Posted on 09/03/2002 2:28:07 PM PDT by SheLion
Editor's File | A letter to Coulter
Dear Ann Coulter:
You're fired.
It's not that extreme viewpoints are unwelcome on the opinion pages of the Centre Daily Times. All political viewpoints, from Cal Thomas on the right to Molly Ivins on the left, are welcome here.
But, we don't welcome haters, Ann, and that's what you are.
Well, you are either a hater or a hypocrite who calls names and spews enmity because you believe it will get your pretty face on television more or sell more copies of your best-selling books.
In either case, we won't be publishing your Friday column anymore . We decided not to publish a piece of yours a few weeks back because it was nothing more than a sexual history of some of your enemies -- i.e., private citizens who dared to give money to the Democrats.
I wrote a column about why we held the piece and told readers then that if you continued to cross the line, we'd can you.
Your Friday column, in which you declared that liberals are "no good," then trashed the entire Kennedy clan as a collection of "heroin addicts, convicted killers, cheaters, bottleggers and dissolute drunks," crossed that line. I'm not going to defend the Kennedy family or liberals; either group can argue with you if they'd like.
But, Ann, you're mean -- vicious, really -- which is why we do not believe that you in any way serve the public good.
On a late summer morning almost a year ago, all of us -- Republicans, Democrats and everyone else -- witnessed what hate is capable of.
Since that day, Americans have tried to remember that they are on the same side, regardless of differences in skin color, nation of origin, religion or political viewpoint. It has not always been easy because, more than ever, those who are different can seem more threatening. But we're trying because what we have in America is worth keeping.
And, Ann, you're not helping. You do nothing to elevate our spirits, to celebrate the great bond that holds us this unruly people together and makes us a nation.
Hate is easy; love is hard.
Our great nation gives you the freedom to hate all you want and even to make a buck off it if you can. But, even better, it gives us the right not to have to listen.
So, Ann, you're fired. I expect some of our readers are going to be mad at us over this, but we hope they'll understand that while we joyfully publish a wide spectrum of political and social viewpoints, we condemn hate where we find it.
You won't miss us much, Ann. Heck, you're rolling in money. And your fans can find your column on the Internet anyway.
We'll start looking for someone to replace you. It won't be easy because you sure are flashy and a lot of folks like flashy. But political conservatism has produced other columnists of merit whose ideas will provide subjects fit for public consumption and debate -- writers who do not believe those who disagree with them are traitors, or worse.
Sincerely,
Bob Unger, executive editor
Bob Unger can be reached by
e-mail at runger@centredaily.com or by phone at 231-4640.
Battered Republican Syndrome
August 28, 2002
FOR MY ESCAPIST summer reading at the beach this week, I've been flipping through Sean Hannity's fabulous new book, "Let Freedom Ring." It's a fine book, with many excellent illustrations of how consistently wrong liberals have been for half a century, give or take a few years. But I must take issue with Sean on one point.
Perplexingly, he writes: "The vast majority of liberals are good, sincere, well-meaning people." This cheery bonhomie is beginning to sound like the mantra about the "vast majority" of Muslims being peaceful. (And has produced the same good results!) I think it's time to drop the infernal nonsense about liberals being well-intentioned but misguided. In the spirit of Hannityesque magnanimity, I will say that there is only one thing wrong with liberals: They're no good.
As Hannity notes, liberals never reciprocate the love conservatives keep sending their way. They don't like us. They don't even think we're human. Of this, I am eternally grateful.
.
"The good part of being a Democrat is that you can commit crimes, sell out your base, bomb foreigners, and rape women, and the Democratic faithful will still think you're the greatest."
Some of the other things liberals believe are:
to move beyond discrimination, we must discriminate;
girls would make excellent Marines;
running gay marriage announcements in the wedding pages will lead to greater acceptance of homosexuality.
They are wrong about everything. Why would anyone want to be liked by these people?
It's sort of cute when Sean's hail-fellow-well-met approach toward liberals is greeted with dismissive grunts. For one thing, I think well enough of Sean to believe he doesn't really mean it. But how many times must we endure a Republican politician droning on about what a fine human being some heinous Democrat is and what a pleasure it was to work with him, only to have the heinous Democrat grudgingly issue some backhanded compliment about the Republican finally seeing the light on this "one issue"?
In the 1996 vice presidential debates, for example, Al Gore said of his opponent Jack Kemp: "Now I want to congratulate Mr. Kemp for being a lonely voice in the Republican Party over the years on this question" of racism and affirmative action. Kemp responded to this demagogic and baseless slander of the Republican Party by saying: "Affirmative action should be predicated upon need, not equality of reward, blah, blah, blah." Gee, thanks, Jack.
President Bush, too, has repeatedly set himself up as the test case of what happens when you try to play nice with a Democrat. After the dignified staff of the dignified former president trashed the White House on their dignified exit, Bush downplayed the property damage, saying: "There might have been a prank or two. Maybe somebody put a cartoon on the wall, but that's OK."
Anyone who knew anyone moving into the Bush White House knew that it was more than a "prank or two." But instead of stopping while they were ahead, pocketing Bush's gracefulness and moving on, the Democrats aggressively attacked Republicans for having falsely accused the Clinton staff of trashing the White House. They cited Bush's magnanimity as evidence that this was a lie. Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., demanded an apology from the White House. USA Today ran a snippy article titled "Ex-Clinton staffers on vandalism: Got proof?" Former Clinton press secretary Jake Siewert insinuatingly asked why there were no records of the alleged damage.
And then the full GAO report came back: The Party of the People had done $15,000 worth of property damage to the People's House. Extend an olive branch to Democrats and they bite your hand off.
Bush has invited Sen. Teddy Kennedy to the White House for movie night (to watch the Kennedy hagiography "Thirteen Days"), brought him over to discuss education several times, named a federal building after one brother and gushingly praised the other.
The adulterous drunk who cheated at Harvard and killed a girl at Chappaquiddick responded to these overtures by attacking Bush. "It takes more than good intentions to make a difference," Kennedy said. Asked about Bush's intelligence (a meaningless concept in college admissions but a scientifically provable quality in the cases of Republican presidents and death-row inmates), Kennedy pointedly said only that he found Bush, "engaging and personable."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., dismissed Bush's overtures toward Kennedy as calculated political gamesmanship.
(Pop quiz: Did a Republican or Democrat say this about a member of the opposing party – "Your thoughtfulness truly amazes me. ... Thank you, my friend, for your many courtesies. If the world only knew." Answer: That was Sen. Trent Lott on Teddy Kennedy.)
When Bush named the Department of Justice building after Robert Kennedy, Kerry Kennedy Cuomo displayed the renowned Kennedy graciousness by viciously attacking the Bush administration at a pre-dedication ceremony. Noting that her daughter was in the audience, Kennedy Cuomo said: "Kara, if anyone tries to tell you this is the type of justice system your grandpa embraced, you just don't believe it."
This is as we have come to expect from a family of heroin addicts, statutory rapists, convicted and unconvicted female-killers, cheaters, bootleggers and dissolute drunks known as "Camelot." Why would anyone want such people as their "good friends"?
What a moron this guy is!!!
Typical liberal. He calls her names.... for calling other people names. DUH!!!!!
I would even go so far as to say that it's one of the more important articles Ann has ever written.
This is why Unger couldn't take it, in my opinion. And his insinuation that she is not better than the WTC bombers is HATEFUL IN ITSELF.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Jealousy is a terrible thing, Bobby.
Well, I'll be glad to take whatever dose is leftover. She's intelligent, beautiful, and she doesn;t feel like she has to apologize for being a conservative.
A refreshing change from the scared of their own shadow, protect your job at all cost, go along with the democrats on everything, republicans that seem to have infected the party like a cancer.
She is flippant, rude, unoriginal, and she wouldn't get away with it (i.e. be employed), if a certain segment of the population didn't find her attractive. She offers nothing to the debate. I will read Krauthammer, Cal Thomas, George Will, thank you very much. Whenever Ann is on tv, I flip the station.
That they've fired Ann and kept Molly Ivins, tells me all I need to know.
They probably needed to make room for Ted Rall.
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.