Posted on 09/19/2002 5:08:10 PM PDT by BrianS.Wise
Every once in awhile, someone says “no” to Ann Coulter, and a light-duty controversy ensues; typically you’ll see debate whenever some odd person or organization has the nerve to refuse a prominent woman’s desires, demands and / or opinions (e.g. the recent controversy over female memberships at Augusta National), but things are always different when Ann Coulter is the woman in question. The newest controversy began with a column, “Battered Republican Syndrome,” in which she fired off the following salvo:
“This [the Kennedy family badmouthing the Bush family out of turn] 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 ‘good friends’?” (Well then! Let it be said here that some of debate’s most unbelievable battles have been drawn around the bodies of the Kennedy boys; the most savagely your author has ever been handled in a debate was the night it came from the conservative podium, “Am I supposed to respect them [JFK and RFK] because they each used Marilyn Monroe as a spittoon?”)
The Centre Daily Times, a State College, Pennsylvania newspaper, took that as the last straw and dropped Coulter’s column from its pages, having previously informed its readers that the column was on probation (as it were) due to the frankness of her views and the manner in which they were conveyed. On The O’Reilly Factor, Times editor Bob Unger went to reasonable lengths to say 1) that his paper is basically a moderate paper in a largely Right-wing town, 2) that Coulter is a hater of Democrats, liberals, environmentalists and “most Muslims,” and that, 3) a majority of mail sent to his paper plainly stated they were okay with the column’s removal because people are “tired of hate.” Safe to say no vote was needed on whether or not people are tired of hate.
In defense of Ann Coulter: she is an asset to a movement (conservatism) that is, generally speaking, much too plaintive and soft spoken for its own good, that refuses to recognize the rest of the world has modernized while it hasn’t, that will not face its opposition (liberalism) in the same manner in which it is continuously treated. Coulter’s tendency is to respond to liberalism as it has responded to conservatism over the years, with open contempt. In terms of tone, she has said nothing here of the Kennedy’s that hasn’t been said of President Bush’s family, by the Left, with the accusations changed to retain relevance.
It also bares mentioning, though it should seem obvious, that Coulter gets as good as she gives; the difference between “Battered Republican Syndrome” and Thor Helsa’s old “Ann of a Thousand Lays” column for salon.com (in which it is suggested Coulter injects herself with her own urine to stay thin) is that Helsa’s piece is considered high comedy by its primary audience, while Coulter’s blasts are considered hate speech. (One cannot help but wonder if this is because Coulter’s work is actually being read by enough people to register an impact. How many bestsellers has Thor Helsa had?)
Now to the other side: The more often someone is dumped, the less likely it becomes the person being dumped is simply misunderstood (cf. Coulter’s previous problems with National Review Online). A certain act can play itself out in a column distributed, say, to Internet-only audiences, but when it comes to newspaper syndication, one should probably exercise a little more decorum. (Your author wouldn’t, for example, refer to Marilyn Monroe’s being used as a spittoon had this column been written for the Wall Street Journal.)
Those who appreciate Coulter (I am one) cannot help but wonder whether or not she consistently stacks the deck against herself because she enjoys the challenge (“I Stand Alone Against the World”) or because she is a keener public relations maven than originally suspected. No matter the overall truth of the Kennedy statement (and there’s nothing but truth in it), Coulter’s thought pattern doesn’t always translate well to those not as vehement in their objections, especially over breakfast.
Anyone who openly defies or opposes Ann Coulter is her enemy; whether or not this is inherently healthy as a personal philosophy can be debated (though one suspects not), even if on a base level people appreciate protectionism of one’s allies and beliefs. Problem is, the more managing editors she alienates, the less likely it is Coulter will be taken seriously, and the damage done then is not only to her reputation, but to conservatism in general, which her fans hope she comes to consider.
America is tired of condoning the filth we have for leaders as role models. She is speaking the truth, and in your heart you know it, you just don't have the guts to say it in print.
heh-heh
Hey, Mr. Intellectual: Check your spelling.
Boy, have you got that right. We need a few more Ann Coulters.
Problem is, the more managing editors she alienates, the less likely it is Coulter will be taken seriously, and the damage done then is not only to her reputation, but to conservatism in general
And its not true. Her message is spreading far and wide and striking a chord in hearts like your and mine all across America. It's just that Trent Lott, and the rest of our limp wristed Repub leaders have never stood up like this and spoken the truth, so the liberal editors are trying to call it a foul, when in reality ...it is reality.
I don't mean to come off harsh towards you personally, as I realize that she is in the financial position to risk it all, and you might not be. I know she is wrong sometimes, but never a detriment to our cause.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head.
He claims that his paper has gotten thousands of message about their cancelling Coulters column, and the vast majority were in favor of it.
People don't take the trouble to send a newspaper a message unless they're mad. There's no way that many people took up the trouble to send a congratulatory message to the paper. Unless it was orchestrated by DU, in which case, the editor's point is invalid.
What I'd like to know is how many e-mails, and what do they say now? After this has been brought out by O'Reilly.
I personally think there's an effort to rid the world of Coulter, as they attempted to do to Rush, after she trashed the NYTimes so well in her book.
It is too bad we don't have 2 or three others just like Ann - over the top and in their face. It gets read, and the fact is, it is an ideological battle here. Which I think you recognize.
Bravo. At last someone gets it. Why do you think that the mainstream press only features bellicose conservatives? Most conservative pundits appear to be caricatures of the real thing.
She uses the same tactics as those she critizes. And I am a FAN of Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, etc. The fact many conservatives defend her scorched earth style would I assume mean that these same folks think it's fine when James Carville & Crew do the same thing. You can't take the high moral ground if your crawling in the gutter with those who are already in the gutter.
Yes , but she looks sooo goood in all of the glam shots which are plastered all over FR. I wonder what she was thinking when she posed for them.
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.