Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frontpage Interview: Ann Coulter
FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | 1/12/04 | Jamie Glazov

Posted on 01/12/2004 2:30:42 AM PST by kattracks

Frontpage Magazine: Hi Ms. Coulter, welcome to Frontpage Interview. We really appreciate you taking the time out of your schedule to chat with us.

Ann Coulter: My pleasure Jamie.

FP: Saddam's capture is still, naturally, the big news. What do you think about it? Tell us how you found out and what your reaction was.

AC: Well, when the story first broke I had the TV on with the sound off. I saw the footage of that filthy, hairy, unshaven creature looking dazed and out of it and I thought: "My God, they've arrested Nick Nolte again!"

FP: Um, ok. . . well, were you happy when you realized it wasn't Nolte but Saddam himself?

AC: I had mixed feelings about it - sort of a combination of unbridled joy and hysterical elation. Pity it wasn't a week or so earlier, though. Hussein might have made the cut as one of Barbara Walters' "10 most fascinating people of 2003."

FP: And what do you think are the implications and significance of us succeeding in capturing this scoundrel?

AC: It's really no more significant than the arrest of, say, Adolf Hitler would have been in 1945. It's great because it's separated the Democratic Party into two distinct camps: Your garden-variety losers and your genuine nut-bar conspiracy theorists like Madeline Albright.

FP: I think you are right about the state of the Democratic Party. They don't have a prayer in hell to beat Bush in 2004, right?

AC: If they have a prayer, it will be answered by someone whose kingdom is not heaven.

FP: Let's talk about your latest book, Treason. It caused quite a stir. You were certainly right to attack liberals on many fronts. But what do you say to those Conservatives who argue that you went overboard by defending McCarthy and that you should have also pointed out that many liberals, especially during the Cold War, like Lyndon Johnson and John F. Kennedy, were solid anti-communists and patriotic Americans? What do you say to those who charge that you undermined your case with these arguments?

AC: I'm still waiting for my detractors (of any stripe) to identify the inaccuracies in my book that would lead them to conclude that I went "overboard." However, I am no longer holding my breath.

JFK, as I note in my book, was -- in theory -- as ferocious an anti-communist as the great Joe McCarthy. But Kennedy was a Democrat and thus an utter incompetent when it came to execution. (Johnson is not your strongest case. He had all of JFK's incompetence without the good heart.)

To summarize a subject explored in lascivious detail in my book: JFK refused to provide air cover for the Cubans at the Bay of Pigs leading to their slaughter and imprisonment -- and to the Cuban missile crisis. He started the Vietnam war but would not fight to win. Democrats love taking the nation to war, they just have a phobia about winning. As a consequence, the world's greatest Super Power seems to get involved in "unwinnable wars" only when a Democrat is president.

I'm not a psycho-biographer. I'll leave it to others to explore why even those Democrats who appear to be genuinely patriotic - and we don't see so many of those anymore - still manage to screw up foreign policy every bit as much as Howard Dean would. (I would imagine their deeply-felt need for approval from the French would figure into any psychological profile.) Besides JFK, I believe the only other Democratic presidential candidates in the past half century anyone would dare cite as hawks on national defense are Scoop Jackson and Joe Lieberman. You can see how well they fared within their own Party. What is one to say about a Party like that?

FP: Let's move on to discuss your own personal background. Tell us, what influenced you to become a Conservative? Were there some people or events that molded your views in your childhood, youth, etc?

AC: There was an absence of the sort of trauma that would deprive me of normal, instinctual reactions to things. I had happily married parents, a warm and loving family, and a happy childhood with lots of friends. Thus, there were no neurotic incidents to turn me into a liberal.

FP: No neurotic incidents to turn you into a liberal? Would you, then, argue that leftism/liberalism is ultimately, in most cases, the depersonalization and politicization of personal neuroses?

AC: Pause for a moment to consider the probable mental state of Howard Dean and then ask me that question again. Yes, of course liberalism is a mental defect. Liberals are wracked by self-loathing as the result of some traumatic incident -- say, driving drunk off a bridge with your mistress passed out in the back seat and letting the poor girl drown because you're a married man and a U.S. senator, just to take one utterly random, hypothetical example off the top of my head.

FP: I'm not even gonna bother playing the devil's advocate on this one -- it's a losing battle. So speaking of the Left, what do you think its behavior during Iraq's liberation revealed about it?

AC: I don't think there was much left to reveal.

FP: Ok, let's get back to your intellectual journey: what led to your interest in law?

AC: Inertia.

FP: Did the study of law influence your political views?

AC: No. I do hate trial lawyers, but then again I hated them before I began the study of law.

FP: Why do you hate trial lawyers? And if you don't mind, could you name a few prominent ones that you are not extremely fond of?

AC: You mean besides John Edwards?

Before I answer that question I'll need you to initial this waiver here, here, and here, and then sign it here at the bottom and have it notarized. I'll also need you to post a small cash bond so as to indemnify me against any legal action which might result from my response. Thanks.

Everything you do -- from driving to earning a living to making a cup of coffee to owning a home to getting medical care -- is more expensive and difficult simply because of trial lawyers, who, at the same time, contribute absolutely nothing of any value to society. You can't buy as simple a device as a telephone without having to wade through a 50-page manual to locate information you actually need, like what your new security code is. (How about adding a one-page short list of instructions for consumers who already know not to place their phones in a microwave oven?) But other than the fact that trial lawyers have made every single facet of life worse, I can't think of a single good reason to dislike them.

FP: What is it that you would say inspires you?

AC: Love of God and country.

FP: Why do you think you do what you do?

AC: Love of God and country (and it's a great gig).

FP: If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to talk a little bit about your September 13, 2001 column over at National Review and your subsequent departure from that magazine. Could you tell us a bit about what you think happened? What does it say about the contemporary nature of "conservative" journalism?

AC: In this one instance, the idiot Clintonheads are worth quoting: Let's move on. (I note that the incident did lead to my syndicated column being picked up by the great David Horowitz at frontpagemagazine.com!)

FP: Ok. Let's move on, then, to your personal views on some subjects. Tell us a few figures that you admire in the 20th century. That you despise?

AC: Admire: Joe McCarthy, Ronald Reagan, J Edgar Hoover, Winston Churchill and the YOUNG Richard Nixon.

As for the other category, perhaps "detest" is not the right word. Just this once, I would borrow from Madeline Albright to say these are my "people of concern": Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Hackett Souter, Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens.

FP: Ms. Coulter, I completely agree with you on Ronald Reagan but, with all due respect, how could you possibly admire Joe McCarthy? He was a hideous character. I don't think you can find many individuals more anti-communist than myself, but I detest McCarthy for how he discredited anti-communism. I can't think of anyone else in America that did so much damage to the anti-communist cause. What exactly do you see in McCarthy? Yes, he fought the right enemy, but the way that he fought it was extremely counter-productive. He armed our liberal enemies with powerful ammunition against us. What is your thinking here? 

AC: I notice that you have just reeled off a slew of insults without a bare hint of a fact. And for good reason -- actually for no good reason. You're interviewing me, you should have read my book. Until Treason, that's all it ever was with McCarthy. Portraits of Kathy Boudin, Che Guevara, Ted Bundy, and Joe Stalin are more nuanced than portraits of McCarthy. He is the only person in history for whom, apparently, there is absolutely nothing good that we can say. No nuance, no good side -- just invective, fake facts, myth, and anger. It's amazing that guy ever got elected to anything! I wrote my book, I made my case, and people decided not to argue with me on the merits. So now I guess we're back to fact-free invective against McCarthy. When you start to sound like Molly Ivins talking about George Bush, you might want to entertain the possibility that you are a few tweaks away from the dispassionate truth.

FP: I would never disagree that McCarthy has been demonized to the ultimate degree in a very absurd manner, especially in proportion to the real villains of our times. I am just wary of seeing him as some kind of hero, especially since he did a lot of damage to anti-communism.

In any case, let's save it for a future debate. Tell us, what is your favorite book?

AC: Apart from the Holy Bible, I don't have a favorite. But among the books I am especially fond of are:

Witness by Whittaker Chambers,

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis,

Modern Times by Paul Johnson,

The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Hernstein,

Radical Son by David Horowitz,

Hustler by Joe Sobran,

Takings by Richard Epstein,

Economic Analysis of the Law by Richard Posner,

Brain Storm by Richard Dooling,

Anna Karenina, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, anything by Dave Barry, and almost any true crime story about a serial killer.

FP: Very interesting. And what three books do you consider essential reading?

AC: The Old Testament, the New Testament, and Treason.

FP: Goodness. . .your book right after the Bible? Sounds about right to me I guess.

Let's move to the War on Terror. If President Bush called you today and asked you for your advice on the next moves he should take in our battle with militant Islam, what would you advise?

AC: Fire U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. Keep excluding the New York Times from all exclusive press briefings.

FP: Could you kindly briefly highlight the reasons why you want Mineta fired? Is it mostly for his failure to implement tough "profiling" at airports after 9/11?

AC: Take out the word "mostly" and you're getting warm.

FP: What do you think about the idea of American President Ann Coulter? Have you ever considered this?

AC: I like the ring of it, but no.

FP: Hypothetically, if you did become president, what are two or three things you would immediately pursue?

AC: 1) Fire Norman Mineta.

2) Pack the Supreme Court.

3) Demand that Congress present me with a bill eliminating the withholding tax. Apart from killing terrorists, there is no more important political issue. People need to pay taxes in one lump sum every year in order to fully appreciate all those wonderful services the government provides.

FP: And where would you appoint this interviewer in your administration?

AC: You would be put on retainer with the assignment of eliminating the withholding tax. If you succeeded, something more permanent might be arranged.

FP: I am very grateful for this honor you would bestow on me.

In any case, we are running out of time, so let me ask you this question to end the interview:

If you were asked to give a report card on President Bush's performance as our leader overall, and this involved a letter grade and short comment, what would you say?

AC: War on Terrorism: A-. His perfect grade was reduced on account of the continuing presence of Norman Mineta.

War on Democrats: B-. Problem areas: creating enormous new government entitlement programs, placing limits on political speech per the campaign finance reform bill, delivering an annual Kwanzaa message in honor of a phony holiday no one celebrates except white public school teachers, and the continuing presence of Norman Mineta.

FP: I don't think you have left any ambiguity for our readers about how you feel regarding Noman Mineta. Well, we are done. Thank you Ms. Coulter, it was an honor to speak with you - and also very enjoyable. I hope you will come back to join us again.

AC: Thank you Jamie, I would love to. Perhaps we can have a drink together at Norman Mineta's retirement party.


Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s new book Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of the new book The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; interview; jamieglazov; transcript
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Bob_Dobbs
Ms. Coulter makes statements which simultaneously sound outrageous--and are plainly true.
In the article alluded to above, she called for an invasion of all Moslem countries with the goal of converting their one-billion inhabitants to Christianity--two days after 9/11! Plainly true? Satire? Was "satire" possible in the wake of 9/11? Oh, I see, I was supposed to roll about on the floor convulsed with laughter at yet another of her "penetrating insights." My mistake.
That column by Ms. Coulter was her subtle way of telling muslims that if 911 was a joke, she didn't get it.

And of telling you to gut it up because 911 was not a joke.

Bottom line: criticism of Ann post-911 column is so 9/10.


61 posted on 01/13/2004 5:55:42 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
Shove it Bob. Your obviously some faggot democrat.
62 posted on 01/13/2004 6:02:10 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
Ann Coulter rubbing the mental midgets of leftist elite the wrong way is just toooooooo bad.

This nation for better or worse is divided into three kinds of people a third are anti-constitution (anti-God), the middle third sits on the fence calling themselves independent and throw their lot with the side that appears to be winning. The final third understands that there is good and evil and seeks to fight against evil and for good.

Ann's looks are far more important to the leftists blowhards of this nation. Conservatives see Ann's beauty through and through. It is most delicious to hear the left dwell on her appearance because they are unable to take her on with what she says.

Contrast the big fat idiot Al Franken's claim to fame, not from his own thoughts but trashing another based upon looks.

Leftist are shallow whiners who worship at the altar of themselves and will enslave a free people to gain and maintain power.



63 posted on 01/13/2004 6:23:28 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
"...But their viewpoints, as liberals, are the same. I asked how we can tell the true liberals from those who are temporarily fooled..." "...Did Socrates use insults?.."

Being a liberal means that you know the issues, and have come to wrong conclusions. That is different from being a democrat, and simply being fooled into voting a certain way, by, say, a "new democrat" who runs as a "centrist." This is the line of demarcation between those who have a mental defect, and those who merely don't pay attention. It's easy to tell the difference. One will speak like Ted Kennedy, and the other will just say things like "um, I don't really pay that much attention..."

"...Do you believe that all liberals are mentally ill?.."

Yes.


"...Is there a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill?.."

Yes.


"... If dubious political convictions are merely a function of incorrect assessments and not mental illness, then those convictions can be changed..."

Yep, that's right. And that's precisely the problem. Liberals can't think rationally, or they wouldn't BE liberals. It's not lack of knowledge that separates this cult of socialism from logical discourse, it's the central processing unit where this knowledge is sent that is broken. I notice this every time I hear one of "them" speaking. They have the information, they just pervert it. How would you persuade Dennis Kucinich that the little green men aren't waiting in the wings to make space treaties with him? Think you can talk Martin Sheen into understanding the war in Afghanistan, or Iraq? I hope this helps you understand Ann.
64 posted on 01/13/2004 6:23:56 AM PST by jim35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
Now, before responding to the previous sentence, take three deep breaths. Ask yourself: What if someone had just taken a nasty shot at Srdja Trifkovik, Buckley, or Buchanan? You would, even if quite impressed by them, shrug your shoulders and scroll along. But with Coulter it's different. Why, it's as if I had just taken a nasty shot at your...girlfriend...
There is no gainsaying the fact the people are reacted to based on their appearance. That is why TV is such a terrible medium for political discussion. (If you could see my handsome profile right now, you would be so dazzled that you would not be able to concentrate on the elegant logic of my words!)

I heard and saw on TV a woman spouting outrageous "family planning" propaganda a couple of years ago, and I was struck by the fact that what sounded reasonable coming from an attractive woman would have sounded contemptible in the mouth of a man.

And herein lies the appeal of Coulter. No, it's not her ferocious powers of intellection, which consist largely of hyperbole, ad hominems, and non sequiturs held loosely together with sticky tape. She's pretty. She writes what she's knows you want to hear. It's a brilliant schtick. Imitators, seeing the six-figure book deals she gets, will multiply like toadstools. When confronted by enthusiasts, skepticism is a virtue.
It is no good trying to impress me with hypercritical parsing of obvious hyperbole. Cynicism is no virtue, and that is what I see in your words. There was one page in Treason that I didn't understand, and didn't understand why she wanted to make whatever point she was going for. But that aside, I consider it thoughtful and well written.

Typically she makes an argument, and you want to think that "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"--but she anticipates that reaction and skewers it with ridicule, and you are left with no defense. Of course if you're an outright liberal, your response to that is to make a lying claim that her argument was flawed--when your real beef is that she is pointing out the truth.

She gets away with saying things that a man wouldn't--but since she's usually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, that is not altogether a bad thing.


65 posted on 01/13/2004 6:33:46 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
lower circles of conservatism

If I take a bath can I join your country club?

66 posted on 01/13/2004 6:53:08 AM PST by Stentor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
The best way to "convert" anyone is via a rational dialogue. Did Socrates use insults? A.C. seems hell-bent on poisoning the political climate, making discourse impossible.
You may be young, but some of us are old enough to remember the political climate being plenty toxic before Ms. Coulter was ever on TV or ever published anything.

The reason for that is not "nasty conservatives" but journalism. The trouble with journalism is that it fits Reagan's description of big government--"It's like a baby--all demanding and complaining on one end, and a complete lack of responsibility on the other." And carrying on a Socratic dialog with a baby only gets you so far.

In the bad old days before Reagan was a serious candidate for president, Democrats and Republicans had different positions on the deficit than they do now. Back then, Republicans thought it was conservative to raise tax rates to cover government spending with revenue without regard to the effect of tax rates on the economy. Democrats wanted to spend and didn't worry about responsibility for taxes. The Republicans were so eager to "balance the budget" that they put the Democrats in the catbird seat--Democrats got credit for the pork barrel, and Republicans were stuck with the responsibility of the taxes.

It was a real racket, and explains a lot about the weakness of the Republican Party in Congress (40 years in the wilderness).

During the Ford Administration, Congressman Jack Kemp stepped up and said that the reason government revenue was low wasn't because tax rates were too low, but because they were too high. And the only solution for the stagnation of the time was to cut tax rates in the teeth of the deficit (exactly as the solution for a truck's slowing down while going uphill is not to shift to a higher gear but may be to downshift to a lower one). Ford (and certainly Jimmy Carter) never took the clue, and we suffered through the seventies until Reagan adopted Kemp's diagnosis of the economy. Which was by then not only stagnated but beginning to hyperinflate.

With the success of Reagan-Kemp-Roth the Democrats lost their electoral gravy train. And since people become Democrat politicians because they lust after power (a disease that Republicans tend to acquire drinking the water in Washington), the loss of that gravy train has made them bitter, dead-end, rule-or-ruin types of the Hillary persuason.

Do you believe that all liberals are mentally ill? Is there a difference between being wrong and being mentally ill?
Do I believe that Dean's voters would rather see America defeated in Iraq and another 911 in America than to see Bush reelected? Yes. Is that mental illness? You tell me.

All I know is that Socratic dialog doesn't work when the other guy is unwilling to answer a reasonable question reasonably because he knows where an honest answer would lead. And that having someone tell the truth with the bark on is the only thing you can do at that point. Otherwise you end up negotiating with yourself--you are the only one who concedes anything.


67 posted on 01/13/2004 7:44:05 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ohioman
"Shove it Bob. Your (that should be you're) obviously some faggot democrat."

Ah, the ever erudite ohioman weighs in with his towering intellect. I see you still have this terrible paranoia about homosexuals.
68 posted on 01/13/2004 8:38:01 AM PST by kegler4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: kegler4
It does not take a "towering intellect" to recognize that homo is wrong in the same sense as drug or alcohol addiction. Of course, I could never come close to your smug arrogance.
69 posted on 01/13/2004 9:26:45 AM PST by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
It's as if she were trying really, really, really super hard to be uber conservative.

While you're chewing on food for thought, consider the possibility that she just really believes what she says.

Stranger things have happened.

Nobody tought William F. Buckley was trying to hard, but perhaps that was because it took so much effort to understand him. Maybe, if Ann is trying "too hard" at anything, it's trying too hard to be approachable by the masses who will always prefer liberalism because it's the gutless solution.

Shalom.

70 posted on 01/13/2004 10:13:45 AM PST by ArGee (Scientific reasoning makes it easier to support gross immorality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ThirstyMan
My guess is the answer to both questions is "no" and that's why you don't get her.

Mr. Dobbs is a member of the Church of the Sub-Genius


71 posted on 01/13/2004 10:44:12 AM PST by martin gibson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jim35
"Even a true conservative might (MIGHT, I reiterate) confuse Ann's theses with simple self-serving vitriol, but I'm unable to find flaw with her logic."

And that is THE bottomline regarding Ann Coulter -- "logic," of which NO ONE has been able to refute. And from not in the least, Shakespearean trolls.

BTW, great post.

72 posted on 01/13/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; Bob_Dobbs
"Do I believe that Dean's voters would rather see America defeated in Iraq and another 911 in America than to see Bush reelected? Yes. Is that mental illness? You tell me."

The most devastating answer I've yet heard to the question: "Does liberalism = mental illness?"

73 posted on 01/13/2004 12:12:24 PM PST by F16Fighter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #74 Removed by Moderator

Comment #75 Removed by Moderator

To: kattracks
Great article. Thanks for posting. Will read the rest of the comments later.
76 posted on 01/14/2004 12:53:52 AM PST by bjcintennessee (Don't Sweat the Small Stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #77 Removed by Moderator

To: Bob_Dobbs
David Horowitz has some problems with Coulter's book.
Yes.

And many Freepers have substantive problems with David Horiwitz's problems.


78 posted on 01/14/2004 4:19:30 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Bob_Dobbs
Do I believe that Dean's voters would rather see America defeated in Iraq and another 911 in America than to see Bush reelected? Yes. Is that mental illness? You tell me.
You came to the wrong guy for a defense of Dean's enthusiasts. I'm interested in the general issue of the psychological/epistemological status of false convictions and took issue with Coulter's ex cathedra pronouncement. Labeling subversives as "mentally ill" is common practice in some countries (China). I'm opposed to it in principle until actual medical evidence says otherwise. Our disagreement may be regarding the definition of "insane," which is probably best saved for another year ;0)
I think we can agree that support for Dean is not limited to people who are sufficiently delusional as to evoke actual pity, and that you don't go around trying to round such people up and subject them to psychotropic drugs.

And that Dean must not be elected president of the United States.


79 posted on 01/14/2004 5:30:32 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (Belief in your own objectivity is the essence of subjectivity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: kattracks
Unvarnished-Truth-Disguised-As-Sarcasm Bump! She just makes my day!
80 posted on 01/14/2004 5:39:26 AM PST by Phaedrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson