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.
Sure, some of Ann Coulter's stuff is just as mean as anything Serpent-Head has come up with. But there are two major points of difference between Coulter and Carville. 1) Coulter is sharp and funny. 2) What she says is true.
Sure, it's not nice to point out that the Kennedy family is dysfunctional, but when the Kennedys continue to consider it their right to run the country and get elected to any office they happen to run for, then they are fair game. Especially they are fair game when they insult President Bush for naming a building after themselves.
I saw the interview with the editor last night on O'Reilly and I thought he was an idiot. I'm sick of people who are more concerned about "how something is said" than what is actually being done! The good news is, we'll never hear of the editor again!
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
-George Orwell
On the contrary: her willingness to speak her mind in that wondrously satirical way is winning us new converts every day. Not since PJ O'Rourke first graced paper has a conservative essayist attracted so much public attention. One of her is worth more than a whole country club full of old-dude Republicans.
I'm most proud to have someone like Ann on our side.
The National Lampoon published a perfect (Onion-style) duplicate ad, which said, "If Ted Kennedy had been driving one of these..."
As I recall, the Kennedies sued them and made them retract and recall the issue.
--Boris
Quit being so dramatic. The Rats have been doing this crap for years. They just can't handle a little taste of their own medicine.
Nope, I think this guy is full of ----. He has used his "firing" of Ann to get his 15 minutes of fame. BTW, O'Reilly really fed this guy softballs. That's due to his admiration of the Kennedys (Bobby, Jack) I guess.
This guy was looking for a reason, a pretext. He probably has substituted Kristol or another of the "girly boys" for her column, what do you bet?
Regards.
I saw that and I too thought he was full of S%^$.
I doubt that any girly-boy would find Ann attractive.
I'll give you a clue. But don't get your panties in a bunch and start a crying jag on us for pointing it out. Here is the attractive Ann situation in a nutshell.
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.