The Letter the Wall Street Journal Refused to Run (in defense of Ann Coulter)

Anncoulter.org ^ | 07-30-03 | M. Stanton Evans

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[sine_nomine]

The key is being feminine. Coulter and her kin are feminine rather than being feminists. The definition of feminist is "not feminine."

The feminine conservative women are outspoken, accomplished, articulate. I have not heard them blame men for keeping them down.

[adam_az]

Are you calling Phyllis Schafely a hottie???

What a shallow, useless measure of human worth.

It's why the Hollyweird elitists are given any credibility at all.

[adam_az]

Ann Coulter is very pretty, but her giant adams apple is hardly a feminine feature. :)

Then again, no one is perfect.

[austinTparty]

The WSJ doesn't print MOST letters... making the non-publishment of a letter to the editor an issue is frankly silly.

[George W. Bush]

Hasn't this already been posted about five different times in the last week?

[Arrowhead1952]

Are you calling Phyllis Schafely a hottie???

Not just NO, BUT HELL NO! Ann Coulter is the HOTTIE I'm talking about!

[Deb]

Rabinowitz is still my hero because she was the only person in the media who brought the horrors of the 80s child abuse injustices to light. Many people are home, who would be rotting in a jail cell had she not been such a tenacious warrior.

She's a life-long Democrat and can't be expected to cancel 50 years of Democrat dogma over night. But she's smart enough (maybe) to come around at some point.

[Sangria]

Thanks for reminding me of her wonderful work on the Fells Acres false child abuse charges.

I don't blame her for being a Democrat, but that article she did on Ann Coulter was really undeserved.

[Norm640]

How would I know? I'm not the moderator. If it's been on too many times, I don't know, remove the thread or something.

[Norm640]

The non-publishment of the letter isn't the issue, smartie: it's what is said in the letter.

THe title of the thread is actually the title of the letter where I got the letter from. I had nothing to do with it.

The fact is, if a columnist is in such grave error as Rabinowitz seems to be on Coulter, and a guy like M. Stanton Evans writes to correct her, that stuff is usually published. These aren't disagreements between average folks.

Me not getting a letter published in the journal is on no plane whatsoever with M. Stanton Evans not getting a letter published. Considering what the letter was about, the WSJ is implicitly taking a side on this issue, even if it may be the wrong one (that of their own columnist).

I think what is silly is your ignorance of all of that.

[mvpel]

Vide the recent Dorothy Rabinowitz piece ...

Viddy well, o my droogies, viddy well!

[zygoat]

I have to wonder why they did'nt publish your letter. Was this your first attempt with this publication? My first attempt was not published, but at least two subsequent letters were published. And I must admit that they were caffiene induced rants sent at about 5:30-6:00 am, before work! Your letter was well written and backed up by factual excerpts.(Much better than my diatribes!) Perhaps the fact that you questioned one of their own DID have something to do with it.At any rate, Coulter seems to be poison to many of the, ahem, highbrow publications and web sites.

[austinTparty]

No. There are many experts whose letters on their areas of expertise refuting others whom they perceive to be in error don't get published. All you generally see is what is published, not that which isn't. Your awareness of THIS letter does not mean that it is an exception.

If Ann Coulter herself wrote in to correct a column of grave factual error, then that letter is likely given more consideration. The WSJ not publishing a letter is their prerogative, your--or Mr. Evans--personal support of Ms. Coulter notwithstanding. And non-publication is not that unusual, your opinion of Mr. Evans notwithstanding.

[lepton]

Tina Fey is rather cute. Her opinions are hysterical, but she's certainly not physically ugly.

[steve8714]

fine tag team with Helen Thomas- only their voices set them apart. Lights off for the love of God!

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

I just finished her book last night. I have to say, I wasn't all that impressed. Perhaps its my fault for purchasing the book with the knowledge that it does devote a great deal of time to discussing the whole McCarthy era. I suspect it was a sop to her buddy the McCarthy historial who helped with the book research. It was a slow read and not real interesting. I did enjoy her discussion of some of the more contemporary political happenings.

[Those_Crazy_Liberals]

Don't forget, Ms. Rabinowitz makes her living claiming people were falsely accused.