up to heaven her legs go. Try to deconflict your brain and your libido and it will all be a lot clearer.

I have real problems with the decline in the standard of writing at NR since WFB's retirement from daily editorial control - but not writing like WFB is not a moral failing or a demonstration of lack of intestinal fortitude. "Girly-Boys!" We owe a great debt to NR making the conservative movement intellectually respectable - and socially acceptable - and before WFB's appearance on the world stage it was neither . The NR crowd has taken a lot of heat over the years for rather courageous positions and their defense has never been to hitch their skirts up and show off a bit more thigh while throwing a public temper tantrum of the kind that only a good-looking blonde can get away with.

One would not expect a bunch of pubescent Ivy League males to understand that they've been had by the oldest trick in the world. But shame on Coulter for trying it and shame on you for falling for it.