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.
And thus turns the liberals into hypocrits for everyone to see. They decry Coulter's statements, and in the next breath make the same type of statements.
The typical person does get it. You can't condem someone for being blunt and savage in their attacks while being blunt and savage yourself.
There is also a need for people that speak plain and blunt language because it strips away the political cover soo many politicians like to hide behind. The reason liberals hate (and I will miss) Jesse Helms is because in the middle of debate he would get up and make a blunt, "unstatesman" like speech that zeroed in on the core issue.
Same happened during the Gingrich revolution, IMO. They used the same tactics as Ann (well ok, they did use some moderation) but in the world of soundbites, it came off like a well honed Culter tome.
So true and so unfortunate.
Here in the US, the importance of factual reporting to inform the people of reality seems to have been largely displaced in favor of style and the cult of the media personality. It isn't working.
Ms. Coulter is a gem who will nonetheless find her way to fill this vacuum and she appears not to need the crutch of the media establishment puppeteers.
So true and so unfortunate.
Here in the US, the importance of factual reporting to inform the people of reality seems to have been largely displaced in favor of style and the cult of the media personality. It isn't working.
Ms. Coulter is a gem who will nonetheless find her way to fill this vacuum and she appears not to need the crutch of the media establishment puppeteers.
O'reilly tends to defend journalist i think....when he had ann coulter on his show just after the katie kouric interview o'reilly said he did not think kouric ever had an agenda when doing her interviews...anyone that thinks that either sleeps in alot or does not have a clue....i wrote an e-mail to o'reilly suggesting that he wake up and smell the coffee.
thats a total lie! Rush's tv show was put on at 2 or 3 am so of course ratings were not that good...in places like LA it did ok it was during normal hours there.
About a month or so ago she was on WGN radio in chicago for 2 hours...it was really nice to hear her for 2 hours.
You also have to remember that due to the way HIS chosen syndicator decided to do production, the show wasn't sent out on the satellite until prime time was usually under way in many markets, leaving it to air minimally after the late news and often after either the Tonight Show and whatever CBS was showing. That left only ABC affiliates who had Nightline and usually a commitment to run a sitcom after the late news. Also, because his shows need to be topical (re same day news) when it went into reruns, that news cycle was long forgotten and most people weren't interested. Why they didn't do a fresh show EVERY day is beyond me.
Rush positioned the show for sucess and failure. He often spoke of his late hour showing. In the early days while the novelty was still on he bragged how well it was doing, even with the late showings. As it lost steam, he lamented the low audience due to his late night showing. What changed? In many markets the show still aired at the same time. Where did that earlier audience go that was there in the beginning. Why did the 4 share go to less than a 2 (which means getting yanked unless you pay for the time for the show to air.)Which brings another point, if it was so sucessful, why didn't they buy time on key selected markets that would begin a demand for it? Like his daily show in the early days. Some smaller stations paid ABC Talkradio (remember he replaced Owen Spann on that network) to air his show.
No, I'm not telling lies.......it's just a hard truth to deal with.
Rush Limbaugh was fired from seven jobs in his chosen field before he found his niche. He didn't fit the mold so they canned him. Trouble was, he was marching to a different drummer and everyone else was out of step.
So the analogy doesn't always hold true. History is filled with similar examples. Maybe the world needs to do some adjusting, some real listening, to this Coulter voice that it wants to stop its ears at.
I don't agree ---or she wouldn't be getting the kind of attention she is from the liberals. It's kind of like the criticism they made of Rush. There are plenty of Conservatives who aren't lobbing the one-liners but aren't getting noticed.
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.